Indian Muslims and ......

OK…this thread is about indian muslims but i chose to post it in Pak affairs because i saw a very strong connection to pakistan…let me explain

my intention is not to start another india bashing session for mistreating its Muslim minoirty badly… my intention is to show it to Pakistanis all the difficulties that indian Muslims are facing in achieving their true potential but still not getting violent or pursuing a “jihadist” path … and how much progress we could have made once we had a separate country (how and why..that is a separate discussion but we did get a separate country) with no “hindu majority” to "suppress’ us constitutionally, economically and socially but alas we decided to destroy ourselves by going on a so-called “religious/jingoistic jihadist” path…with a self-proclaimed title of “islam ka qila”!!!

by the way pinkaj is fantastic writer…not because of this article…do read his book “From the Ruins of Empire: The Revolt Against the West and the Remaking of Asia”…you will enjoy it…

India

                                                                                                                              India’s Fantasy of Disloyal Muslims May Come True
                           By [Pankaj Mishra](http://www.bloomberg.com/view/bios/pankaj-mishra/)   Mar 19, 2013 6:30 PM ET  
                    
                     
                                       Indian Prime Minister [Manmohan Singh](http://topics.bloomberg.com/manmohan-singh/) is fond of boasting that not one of India’s almost 180 million Muslims has been discovered to be a member of al-Qaeda. 

He could underscore an even more remarkable fact: None of the foreign jihadists caught fighting alongside the Taliban has turned out to be from the country with the world’s third-largest Muslim population.

http://cdn.gotraffic.net/v/20130320180006/images/bview/columnists/60x80/mishra_pankaj.jpg

About Pankaj Mishra» Pankaj Mishra is the author of “Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond,” … MORE

More from Pankaj Mishra:

Indeed, Indian Muslims haven’t bothered to lend even moral support to the anti-Indian insurgency in Muslim-majority Kashmir that has claimed more than 50,000 lives in the past two decades.
According to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, this is because Indian Muslims “are the product of and feel empowered by a democratic and pluralistic society.”
A more prosaic and less ideological explanation is that Indian Muslims have many of their own problems to deal with, largely stemming from the swift decay of democracy and pluralism.
According to a 2012 book, “Muslims in Indian Cities: Trajectories of Marginalisation,”](Muslims in Indian Cities: Trajectories of Marginalisation (Columbia/Hurst): Gayer, Laurent, Jaffrelot, Christophe: 9780231703086: Amazon.com: Books) edited by Laurent Gayer and Christophe Jaffrelot, Muslims are as badly off, if not worse, socially and economically, than Dalits (formerly untouchable Hindus) and tribal peoples.
Meager MinorityAlmost 40 percent of Muslims in urban centers live below the poverty line. They constitute almost 15 percent of the total population, but only 5.5 percent of the members of the Indian parliament are Muslims. Gayer and Jaffrelot note the astonishing fact that many of India’s biggest states do not have even one sitting Muslim representative in the Indian parliament.
Underrepresented in the judiciary, Muslims form a meager component of the police force. And that may be at least one reason for what is now a disturbingly common sport in an increasingly Hindu-nationalized India: blaming the Muslims (and locking up a whole lot of them).
The terrorist attacks last month that killed 17 people in the central Indian city of Hyderabad reopened a cornucopia of conspiracy theories. Faux-enraged television anchors fingered a terrorist outfit called Indian Mujahideen, a group whose origins and elements remain murky. The president of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party demanded that India retaliate against Pakistan.
The police promptly arrested four Muslims in Hyderabad.
All this seemed par for the course. Muslims are routinely picked up after terrorist attacks in India and often paraded before eager television journalists, bearing the most conspicuous marks of their religion: beards, skullcaps and striped scarfs.
But there was a problem this time. The Muslims detained last month had been locked up before, after another bomb blast near one of the oldest mosques in Hyderabad, the Mecca Masjid, in 2007. While in prison, one of the accused ran into, in a bizarre twist of fate, the real perpetrator of the crime, a Hindu extremist, whose feelings of guilt pushed him into a full confession. The police case against the Muslims – an absurdist fiction, actually – began to collapse after that uncanny encounter.
New evidence came to light, showing how rapidly anti-Muslim Hindu terror networks, which included at least one serving army officer, had grown across the country, while the police and the media ballyhooed the mass arrests of various alleged Muslim terrorists.
False ConfessionsFinally, the Muslims accused in the Mecca Masjid attacks were acquitted by the courts, which slammed the police for extracting false confessions from them under torture.
An extensive investigation by the newsweekly Tehelka unearthed many such malign and bogus cases, revealing a countrywide pattern of what its editor, the novelist Tarun Tejpal, called “a chilling and systematic witch-hunt against innocent Muslims.”
Of course, not all Muslims like to see themselves as victims of majoritarian prejudice. Indeed, “Muslims in Indian Cities” challenges the popular stereotype of a stagnant and insular community in thrall to reactionary, self-serving leaders.
Muslims employed in the Gulf remit almost one-third of the $70 billion that India receives annually. A nascent entrepreneurial middle class is emerging in, among other places, Bhopal and Hyderabad.
But they have to overcome great mental barriers in a mainstream culture largely inimical to them. It is not uncommon for Muslim neighborhoods to be popularly tagged as “mini- Pakistans,” or for even relatively affluent Muslims to be denied rented accommodation and school placements.
As Jaffrelot writes, “to alienate those who invested in education in order to be part of the brighter part of urban India may result in the making of ’reluctant fundamentalists,’ to use the title of a recent book.”
Certainly, a demoralized people living on their nerves are prone to see violence and bigotry everywhere.
Even one of India’s biggest film stars, Shah Rukh Khan, recently complained about being constantly “accused of bearing allegiance to our neighbouring nation.”
Khan was immediately assailed by a storm of hostile criticism, including accusations of rank ingratitude. Pakistani politicians, blatantly unable or unwilling to protect their country’s minorities, cynically called upon the Indian government to ensure the safety of Indian Muslims.
Finally, a plainly nervous Khan backtracked with some sad Friedmanesque jauntiness: “We have an amazing democratic, free and secular way of life,” he said.
This is not quite reflected in his own workplace, Bollywood, whose films now depict Muslims as vicious anti- nationals and devious Fifth Columnists.
Secret HangingMuslims wondering about their place in India can’t be encouraged by the media’s recent outpouring of awe and admiration for the notorious Muslim-baiter Bal Thackeray, or its eager flattery of the Hindu nationalist prime-minister-in- waiting Narendra Modi, who is accused of complicity in the murder of more than 2,000 Muslims in 2002.
Writing last week about the wrongful and prolonged incarceration of a Muslim defense scientist, Praveen Swami, an Indian journalist known for his close ties to the security establishment, pleaded that “the harm caused to [the scientist] has to be read against the possible harm to the community caused by the investigators’ failure to arrest.”
More alarmingly, the Supreme Court invoked a similarly imagined community of victimized and angry Hindus when it confirmed the death sentence on Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri Muslim accused of logistical support to a terrorist assault on the Indian parliament in 2001. Guru had to die because, as the court put it, India’s “collective conscience” demanded it.
Last month, India secretly hanged Guru. His family wasn’t given a chance for a final meeting with him; his corpse was also denied to them, in violation of a fundamental Islamic custom of funeral prayers.
Many Muslims, even the few who believe that Guru was given a fair trial, are likely to see the stealthy execution as “state vengeance against a co-religionist,” as the deputy editor of the newsmagazine Outlook wrote.
Some Muslims will also wonder why the sacrificial victim of India’s collective conscience was a Muslim, and not, say, former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s Hindu assassins, who had been waiting on death row for much longer.
More than a month after the execution of Guru, most Kashmiris continue to suffer an intensified regime of arbitrary curfews and brutal crackdowns. Last week, two unidentified militants staged a suicide attack on an Indian paramilitary outpost in Srinagar, the biggest such assault in three years.
Clashes between Kashmiri protesters and Indian security forces in recent weeks have also claimed several casualties. This surge in violence – and there is more to come – was rendered inevitable by Guru’s dishonorable execution following a dodgy trial, both hailed by a ratings-mad Indian media.
One can only hope that its squalid fantasy about traitorous Indian Muslims doesn’t prove to be self-fulfilling. For the radicalization of even a tiny fraction of 180 million Muslims would not only fatally undermine India’s increasingly unconvincing claims to democracy and secularism. The not-so- reluctant fundamentalists would make the country seem as ungovernable as its neighbor.

(Pankaj Mishra is the author of “From the Ruins of Empire: The Revolt Against the West and the Remaking of Asia” and a Bloomberg View columnist, based in London and Mashobra, India. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this article: Pankaj Mishra at pmashobra@gmail
To contact the editor responsible for this article: James Gibney at [EMAIL=“[email protected]”][email protected]

Re: Indian Muslims and ......

Pakistan from 40's to 70's largely remained pluralistic and tolerant. The only issues we had were Bangladesh (which was very far to be a part of the country in any case) and Kashmir which resulted in three wars. During this period we had four uprisings in Balochistan and the Pashtunistan issue (in which Afghanistan and India were actively involved). When USSR invaded Afghanistan the think tanks of the country were sure that their next step would be Pakistan. Rightly or wrongly the policy makers thought that Islamization of the country would rid the country of internal/external problems. If nothing else works the religion (in the subcontinent) binds the people together. As a result of these policies we got a compliant Afghanistan, and the national cohesion increased. 35 years down the track we have a different Pakistan fractured along religious (sect) lines, the separatist movement in Balochistan is still going on.

So we need to ask ourselves if the policy adopted by Zia was the right thing for the country?

Re: Indian Muslims and ......

Having said that the geo-strategic location (on the cross roads of Central Asia, South Asia and the Middle East) of Pakistan and Afghanistan provides temptation to foreigners to intervene. This strategic location has always proved to be a source of misery instead of bliss. Its not the story of today, read through the pages of history for the past 2-3 thousand years and you will see similar events.

We need to ask us a few questions, was the creation of Pakistan necessary? Has Pakistan served its purpose? Would the areas of Pakistan been better off in India?

Re: Indian Muslims and ......

one thing im not getting. The bases of pakistans foundation was to provide a state for muslim settlement. Yet Muhammed Ali Jinnah was very secular in his views. Is that not contradictory??

Re: Indian Muslims and ......

Not contradictory at all. Muslims had ruled the subcontinent for 600 years, and they had a fear that once the rule is handed over to Hindus they will become a second grade citizen of the country. Ask the people of your family who lived the times pre-partition about how they were treated by their Hindu neighbours (lower status than a Maleech). There was a reason for the demand of Pakistan and why it became popular too. The formation of the country was for financial independence of the people, besides most of the areas forming Pakistan have remained independent of mainland India for most part of the history. If we argue that the Punjabis and Sindhi/Gujarati are the same/similar people, we can see Indonesia and Malaysia both Muslim countries and have the same ethnicity, but they are separate countries.

Re: Indian Muslims and ......

^ahhh right. Thanks for clearing that up. So it was for financial independance then

Re: Indian Muslims and …

yep..it was for financial/constitutional freedom…in democracy where one person one vote applies, Muslim leadership thought they will never be able to surpass hindu majority and hence will be suppressed constitutionally, economically and socially…right or wrong…i am not getting into that debate…

but unfortunately Jinnah had to use Islamic slogan to unite muslims behind him and religious parties used that slogan to their advantage after Pakistan’s creation..

plus by 1940, hindus and muslims relations were really sour …at every level … politically, socially… and some level of division was inevitable…i have stated reasons for divergence many times on this forum…

this is the point on which i fell majority of the indian intellectuals do not show 100% honesty..but some do…watch this clip from 7.30 to 11.30

India Pakistan Partition Documentary BBC - YouTube

Re: Indian Muslims and …

I once saw a cutting of daily telegraph I believe of the 40’s which mentioned the great games in Afghanistan (in the context of USSR and Britain), they are still continuing (the players have changed). Any destabilization in Afghanistan has the capacity to affect Pakistan as well.

