From: rajesh@ivy (Rajesh Raman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal article by ImranAnwar
Date: 4 Jan 1993 00:45:00 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivy.wpi.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Manoj Ghayalod (mghayalo@uceng.uc.edu) wrote:
: 
: India never releases the religious proportion of people who died in rioting.
: But I am not doubting his figures, it may be true that more Muslims have
: died.  But this is not due to any bias on the part of the police.  A few 
: years ago Hindu fundamentalists I think led by the BJP held a rath yatra,
: the UP govt did not allow them to pass through their state, saying it would
: flame communal hatred.  When the yatra tried to enter UP, they arrested
: Advani, and the police fired at the fundamentalists. Hundreds were killed
: in the shooting.  This is the reason the BJP came to power in this state,
: the UPites felt that the Police was too brutal on a peaceful rally.  The point
: is that more Hindus died then because the Police was trying to control a
: Hindu mob, and more Muslims died now because the Police was trying to control
: a Muslim mob. But these incidents are tragic, but IMHO the police did the
: right thing, we cannot allow the mob to take the law into its own hands.

  He's right. If the police beat up a mob people call it police
  brutality. But if you come to know that the mob was majority Muslim
  you call it religious discrimination. If a mob that is predominantly
  Hindu is attacked it is not called a case of discrimination. It is
  called brutality. Hey! Both of these groups are breaking the law. So
  why shouldn't they be attacked ?

: >Let us look first at India's creation. Even as the British were leaving the 
: >subcontinent, it was apparent to the Muslims that they would immediately 
: >face severe retaliation from a Hindu majority that would try to make up for 
: >several centuries of Muslim rule.  It was this fear, even certain knowledge,
: >of persecution that provided the impetus for migration of millions of 
: >people in 1947.
: >
: >The Muslims were willing to take a separate homeland even though it meant a
: >new country created in two separate entites, East and West Pakistan, 
: >separated by the entire mass of the remaining India.  They were willing to pay
: >an economic cost by migrating because they knew that in a United India
: >there would be a lose-lose situation.  Economic and educational opportunities
: >would be limited, and religious persecution would be widespread.

  A substantial number of Muslims stayed back in India. They were left
  in a smaller minority then. How come they didn't feel it would be a
  "lose-lose" situation ? Funny, huh?!

: >This is borne out by the fact that even though Muslim are 12% of the Indian
: >population, their share in everything from top government job to post-
: >graduate degree opportunity is much smaller.

  Hey everyone cries hoarse that Muslims are amongst the most illiterate
  communities in India. Can't you see why they don't have these jobs ?
  More time and money  should be spent on education. 
: 
: This is true that their share to to top govt post and post gradaute degree 
: is smaller.  But this proves nothing.  The Rajputs in India form more than
: 12% of the population.  They too have a much smaller share in these two areas.
: It means that either
: 1. They are not interested in those jobs
: or
: 2. They do not have the educational traditions to compete with others,
	......

  In the medieval period, Hindus in India faced this problem of not
  being able to break the stranglehold of Brahmins and the higher
  castes. Could there be such a reason for Muslims not being uplifted in
  India ?

: But the Rajputs have a higher representation in politics and land ownership.
: Similiarly the Muslims have higher representation in the Indian
: film industry and politics.

: >
: >There are three major religious groups in India. Hindus are the predominant
: >majority, followed by Muslims and Sikhs.  It should come as no surprise
: >that the two biggest internal threats to India are the continuing struggle
: >by Muslim Kashmir to end Indian occupation and obtain its right of self-
: >determination and efforts by Sikh Punjab to secede from the union that has
: >brought it nothing but persecution based on differences in reiligion.

  I see Sikhs as one of the most prosperous peoples of India. Its the
  Sikhs outside India who're crying themselves hoarse over Khalistan.
  The Sikhs would never leave their homes and businesses to live in
  Khalistan even if they it were created. I say this with supreme
  confidence. They're woven into the fabric of Indian multi-culturism.
  They will not feel at home elsewhere.

: Sikhs are the largest subgroup in the Indian army, they are also one of the
: richest communities in India. The CM of Punjab is a Sikh and the number 2 man
: in the Indian govt is a Sikh. I dont know what persecution he is talking 
: about.

: >Your writers credit Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao "with his free-
: >market reform program" as some kind of visionary who brought his vision to
: >Indian leadership.  The sad truth is that from the time of independence
: >until recently, India aggressively follwed the Soviet agenda, including
: >adherence to the socialist economic model.  As a result of running of
: >options, the self-destruction of the socialist model, and neighbouring
: >Pakistan's aggressive privatization and economic liberalization program, 
: >India woke up too.  Mr. Rao may have ideas of his own, but in this case he
: >has simply been reactive, not proactive.  He did what any other person
: >in this situation would have to do, to prevent India from going bankrupt.
: 
: Is he envious of the high regard our PM enjoys here?  What does this 
: paragraph have to do with the Ayodhia situation?

  Exactly. Is he talking about secularism or about the economy ? 

: >The Muslim minority does not represent an economic threat to the hindu 
: >majority, nor does the destruction of mosques and the killing of Muslims
: >open up new avenues of economic prosperity for Hindus. Instead, it just
: >sends out a signal that ethnic cleansing has commenced, and now no mosques
: >or Muslims are safe.

  Does anyone from India believe a sweeping statement like that ? Ethnic
  cleansing has commenced!!! No mosque is safe!!! This is pure hate
  propaganda. 

: >Reuters' report mentioned a statement from the former government minister
: >and Janata Dal party leader Sharad Yadav, a lower caste Hindu:  "The 
: >essence of India's problem is not a Hindu-Muslim problem, but the inability
: >of the so-called liberal Hindus to accept the brutality of their faith, 
: >the brutality of the caste system".

  Sure there is still is caste hatred, but not as much as before. The
  situation is improving. Belief systems take time to change. But the
  fact that things have changed considerably is borne out by the fact
  that a lot of political power has been transferred to the hands of the
  lower castes. There are lower caste politicians to be found. There are
  intellectuals too. In fact, in states like Tamil Nadu, the higher
  castes are oppressed. It's the same logic. You have suppressed us for
  so many centuries. Now we will suppress you. This happens in Bihar too
  where the Chief Minister, Lallu Yadav screams out on a Lucknow manch,
  "Saalon ko bhoond dalo!", referring to the higher castes.

: >As the Indian prime minister said, the mosque's desctruction was preplanned.
: >It was not the act of a mob of economically deprived Hindus going out of
: >control against a well-off Muslim minority.  Instead, the whole effort
: >was orchestrated by rich Hindus to achieve their goal of a Hindu empire
: >to make up "Mother India".  When you see that one of the main characters
: >in this case is V.H.Dalmia, whose family owns one of the well-known
: >industrial groups in India, you can understand how "economic" problems
: >are just an excuse.

  No I cannot. As far as I can see the issue at hand is not economic. It
  is communal. No one ever made any economic excuses for breaking up the
  mosque (WHICH IN ITSELF WAS A BAD THING TO DO, BY THE WAY). All Dalmia
  and co kept saying was that Muslims are appeased (ref. vote-bank
  politics), Hindus are being discriminated against in a country where
  they are in a majority. It's time to act. Hindus awake, arise! Hindus
  you can't let these things happen. It might be too late later. These 
  were kinds of things that they were saying. I find all this fine. But
  I don't find the destruction of the mosque alright. They should have
  done it in some other way. BUT THE POINT IS THAT THERE WAS NOTHINg
  ECONOMIC ABOUT THE REASONS THEY WERE GIVING.

--

Rajesh Raman

--

Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan