Dear Bombaykid, I don’t know what to make or your reply. Destruction of any religious place is a sub-human practice. It is not so much of “property” or something of some value but of a spiritual and emotional attachment. When you destroy a Mosque or a Mundar, you are not destroying a building but you destroy a virtue – a whole lot more precious than a structure. In terms of India making provisions for its religious minorities, that I believe is WRONG! We should all strive for a system where our religious affiliations should not be a matter of someone making decision if we get government loans or not. India is moving closer (albeit slowly) in that direction, while Pakistan is struggling to even talk about such a system.
what also matters is talking to minorities. since we grew up with muslims and christian as neighbor, friends, classmates, whatever, there has evolved a reasonable code of conduct. 'crooked hindu baniya' (I saw this even in english newspaper once how west has always fallen for devious ways of hindu, after clinton's india visit) and other communal remarks on quadianis are very common. i believe, this happens because a common pakistani does not meet enough minorities. otherwise he will understand and human being is the same. add to that the junk that muslims are disallowed to make friends with non-muslims by quran, according to some. actually, talking to minorities is a great learning experience culturally and as growth as human.
but fortunately for minorities, there are very few minorities in pakistan. what is more worrisome is future of ideological minorities like communists or atheists. i think they will have even more hard time. Prof. Nayyar, Prof. Hoodoolbhoy, Asma Jahangir, Najam Sethi and likes are something to watch out.
NYA..... I am NOT saying that it's OK to destroy temples and mosques..I said that I could care less as the destruction of a temple or mosque may be an assault on people's beliefs but that in NO WAY makes a country less secular. So all I am saying that using these incidences as yardsticks to judge your nations tolerance is not right.
I was really surprised and happy to read your views about religious affiliation not being a criteria for concessions. Personally I feel that merit and only merit should be the criteria. BUT if we say this in India, we are labelled fundamentalists. When we say that the government should not fund Haj trips, we are branded communal. When the BJP says that there should be ONE law irrespective of your religion they are branded communal. So now we have different laws in our nation for different communities. The Muslims have their personal laws and so on.
But this is for the minority to decide. They should take the lead in telling the government that they donot need concessions to do well in life.
So its a lose-lose situation for the majority in India. We are branded communal if we give concessions -- we are branded communal if we dont !!
How can a person from a theocratic state even talk about treatment of minorities without being embarrased
So how does theocracy automatically rules out minorities or did I miss something?
So all I am saying that using these incidences as yardsticks to judge your nations tolerance is not right...
I would have to disagree with you. These incidents would have less of a chance of ocurring if the measures to provide special protection to these entities are taken. Nation's tolerance, along with that of gov't, is also judged by the provisions taken to ensure safety of the minorities and their interests, that are prone to violent outlash by citizens.
Pakistani gov't should have been aware and protected at all cost the temples and hindus from the outlash by the religious fanatics in retaliation of thr Babri Masjid. Similarly, Indian gov't was aware of impending raid by the religious fanatics and yet failed to provide adequate protection. This shows failure of both governments.
The above comparisons doesn't imply that Pakistan is any more secular than India or holier than thou. Pakistanis can't even tolerate its own fellow citizens. This thead was primariliy initiated to discuss role of minorities, especially in Pakistan. Bringing India into this was not a good move on my part since it always opens a can of worms. Maybe we can discuss this further in the Political section.
...making provisions for its religious minorities, that I believe is WRONG! We should all strive for a system where our religious affiliations should not be a matter of someone making decision if we get government loans or not.
NYA, I think the provisions need to be there inorder to compensate for the lack of representation of the minorities at various echeolons of society. Even if equal rights are guaranteed under the law, minority may still face resistance from the majority in some cases. A quick example is the Affirmative Action thread that we discussed in Career section a while back..
