[silk] Lenovo hardware password manager

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Now that's an interesting way to do encryption - not many I've seen around
offered to the general public

 

http://lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=224

Re: [silk] Lenovo hardware password manager

[Pranesh Prakash]

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 18:42, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

> Now that's an interesting way to do encryption - not many I've seen around
> offered to the general public
> http://lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=224
>
>
TrueCrypt  is capable of system encryption as well
, but a) that works only
with various Windows flavours; b) it's not scalable (or at least as easily
scalable) as this is, so not too useful in corporate set-ups.

[silk] In UP, Brahmins do tactical voting, not Muslims

[Zainab Bawa]

Cross posting from another list. Found this article quite interesting in the
light of some of the recent discussions that we have been having on Silk.

Cheers,

Zainab


In UP, Brahmins do tactical voting, not Muslims'

Dr Abdul Waheed | May 02, 2009 10:18 IST
Last Updated: May 02, 2009 10:25 IST

Dr Abdul Waheed, reader in the department of sociology and social work
at the Aligarh Muslim University, is an authority on socio-political
issues related to the Muslims of Uttar Pradesh [Images].

He has done his MPhil on 'The Phenomenon of Dowry among Muslims in
India' and his PhD thesis was on the 'Social Structure and Economy of
an Urban Muslim Community: A Case Study of Muslim Banjaras of Baheri,
District Bareilly, UP.'

His two books -- Muslim Artisans, Craftsmen and Traders: Issues in
Entrepreneurship and Muslims of Uttar Pradesh provides good reference
material for serious studies.

In his gloomy office at AMU, Dr Waheed spoke to rediff.com's Sheela Bhatt:

Uttar Pradesh has more than 3 crore (30 million)Muslims. That amounts
for around 23 percent of Indian Muslims. According to the 2001 census,
UP's population was 16 crore (160 million) and Muslims are 18.5
percent of the population.

In UP, according to the 2001 census, out of 70 districts (UP now has
71 districts) 21 districts have a sizable population of Muslims and
are recognised by the government as districts having 'minority
concentration'.

Ghaziabad, Meerut, Muzzafarnagar, Bijnore, Saharanpur, Moradabad,
Rampur, Bareilly, Pilibhit [Images], Bulandshahr, Badaon, Lucknow
[Images] and Bahraich districts have more than 25 percent but not more
than 50 percent Muslim population. Rampur has the highest
concentration of Muslims in UP along with Bijnore and Moradabad.

I belong to Bareilly, so I have observed the politics of neighbouring
areas like Rampur, Pilibhit and Moradabad quite closely.

Muslims of western UP are in a precarious position this election.

Why?

Because they believe that no secular party -- whether it is the
Bahujan Samaj Party, Samajwadi Party or the Congress -- has done
anything for them. They thought the Bharatiya Janata Party [Images] is
their enemy party. Now, they are confused what to do? Whether to
defeat the BJP or not? To do so, they are forced to vote for
candidates and parties whom they don't like.

That is why I say the Muslim voters are in a very precarious position.
They are not supporting any party or candidate of their choice. They
are under compulsion and they know that the secular parties for whom
they cast their votes have not done anything for them. But what is the
choice? The BJP? They tend to think the BJP is the greater evil
amongst these choices.

Invariably, Muslims are not voting for Muslim candidates either. In
Bareilly district, Praveen Aron is the Congress candidate. Muslims are
going to vote for Aron. The BSP candidate, Islam Sabir, is not
confident of getting Muslim votes.

In Pilibhit, Maneka Gandhi was always supported by Muslims. Even in
Sanjay Gandhi's time Muslims received the couple well. I don't know
who provoked Varun to make those (anti-Muslim) statements. Sanjay and
Maneka used to stay in (BSP MP) Akbar Ahmed 'Dumpy's farmhouse.

Muslims were shocked when their son Varun Gandhi [Images] made those
statements. Neoriya Hussainpur town, which is located on the
Pilibhit-Almora highway, has a 90 percent Muslim population. Maneka
Gandhi used to get 90 percent of their votes. From the same town,
Haiji Riyaz, an MLA, is contesting on a Samwajwadi Party ticket
against Varun.

