You surely speak the truth and nothing but the truth Ram :-).
But if so, why is Rajib saying things like:
> >Asking for such change from Islam is asking
> >for too much. Forcing change - such as getting a
>national church or a national institution of Islam
>(not answerable to Rome or Cairo or the boonies of
>Afghanistan for that matter)
Who is telling the truth?
Rajib blames Islam for India's shambles of secularism. What do you
attribute it to?
And what is your view of secularism in India, vis-a-c vis Rajib's
doubts as expressed in:
However, whether India can survive without being
secular is out for debate. ?
c-da
At 5:13 PM -0500 6/9/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
Hi C'da,
You never cease to amaze us:-)
That alibi does not fly in a nation where the majority is nearly 70%
and the minority Muslims are a measly 13%. Militant Islam is NOT the
cause of the sorry state of Indian pretenses about secularism, it is
an effect. The cause is Hindu bigotries,and covert or overt tyranny.
If you were to ask Muslims in India, if they feel sidelined, most
would tell you you that though there have been been some low points,
generally in India Muslims feel safe, secure, and do not feel the
bigotries or the tyranny from a Hindu majority.
They would tell you they feel luckier that they are in India (as
opposed to Pakistan) or Bangladesh.
Also, if the conditions in India were so intollerable for the minority
Muslims, one wonders why there haven't been any exodus of Muslims
fleeing the evil India for better pastures of the like of Pakistan or
Bangladesh.
Illegal Bangladeshis come into India with a little hop, skip & jump -
why hasn't the reverse been true - ie, Indian Muslims crashing the
gates into B'desh? The reason is simple, India is a better country.
Yes, there is still room for improvements and we all generally dislike
Godhra type situations to ever occur.
Do you seriously think that there are some Machiavelian plan to get
short change the minorities in India?
Muslims in India today enjoy the best that India has to offer. They
hold positions of power, they are running great businesses, have
freedom of religion (and practice). And they are as much an Indian as
any Hindu.
Why, the Govt. also subsidizes Haj fares.
Which other country (secular or not) does that for minorities?
--Ram
On 6/9/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >That does not mean however that secularism is the
>answer.
*** What might the alternatives be? Let us hear about some of them.
>
>After years of "secular" politics, Europe finds itself
>scared shitless of the unarmed Muslim invasion - the
>hordes of practicing Muslims that outnumber practicing
>Christians in France today.
Muslim militancy in the middle-east and its violent attacks against
the west is a direct and foreseeable reaction of western exploitation
of its resources while coddling its tyrannical rulers,its turning a
blind eye to the bloodletting in Israel Palestine disputes and
continuing to prop up Israeli intransigency. It is not a result of
historical Muslim designs to rule the world, nor is it a result of
European secularism. South and Southeast Asian Islam have never acted
like the middle-eastern and west Asians, and could be as capable of
living in a secular and fair society.Their militancy today is a
direct result of majority tyranny. But a secular nation, with
functioning institutions of a democratic state, that can uphold
secularism and provide reliable and timely justice against its
violators, have every possibility of forging a multi-religious nation
where Muslims, as well as other religious minorities can function in
peace and civility without discarding their faiths.
>A secular existence might still be possible if for
>example Muslim thought undergoes radical change.
>
*** Heh,heh! The ol' 'it is not my fault, all his' argument. But does
not fly. Will not fly, until Kashmir is resolved. But of course that
is not a relevant subject, right?
>Religion is not about to go away in this millenium -
>it has never gone away for most of human existence.
*** But what does that have to do with the secular state? Leave your
religion at home. Besides the religious mantle, by and large, is
phonier than a seven rupee note, ain't it? When have Hindus in
governance worn the halo of religion to govern ethically ? The only
reason they do is for political reasons, isn't that the bitter truth?
> >Asking for such change from Islam is asking
> >for too much. Forcing change - such as getting a
>national church or a national institution of Islam
>(not answerable to Rome or Cairo or the boonies of
> >Afghanistan for that matter)- would be anti-secular,
>wouldn't it?
That alibi does not fly in a nation where the majority is nearly 70%
and the minority Muslims are a measly 13%. Militant Islam is NOT the
cause of the sorry state of Indian pretenses about secularism, it is
an effect. The cause is Hindu bigotries,and covert or overt tyranny.
At 10:10 AM -0700 6/9/05, Rajib Das wrote:
> > *** You and Rajib miss the point entirely.
>
>Looks like, I don't. Read my previous mail.
>
>However, whether India can survive without being
>secular is out for debate.
>
>Like you said India must realize ancient (and modern)
>Hindu bigotries. It must realize why a major country
>could forge itself into a real country (well, almost)
>only 4 times in its 5000 years of history. It must
>also realize why it remained under foreign rule
>(Islamic and British) for 1000 years.
>
>That does not mean however that secularism is the
>answer. Whichever way India moves forward, it needs a
>major revision of Hindu religious practice into one
>where every participant is equal. Perhaps we need as
>much a Sankardev as a Manmohan Singh. Without that,
>most of India will still not be emancipated. Besides
>we need an expansive version of the religion that has
>the capacity to absorb others and give those others a
>fair share.
>
>After years of "secular" politics, Europe finds itself
>scared shitless of the unarmed Muslim invasion - the
>hordes of practicing Muslims that outnumber practicing
>Christians in France today. To admit a Muslim country
>(Turkey) into the EU it goes into convulsions.
>
>A secular existence might still be possible if for
>example Muslim thought undergoes radical change.
>Religion is not about to go away in this millenium -
>it has never gone away for most of human existence.
>And so long as any religion gives itself a primacy
>over others and calls its flocks to its own political
>system, something other the nation will compete for
>primacy. Asking for such change from Islam is asking
>for too much. Forcing change - such as getting a
>national church or a national institution of Islam
>(not answerable to Rome or Cairo or the boonies of
>Afghanistan for that matter)- would be anti-secular,
>wouldn't it?
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