Yes Ghalib Yar, I am all for the affirmative action, but that policy is only for ensuring that an environment of “equal opportunity” exists. The affirmative action does not necessarily mean that it will “exclude” majority community. Setting aside quotas is not the same as “equal opportunity”. What “equal opportunity” in the USA has achieved is that it has made it “unlawful” to discriminate against people of color. It is not the same as a “hand-outs”.
In Pakistan, setting quotas aside has not benefited anyone. In universities for example, there are a %age of seats reserved for candidates from “less representative” regions and communities, and also “political appointments” based on such merits. I believe that to be totally useless, as it only makes the situation worse. The laws should be enacted to ensure that “everyone” gets a fair shot at competing for everything regardless of one’s race, religion, or sex.
"So how does theocracy automatically rules out minorities or did I miss something?"
Theocracy does not rule out minorities but it effectively gives one religion importance over the others. Whether you accept it or not, its like saying that one religion is superior to others. But then again, every country decides its own path so there is nothing wrong in being a theocracy.....its just that we donot believe in it !!
"These incidents would have less of a chance of ocurring if the measures to provide special protection to these entities are taken."
You think so ??!! Well then please explain why there are so many hate crimes taking place in the US every month ! I am not saying that the US is not secular or that it is racist. In fact I believe that it is one of the most tolerant nations. Thats the reason why I donot like to bring law and order problems into discussion when we are talking about secularism. When a government sanctions a mosque or a temple to be brought down, then I would say that there is intolerance. When a government sanctions killing of an author or say a Catholic boy for what he writes or says, then I would say that there is intolerance. A good example would be the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 in India where some people from the government were believed to be involved -- at that time I would say that secularism was threatened like never before in India !!!
As far as provisions like affirmative action are concerned, I think that all it does is divides society even more. Nothing can be more dangerous than that. Ghalib, provisions should be made for people with economic problems NOT based on religious or racist affiliations. What about students from the majority community who come from poor families -- their position is the worst. India has made the mistake of having quota systems in jobs and education and furthur divided its society. No other country (including Pakistan) should make this mistake. At the risk of being labelled a racist let me make one comment. In India today, there is nothing worse than being a Hindu Brahmin from a poor family. That effectively means that if you donot do exceptionally well in your studies, you are doomed !
Well then please explain why there are so many hate crimes taking place in the US every month...
Dude, you need to define "so many" here. Do you mean a few thousands, a few hundreds or just one too many?
There's a difference between guaranteeing protection under the law and providing protection under the law. There has to be uncomprimsing effort by the government to ensure safety and that is what I am referring to.
Talking about US, if you want to refer to cases like Rodney King, Texas dragging death, Loima (sp?) or Dialoo (sp?) then there's a difference. These were all isolated incidents with the accomplices consisting of very few or limited individuals and didn't involve mobs like ones we've discussed above.
Except for the ones mentioned above, I don;t recall any mass riots or killings in present history (post 70's) other than LA riots or one in NY when Gavin Cato died from a Jewsih driver. And you know the reason why?? Its because of the protection provided by the law enforcement agencies. Its the willingness of the gov't authorities to clamp down on those to seek to danger the minorities, or disturb the rule of law for that matter. Rodney King trial still has repercussion on LAPD with the racial discrimination. Loima trial has tore apart NYPD image for the nation etc. etc..
To summarize, there has to be a sincere effort by the ruling auhtorities to carry out the protection provided by the law, not just provide lip service to the law. Both India and Pakistan have vested interest in the riots against the minorities and thus fail to provide the due protection guaranteed by the law.
As for Quota System and Affirmnative Action, you want provisions for the economically challenged only. But dude, the problem is that poverty and economic challenges are not equally spread among all races, religions or ethnics backgrounds. They're concentrated in certain groups, be it social, religious or ethnic. And this is mostly because of traditional discriminations they have endured from generation to generation. Thats why I endorse Quota system and Affirmative Action. You're right that the room for abuse for these privileges is enormous, but it still helps some to gain access into opportunities that they normally wouldn't have.
Apparently the whole point for which this thread was started has long lost there somewhere. As much as I personally like to address an issue from different angles, I do feel that starting right off from the very distance factor kills the whole purpose of the topic at hand.
I would be more than glad to read whatever everybody has to say on the comparision of minority plight in India and Pakistan, and what's happening in Inddia but please refrain from screwing up this thread.
Now coming back to the topic at hand, let me reiterate my question is a different manner:
The word Qadiani is worst than a swear word in Pakistan. I have quite few Qadiani friends back home and I have noticed that they won't disclose their faith openly. They were afraid of discrimination and 'that look' on people's faces when they would mention they are Qadiani.
Words like 'isaee' (christian) and 'marzai' (Qadiani) are used to express a low rated person in Pakistan, to express disgust or disapproval.
Now coming back to what ghalib said
[quote]
For its prosperity means your won prosperity.
About expats: They do have the choice to stay where they like. Abviuosly, they will choose a country which provides freedom along with security. In turn, they should have an allegiance towards the country they choose to live in, whether their own or foreign, for the similar reasons relating prosperity given above.
[/quote]
ghalib, I think you have addressed the issue one sidedly. There are two sides to the picture. One is prosperity and freedom that you mention, and other is the right of not to be hated. The right of not to be disrespected and spitted on based on your religious beliefs (thanks NYA, I did mean to religious minorities alone). It's not only about prosperity, it's also about not being disrespected.
I think it's the goodness of a person belonging to an expatriate minority to still be patriotic towards Pakistan given the overall social and systematic treatment they receive in Pakistan, but it's not an obligation. Just because one is born in a country does not mean the he/should remain be patriotic. It's true by default but there is a lot more than that to the story. And that's what an average Pakistani needs to realize next time he/she faces unpatriotic remarks from a Qadiani.
Now debate this.
Coming back to Roman’s question. Feeling as a minority in one’s own homeland equals repression. Religious minorities are just like any other group of individuals, they may be patriotic or may be not. Religion DOES NOT define one’s attachment to one’s homeland. There are ever too many cases to even begin to mention. Patriotism is defined by how one views his or her attachment to his/her nation. To me, I can never imagine not being a Pakistani (not because there is no other alternative). My childhood friends, my education, my experiences, all lead to one Godforsaken place called Pakistan. Sometimes I hate myself for loving my motherland too much. Other times it is a comforting feeling.
In the fear of sounding nefarious, I say that Pakistan is not (primarily) for Muslims but for Everyone regardless of one’s faith, ethnicity, or any other singularity.
Roman, your mention of the terms “Mirzai” or “Issai” having a negative connotation in our country. Trust me it does not bother those who are of Mirzai or Issai faith. It is not such a bid deal. It just shows the lowness of a few who get excited about attaching derogatoryness with one’s faith. It is a matter of naivete, and not of a defined sickness.
Qadianis
"But dude, the problem is that poverty and economic challenges are not equally spread among all races, religions or ethnics backgrounds. They're concentrated in certain groups, be it social, religious or ethnic. And this is mostly because of traditional discriminations they have endured from generation to generation."
My point exactly -- poverty is not spread among all races/religions equally...so those groups will automatically benefit from a system where reservation is on economic basis. For example, blacks will automatically benefit from such a system since they are more economically backward than say whites or jews, BUT some white kids will also benefit ! I personally have no doubts that affirmative action is a crime and segregates society legally and I am dead against that. I am also against things like seperate electrorates on the basis of religion or race -- its undemocratic and downright racist !!
As far as the original question, if minorities are not loyal to their country (or patriotic) then they should go and live in the country to which they feel loyalty towards. This applies to the majority community too. If you donot like a country then leave it. If you feel that you have been discriminated against then try and sort it out in a peaceful and democratic manner. There are always people in the majority community willing to listen to you and change the system. So the best thing for minorities is to assimilate into the national culture.