Riyaz belongs to the Banzara caste; it is a trading community who have
60,000 votes. After Varun Gandhi's speech many Banzaras will not vote
for Riyaz. They realise if they vote for him, then Varun Gandhi will
win the election so they are shifting their votes to the BSP or V M
Singh of the Congress, whoever they think can defeat Varun.

Muslims think now no Hindu will cast their vote for the Samajwadi
Party because of the communal polarisation brought in by Varun. The
Samajwadi Party candidate is dependent on Muslim votes. Precisely for
that reason Muslims don't find him good enough and winnable.

Yadav voters are few in this area so Riyaz can't bank on their votes.
Pilibhit has got many Lodhs, so the BSP gave a ticket to Budhsen
Varma. It seems that the division of Muslim votes between the BSP and
Congress will help Varun win.

Muslim voters are intelligent; they know (Uttar Pradesh Chief
Minister) Mayawati [Images] put Varun in jail to get their votes. No
political logic will apply across the board in UP. BSP or no BSP,
Muslims will not cast their votes for a candidate they feel will lose.
Unless there is an issue like the Babri Masjid, Muslims do not vote en
masse. Like Hindus they are also divided into castes.

If they think that the BJP will win a seat, generally, not
specifically, they vote negatively. If they have a choice, then they
may vote undivided.

I think the Brahmins of UP vote tactically, not Muslims.

Brahmins numb

Re: [silk] In UP, Brahmins do tactical voting, not Muslims

[ss]

On Monday 04 May 2009 12:00:50 am Zainab Bawa wrote:

I have some views on the situation of Muslims in India which have been gelling 
in my mind for a few months now. I will try and be brief - I feel a book 
coming out of all these thoughts.

But first let me start with this quote from the article:

> Time and again it is proved that maulvis and madrassas are unable to
> influence Muslim votes. I can tell you that on most Indian issues
> there are vertical and horizontal divides amongst Muslims. It is a
> stereotype to say that Muslims are one bloc.

May I point out a paradox? Hindus do not vote as one bloc and the title of 
this thread suggests that it is OK to refer to Hindus groups as blocs that 
might behave in a particular way.

So we have a nomenclature problem with Muslims. We invariably lump them all 
together as one bloc "MUSLIMMMS!!" and invariably fail to see that they have 
dividng lines that cut across the community.

The article itself states the truth plainly:

> Muslims do not vote en
> masse. Like Hindus they are also divided into castes.

It would be far better to refer to Muslims by caste. I suspect that this would 
not be taken lying down by the very maulvis who claim inability to influence 
Muslims vote. I believe that Muslims (and Christians) of India were done in 
very badly by popmous and ignorant representatives of their own religions 
when they claimed (just to spite caste ridden Hinduism) that there is no 
caste in Islam or Christianity. At independence Hindus decided "OK - so you 
folks have no caste - your religion unites you right? So we Hindus will 
handle caste matters and you look after your affairs" (This has a bearing on 
the "rise" of Hindutva - which I will post in a separate message if anyone is 
interested)

In 2009 the caste factor among Muslims and Christians is becoming an issue 
because you generally need to be Hindu to gobble the sops that some castes 
get, and Hindus are in no mood to give any sops to Muslims or Christians 
because "Caste is part of Hinduism. Christianity and islam are egalitarian - 
all equal equal in God's eyes. Not unequal like among Hindus"

Muslims really need to be seen as castes, shias, sunnis, Barelvis, Deobandis, 
Ahmedis, ashraf and aljaf. The ashraf and aljaf factor has really conspired 
to screw Indian Muslims. But Muslims are seen as one solid fascist bloc. I am 
tring to go into the historic reasons for the ceration of such and impression 
among Hindus.

I suspect that while there may be many Muslim leaders who are unable to 
influence votes - they are certainly able certainly influence Muslims to 
their own detriment and they too play football with Muslims like the 
following statement, about which I have some comments:

> Muslims are the football of three players, namely the Samajwadi Party,
> the BSP and the Congress.