Beginning of a new

Afghanistan’s history bears witness to many a proxy war being fought between great powers and regional players on its dusty battlefields over centuries. Not surprisingly, that tradition is still being honoured today. With regional states busy carving out their respective spheres of influence, it is the Afghans who have to ultimately decide on how best to maintain a balance and who to extend and develop relations with nations as the political road map of the country is redrawn once again.

Re: Indian Muslims and ......

The way India suppressed others who dared to speak up for their rights e.g. sikhs, Indian Muslims cannot afford to choose that path. After the Muslim genocide in gujrat, the message from indian leadership for Muslims was clear.
These are the important factors hat make Indian Muslims different. unfortunately not every country with Muslim population can use such brutality to keep Muslims from going in the wrong direction.

Re: Indian Muslims and ......

I do not think it does any benefit to anyone to debate and discuss the reasons for division of subcontinent.

Biased ideas from any side will not give any real conclusion.

Going forward is the way to do.

**
Focusing on the current and future problems and solving those issues is what smart nations do.**

Re: Indian Muslims and ......

yeah smart nations do that!

but not those who are still living in a shadow of a history that is 1400 years old..

not those who are still occupied by a so-called superiority complex ... by virtue of their rule on this world centuries ago....

not those who still remind themselves on a daily basis a historical slogan "pakistan ka matlab kaya la ee laha ilalla".....

not those who still dream of creating one Muslim kingdom across the globe like ottomans........................................................

smart nations!!!

Re: Indian Muslims and …

i wanted to write more…but i am tired tonite

just watch this British video…if u r too busy just wtch from 8.00 to 18.00

this is exactly what i wanted to write that it was ghandi who religion-iezd and communal-ized politics in india…

it was gandhi who introduced the hindu card in early 20s…

Jinnah was as secular as you can think of…he was called hindu-muslim ambassador…even in 1937 elections jinnah fought with a united india slogan but congress shunned him and muslims again and again…

after 1937 elections, jinnah finally changed his whole politics, his look, his dress..his slogan… and rest is history

gandhai realized his mistake in 40s but it was too late…

seeds of a divided india were sown by gandhi in 20s …

nurtured by nehru and Congress in 30s …

and came to fruition thx to Jinnah and league in 40s…

A Bloody Partition - YouTube

Re: Indian Muslims and ......

Reminder OK.

Debate not OK. :D

Thanks for bringing same old biased movie again.

Re: Indian Muslims and …

Less fragile than we look – The Express Tribune

Less fragile than we look

The writer is a partner at Bhandari, Naqvi & Riaz and an advocate of the Supreme Court. He can be reached on Twitter @laalshah

A Hard Country. Tinderbox. On the Brink. Playing with Fire. Eye of the Storm. Descent into Chaos. The Crisis State. The Unravelling.

It is difficult, if not actually impossible, to find a book about Pakistan whose title does not convey the impression that this is a very fragile and perhaps, ungovernable country, one which could collapse into complete anarchy at any moment. In my view, this pessimism is unjustified. Yes, Pakistan is a mess. But it is neither fragile nor ungovernable.

Let’s begin with the issue of fragility. Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book Antifragile distinguishes between the lifespan of the perishable (humans, animals, etc.) and the nonperishable (books, states). His argument is that while in the case of perishable items, the younger always has a longer lifespan than the older, the same is not necessarily true for non-perishable items. Instead, in some cases, the “Lindy effect” applies, which is to say that older items actually have a greater expected lifespan than newer items.

