C'da, > You surely speak the truth and nothing but the truth Ram :-).
Thanks, and I was thinking of going for a middle name - 'Foot-in-the-mouth Ram' > But if so, why is Rajib saying things like: I don't want to speak for Rajib, but I understand his position. No country is in isolation. So what happens in other countries affect India too. Comparisons are constantly made, as to how Indians are treated in other countries. Or how do other religions (like Islam or Christianity) treat Hindus? We see that Hindus do not have the same rights to religion (that Muslims in India have) when they are in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. And yet, we have advocates in India who are keen on pointing out to India as to how unsecular she is. It would be but normal for Indians to ask, why countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan are not under any microscope. Yes, it would be very easy to say 'ah! but those countries do not claim they are secular'. But does that solve this problem of worldwide secularism? It is very difficult for a democractic and secular country like India to keep its head above the water when some of its important neighbors have theocratic/autocratic rulers. Yesterday, I was reading a article in the Dawn (a Pakistani Newspaper), and the article pointed out some things. Both India/Pakistan got independence at the same time as democracies. While, India managed to remain as such for 58 odd years, Pakistan has really become a failed state. Pakistanis, today (as much as they hate us) look upon India as a model for democratic and secular traditions and try to emulate India as much as possible . In Pakistan, different Muslim sects have been warring with each other for eons. I make this point to show that democracy and secularism in India alone is not sufficient. For India to reach higher degrees of secularism, other countries like Pakistan ought to also be secular/democratic. India just cannot operate in isolation in this chaos of jehadis, mullas, and unruly mobs of religiously charged nuts. > >However, whether India can survive without being > >secular is out for debate. ? I am not sure whether India can afford to be secular, given the conditions of neighboring countries, and the rapid increase of jehadi mentality in many parts of the world. While, we may not really relish the idea of India becoming a 'Hindu State', that may at sometime in the future be the only defensive mechanism left for the country to survive. This concept is like going nuclear. If you have it no one is going to mess with you..... Look at the US, post 9/11 has had a drastic leaning toward the Religious Right. This happened more because of some sort of protecting the country. It may have been an overkill. but the reactions just reflect that many people just felt threatened, and thus all the rah rah for an attack on Iraq. --Ram On 6/9/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