These parties are playing football in one team that calls itself the "secular" 
team in an ongoing match against team BJP which is called the "communal" team

The word secular is coming under increasing attack from Hindus in India 
because "secularism" is seen as "appeasement" and the  Congress party in 
particular is seen as a party that will use appeasement for votes. 

When I study the events of the immediate post insependence years it appears 
very clear that many of the actions taken in those years can in retrospect be 
clasified as "appeasement" merely in order to mollify and soothe passions at 
a difficult time. It does seem that certain reforms and changes were brought 
in for Hindus and not for Muslims because the latter "were not ready to 
accept them" (I have a cite). It seems to me that independent India wanted 
nothing from Muslims other than for them to live in India looking like poster 
boy Muslims so that India could demonstrate to Pakistan and the world that 
India was a secular state with all religions living in harmony. 

I have wrtten an article on this - it is online here:

"The Partition factor in the status of Indian Muslims: The moulding of Hindu 
attitudes towards Muslims, and the outcome for  the Muslims of India"

http://www.adl.gatech.edu/research/brmsrr/2008/BRMv7No1PartitionFactor080806.pdf


> We believe that if the
> Taliban [Images] was not fighting with America then they would not
> have got any kind of support whatsoever in the Islamic world.

This is a bad statement and should not have been included in that article. It 
is a self goal against Muslims. The statement means that "Muslims support the 
Taliban as long as they can be shown to be fighting against the US"

shiv

Re: [silk] Another Incarnation (Book Review of 'The Hindus, An Alternate History')

[ss]

On Wednesday 29 Apr 2009 6:35:49 pm Bharat Shetty wrote:
> So I would pick a low priced copy of this book just for the reading fun

I intend to buy this book too - the woman has some interesting thoughts. 


shiv

Re: [silk] In UP, Brahmins do tactical voting, not Muslims

[Bharat Shetty]

Shiv,

> At independence Hindus decided "OK - so you
> folks have no caste - your religion unites you right? So we Hindus will
> handle caste matters and you look after your affairs" (This has a bearing on
> the "rise" of Hindutva - which I will post in a separate message if anyone is
> interested)

I'm interested. Please do post more on this.

Regards,

-- Bharat

Re: [silk] Another Incarnation (Book Review of 'The Hindus, An Alternate History')

[ss]

On Wednesday 29 Apr 2009 1:11:34 am Thaths wrote:
> Repelled by such pagan blasphemies, the first British scholars of
> India went so far as to invent what we now call “Hinduism,”

Relevant here are the British views that endured and played a role in the 
British Liaison with the Muslim league and Jinnah and the later formation of 
Pakistan.

When the British later handed their imperial baton to the US - the US took uop 
the same causes with enthusiasm. And now we have the Taliban.

India need not worry about the Taliban. Pakistan and the Taliban are one and 
the same. India will deal with the Taliban as it has dealt with Pakistan. 
Only the US and the West need to worry.

take a look at this:
http://www.newstatesman.com/asia/2009/04/india-british-raj-pakistan

>  When Churchill argued vehemently against Indian independence in the 1930s,
> his fire was directed mainly at the Hindus (in contrast, he praised
> Muslims, whose valour and virility he admired). As the Second World War
> neared its close, the British prime minister was so consumed by hatred of
> the Hindus that he told his private secretary John Colville that he wanted
> extraordinary destruction visited upon them. Colville’s The Fringes of
> Power records the extreme nature of his master’s feelings in February 1945,
> just ­after his return from Yalta: "The PM said the Hindus were a foul race
> “protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is due” and he
> wished Bert [Bomber] Harris could send some of his surplus bombers to
> destroy them."

shiv

Re: [silk] In UP, Brahmins do tactical voting, not Muslims

[ss]

On Monday 04 May 2009 8:59:06 am Bharat Shetty wrote:

> > At independence Hindus decided "OK - so you
> > folks have no caste - your religion unites you right? So we Hindus will
> > handle caste matters and you look after your affairs" (This has a bearing
> > on the "rise" of Hindutva - which I will post in a separate message if
> > anyone is interested)
>
> I'm interested. Please do post more on this.
>

Well a lot is being said about "the rise of Hindutva" and the "increase in 
intolerance" and the "New, severe, form of Hinduism raising its head in 
India".