Ghalib....you mentioned cases in the US as "isolated" cases. Tell me why the incident against the Catholic missionary cannot be termed as an isolated incident since the group of persons who commited the crime had no affiliation with the government (proven by an independent commission). I think you have given all the wrong examples to support your argument that India is not a secular nation. Babri mosque does not make India a non secular nation ...but I can tell you incidences which have cast serious doubts on our secular character. I have already mentioned the anti-Sikh riots in 84....Similarly during the emergency Indira Gandhi's son Sanjay Gandhi went on a forcible sterilisation crusade in which a lot of Muslim men were rounded up in Delhi and forcibly sterilised. He may not have intentionally targetted the Muslim community but they were the ones which got the most affected. Now this is a government sponsored act which questions our secular credentials. Also the fact that so many Imams around the country are paid salary by the Central government. Our government also provides funds for madrassas around the country. The BJP government has gone a step ahead and increased the funding to an all time high. These Madrassas were also told by the BJP minister that if they include science and technology in their curriculum then the government would also foot that bill. But what are these religious schools teaching -- hatred against the majority community and non Muslims in general !! Why should a secular government support religious schools ? When Bal Thackeray makes communal statements his voting rights are taken away and he is not allowed to stand for elections in the future for life. But when the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid in Delhi makes communal and anti-national statements, no action is taken against him -- this is our so called "secularism". So Ghalib next time you tell us how intolerant India is mention these things and I'll agree with you.
Also please tell me what will happen if someone insults the prophet in Pakistan or if someone forcibly converts a Muslim to some other religion -- what will be your governments action ? Then we can compare our "fundamentalist Hindu" government's reaction if someone insults a Hindu God.
Anyway...I am not going to convince anyone out here, so I wont try ! I think as far as our nations tolerance about minorities are concerned, you need to be honest with yourself and you would get your answers.
Like Roman said this discussion is going in a different direction so I think I should stop :)
[This message has been edited by BombayKid (edited May 18, 2000).]
NYAhamdi,
I never said that religion is the base for patriotism. I was pointing to the treatment received by the few solely because of their religion. Big difference.
Yes, there is a lot more to patriotism. Like you mentioned, family, education, experiences etc. But ain't experiences of Qadianis bad enough already? Don't get me wrong here, I'm not siding with any sort of unpatriotic sentiments. What I'm saying is that I don't blame Qadianis (or other minorities) IF I see a Qadiani expressing unpatriotic comments about Pakistan.
BombayKid,
That was not the point of the quetion. Of course if a monority does not like a country, the people of that group slowly and gradually start moving to other counteries. What my point was that do you think it's justifiable if they are not patriotic to the same country they born in?
Roman:
yaar tum to lagta hai naraaz ho gaye ho... challo ghussa thooko or chall kay chai peetey hain... :)
Bombaykid:
You keep bringing the issue of secularism into this thread and how I consider India non-secular while I merely pointed out instances where intolerance of the gov't towards the monorities was evident. I discuss the failures of both Pakistan and India in providing due protection under the law to its minorities (and majority) while you discuss incidents which pretty much reiterate the same.
Anyways, I can post another long reply but I think it will piss Roman off even more. Lets wait till the chat room comes... see you there.. :)
It is a highly philosphical question. If I go outside Japan, I am minority and inside I am majority. If I am coming to Japan by Delat airlines, I am minority in plane but by singapore airlines, I am in majority.
So everything is relative and depends on which place has more of your relatives.
Yours truly from Nagoya,
YK.
Roman, I know what you trying to get out of these peoples, I can give lot of examples where you can say that Qaidianis have right to say unpatriotic things against Pakistan. I don't thing it is happening right now. As far as I know All the Ahmedies are loyal to Pakistan and whenever needed ( And Allowed) they will sacrifice their lifes for this country.
I know some families who suffered and can say bad things about Pakistan but still I am sure if they have to, they will still fight and die for their country.
Well, my work assinment of few hours turned into few days..
