From: seetam@hub.eng.wayne.edu (Seetamraju Uday Bhaskar Sarma)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: .... On secularism & India Part I ...
Date: 21 Jan 1993 17:12:16 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

		This is part I....  
This post of mine represents a collection of thoughts that I feel are linked, very much. 
Lets first consider pakistan.

<FACT> It was formed for muslims.  Two generations ago, muslims in the
	subcontinent overwhelmingly voted for the creation of pakistan.
It is now clear, that was more of a political messsage than a strong desire
to realise the import of that vote.  But the vote was one of the most
important events in the history of the sub-continent.  It clearly meant
that the muslims were dead against `dissolving' into the multitude.
This fear was widespread, in spite of the fact that muslims in the subcontinent
accounted for about a quarter of the whole population before partition.
A quarter is a heck of a lot to feel insecure.  But many did.  But the import
for the hindus was much more than insecurity.  It was a plain statement of
the fact that the people who `wanted away' were kicking aside many millenia
of cultural heritage, to START FROM THE SCRATCH elsewhere.  The people who moved
didnt want anything to do with any part of the ethos and life in the `remainder'.

<FACT> Though a few muslims left for pakistan, a much larger percentage
	stayed back.  In spite of all rhetoric and political intrigues
played out by everyone, when it came to making the actual step of moving
to pakistan, many muslims faltered.  My opinion is that they didnt even
falter.  They just stayed put.  In spite all the analysis that one saw (still see),
it is now clear, that the muslims who stayed, stayed, for the simple reason
because the place where they were, was their home.

If a muslim youth is angered when I question his `patriotism' , he simply demonstrates
the fact that he is just another of the bloody westernized bull-shitting
brown sahibs.  A person to whom, alien notions of Nationalism, Patriotism,
National Identity, National character, Rule of formal law etc..., are
the only things humans are living for, and for which, humans should live
for, and for which, humans who are not living for, should live for.

You will find a whole range of such emotions, but never will U see a
response from the urbanized muslim, which means to say ``**** U, this is
my home, so was it my father's, and so was it my ancestor's"

No, he will blabber about secularism and good of mankind, global peace,
uniformity of thought, the need to make jeans mandatory for all, the
need for a common language, the need for a common religion, blah blah blah...
Show me such a response from the villages and smaller mussofils...

That's just like the secularists, who never hesitate to denounce the religion
which shaped them.  Now they swear allegience to western notions, and
are confidently sermonizing about it, completely ignoring the innumerable
pronouncements of people right from gandhiji to economists of repute
(all over the world).  No, its gotta be western style democracy and
the ideals that the western cultures believe in.  None of the notions
of cultural diversity, cultural variedness, etc... ever stands a chance
of their true unemotinal scrutiny.

I cant see any difference between these modern secularists and J.Nehru.
All are clones of that man (maybe he was a clone of someone else).  I dont
see anyone of the so called secularists indulge in cultural discussions
on the net.  To them, their reason to live is secularism, and their cultural
depth is the width of the word secularism.  They talk for hours about
the rule of law and this and that.  Their analysis of events is based
only on events starting on the 15.Aug.1947 and after.  I think their
cultural activities is not worth studying, as we have all seen sheep dogs.
	BTW, jinnah, was a bigger a**h**e than Nehru.  The pakistanis
	know best.  Ask one.  He was the worst among all brown sahibs.

The secularists are fools.  If the british, left behind a `country' that
included burma, and afganistan included, and called it Boozland, then our
dear secularists will today, (in that alternative time/history) be yelling
from the rooftops about the ideals and ideas that made up boozland.
If instead it was a Trashland, and is not today's india, then, U wont
see any change in their mouthings, save some pattern-search-replacements.
... to be continued ....
Seetamraju Udaya Bhaskar Sarma
(email : seetam @ ece7 . eng . wayne . edu)