Not convinced? Let’s look at the Lindy effect in practical terms. Hundreds of thousands of books are published every year. Most of them disappear after a first printing while some last decades. A book that has stayed in print for 20 years, thus has a much greater expected lifespan (i.e., is far more likely to stay in print for another 20 years) than a recently published book (no matter how critically acclaimed the newer book may be).

Pakistan is a country whose imminent demise has been predicted every day since its birth and yet, it has managed to survive into its seventh decade. Going by Taleb’s analysis, Pakistan today, is far more likely to survive for another 70 years than when it first came into being.

But what then of our myriad problems? How does one govern a country which boasts both Marvi Sirmed and Maulana Samiul Haq as its citizens? How can such disparate individuals be united under one banner?

The short answer is that you do not unite them. No, I’m not saying that Pakistan should be broken apart. What I’m saying is that we need to recognise the incredible diversity of opinion within this country and adopt our legal structures accordingly.

Diversity of opinion is not a peculiarly Pakistani problem. In the words of Yevtushenko — first quoted to me by my ustaad, Aitzaz Ahsan — “Yours is not the only one, my son.” Charles de Gaulle once sighed about France, “How do you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?” I suppose the Pakistan equivalent would be to ask “how do you govern a country with 246 varieties of extremists?”

What then is the magic solution? In a nutshell, we need to take the “Federation” part of this country’s title more seriously and stop worrying so much about the “Islamic” part. Yes, we now have the Eighteenth Amendment. But we need to think about federalism, not just in terms of differentiation between provinces, but in terms of differentiation within provinces as well.

The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting the sale of “intoxicating liquors” was enacted on January 16, 1919. By the time it was finally repealed on December 5, 1933, Prohibition stood as a monument to the limitations of government and the ingenuity of man. Despite more than a decade of efforts, more people drank more alcohol than ever before. But the repeal of prohibition did not mean the repeal of all alcohol prohibition efforts. Even today, almost 80 years after the repeal of Prohibition, approximately 10 per cent of the US lives in “dry” counties where the sale of alcohol is either forbidden or severely restricted.

The point that I am making is simple: law-making needs to be localised, not just provincialised. Obviously, there is only one Constitution for all of Pakistan; but that does not mean that there is only one way in which to run our lives.

Part of the problem with our heritage — whether colonial, Mughal or Ghaznavite — is that it has left us with a mania for centralised decision-making. In our families, all decisions default to the patriarch; in our businesses, all decisions default to the chairman; and, in our bureaucracies, all decisions default to the secretary of the department. Even worse, the provincial Rules of Business provide that no policy can be changed except with the concurrence of the chief minister!

What we need instead of one-man rule is a country in which decision-making is pushed down to the lowest possible level. Power now needs to be taken from the provinces and devolved further into the districts, from the districts to the tehsils, and from the tehsils to the union councils.

But what of the human consequences, you may ask? Do we want to live in a world where residents of rural districts have fewer rights than city dwellers? Can a state justify giving different rights to different citizens?

Well, it depends. Obviously, all citizens should have the same fundamental rights. But the same logic does not apply to statutory rights; after all, residents of Punjab already have different statutory rights from residents of Sindh.

Let me make my point in simpler terms: for many years, reformers have argued that the people in the tribal areas should have the same rights as people in Lahore. Presumably, the intent was to improve the lot of people in the tribal areas. However, by tying themselves to the idea that there can be only one law for everyone, we have also made ourselves vulnerable. In other words, instead of Fata-wallahs living like Lahoris, we are now looking at a future in which Lahoris will live like Fata-wallahs. I really don’t want that to happen.

Devolving legislative power down to the districts serves two beneficial functions. First, it gives power to people who, in the words of Taleb, have “skin in the game”. Second, it allows for regional differences. Obviously, only limited differences can be accommodated. But if we don’t bend, our only other option is to break.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 21st, 2013.