Anyway, back to the topic. I think we all agree that patriotism is a sentiment which doesn't stems out of religious preferences. One might be a good muslim but not neccassilriy a patriotic citizen, and one might belong to another religion yet still play his role in the development of the community around him. However, unfortunately in Pakistan minorities are subjugated to hatred and discrimination due to variety of reasons. Primary reason for such behaviour, in my point of view, is ignornance and high rate of illitracy. Also, practicing of Islam in its distorted form is the main reason. Islam, if practiced correctly, neither violates nor reccomends discrimantion against minorities.
One must take an account of the fact that Islam is also used as a tool by different groups to commence violence against the minorities. This form of aggression is practiced in order to gain popularity amongst the followers. In my own point of view, reprissiveness has no place in the Islamic democratic society. In essence of democracy, rights of the minorities should also be looked upon from a different angle. The society where one should primarily be judged by his/her contribution in a productive manner and not religion. Every effort should be made to provide adequate oppertunities to all the minorities to flourish and realize their dreams.
I think first step in inducing empowerment to the minorities would be an ammendtment to certain laws which otherwise enables government to impose a death penalty even on a ten year old individual.
Ministry of the Minorities should be made functional in a way that it works on the patron as suggested by the minorities themselves.
Government resources should be spent on muslims and non-muslims alike. otherwise, we could never pride ourselves to be the ones who stand up for the most oppressed in the society
Right now, Country just doesn't offer adequate oppertunities to the minorites for their social uplift. It's a sad fact the many of the sanitation jobs are just reserved for the people of one particular faith. An ordinary muslim citizen of Pakistan will be greatly offended if asked to clean gutters or sweep the streets. However,it'ld be quite alright with him if a christian is asked to do the same job. Therefore, I found out that many of the christians in my hometown, Multan, were sweepers or engaged in jobs which muslims won't take. To make things worst, these people have been doing these jobs for generations. I am not defying the dignity of work, but the country where classist thinking prevails one could very well imagine how hard would it be for the minorities to make any effort for their own financial and social well-being. There are no oppertunities available for them to seek a way out of povery. This is one of the meanest form of oppression present in the Pakistani society.
I finished my secondary school at an Irish Catholic in Hassanabdal, Pakistan. Many of my teachers were Pakistani christians. These people were given a chance to flourish and contribute to their fullest potential in the development of the social fabric of the society by this instution. Ironically, some of them even taught Islamiyat on certain occassions.All of them embedded the true sense of patriotism in me, and nourished my young mind with the sense of seeing beyond all boundries, and striving for the society where patriotism is incumbent upon heritage and pride and not religion.
[This message has been edited by outlaw (edited May 20, 2000).]
johnD,
Correction -- I didn't imply that Qadianis (I'm using 'Qadiani' just as a representative group of other minorities that may fall under the categorical subject of the discussion for simplicity) have a right to be unpatriotic.
When you have a right, you are expected, and do excercise it (usually) if circumstances permit or at least perceive it so. But that's not the case with Qadianis. I have quite few Qadiani friends and they have never expressed anything like that even though they are well aware of the situation in Pakistan. And they have never perceived unpatriotism towards Pakistan their right.
What I said was that I won't blame a Qadiani for such expressions, or his/her unpatriotic comments will be justifiable, if such would be the case. From my personal experience, I won't expect a Qadiani to say anything like that, although some may do, and my point was that in case of those 'some' it is justifiable.
Now, the marginal discussion we barely have been able to hold so far on the topic itself (just a light-hearted remark, ghalib and BombayKid, nothing reproachful :P) poses another, by-product question:
Do you guys think if government of Pakistan (or should I say Islami Jamhoriay Pakistan?) takes initiatives to improve the situation, to protect the due rights of minorities and takes systematic steps to improve their econmical and social well being, it will face opposition and countermendative response from the people?
In other words, is it the government that exploits the religion to suppress minorities or it does so to keep people happy? Is the main culprit here the government or the people, or both?