Anyone who has observed the changes in India over that last 30 to 40 years 
will be able to pinpoint what is going on. 

As I stated earlier (and in the article I linked) India after independence 
specifically targeted Hindus for reform and a whole lot of reforms were put 
in place - regarding issues that would have been impossible to meddle with 
among Muslims.

All those reforms had the single minded aim of unifying the diverse peoples of 
India and reducing their differences. Everything the Indian state could do to 
Hindus to reduce their social splintering was done - reducing the impact and 
importance of caste, community and language.  Anyone who remembers the 1950s 
and 1960s will recall the degree to which it made a difference being 
a "Punjabi" or a "Madrasi" , or Brahmin and Shudra compared to what it is 
today. Much is written about the caste issue and the North India south India 
issue. Even Naipaul has a hilarious passage about this in one of his early 
India books. On the other hand next to nothing is written about the overall 
effect of reducing the effect splintering of Hindus into caste, region and 
color. 

Hindus are gradually being made into a relatively uniform homogeneous mass in 
response to the very criticsim Hindus faced about their own social 
fissiparous tendencies. And when you have an increasing percentage of Hindus 
seeing eye to eye, minus the divisons of caste and region, you see a Hindu 
virwpoint that begins to appear like "The menacing rise of Hindutva"

Many of the questions being raised by "Hindutva" are a direct consequence of 
the coming together of Hindus due to decades old policies of Hindu social 
reform and pro-active upliftment of the much advertised Hindu downtrodden.

On the question of Muslims, the reformed Hindus are asking why no effort was 
made to impose any reform on Muslims in India unlike the reforms that Hindus 
endured. Particular sore points are the fact that the govenment of India 
controls Hindu temple funds and might spend those funds on vote bank sops.

As a Hindu growing up in India I can quote several instances as a child of 
being made aware of the feeling that there was something wrong about being 
Hindu. I will not go into detail about that now - but I bring that up to 
point out how Hindus are now behaving like the worm that has turned and there 
is little you can do to tell them that they are wrong, at least in some 
areas.

For example, the economic growth rate of 3-4% was called the Hindu growth 
rate. Whilst there was no protest at this cliche from Hindus at that time, 
the same  Hindus are taking credit for India's improving economy now. After 
all if poor performance can be blamed on the majority Hindus of India, there 
is absolutely nothing wrong in the majority later taking credit for a good 
performance.

One of the less recognised aspects of Hindutva is that there is 
nothing "resurgent" about it. It was always there covered over by colonised 
mindsets and a Hindu community divided over various issues and under constant 
criticism from "culturally superior" people for having such divisions. Hindus 
have responded to those criticisms and what do you get? Hindutva of course.

shiv

Re: [silk] In UP, Brahmins do tactical voting, not Muslims

[Bonobashi]

--- On Mon, 4/5/09, ss  wrote:

> From: ss 
> Subject: Re: [silk] In UP, Brahmins do tactical voting, not Muslims
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Date: Monday, 4 May, 2009, 10:13 AM
> On Monday 04 May 2009 8:59:06 am
> Bharat Shetty wrote:
> 
> > > At independence Hindus decided "OK - so you
> > > folks have no caste - your religion unites you
> right? So we Hindus will
> > > handle caste matters and you look after your
> affairs" (This has a bearing
> > > on the "rise" of Hindutva - which I will post in
> a separate message if
> > > anyone is interested)
> >
> > I'm interested. Please do post more on this.
> >
> 
> Well a lot is being said about "the rise of Hindutva" and
> the "increase in 
> intolerance" and the "New, severe, form of Hinduism raising
> its head in 
> India".
> 
> Anyone who has observed the changes in India over that last
> 30 to 40 years 
> will be able to pinpoint what is going on. 
> 
> As I stated earlier (and in the article I linked) India
> after independence 
> specifically targeted Hindus for reform and a whole lot of
> reforms were put 
> in place - regarding issues that would have been impossible
> to meddle with 
> among Muslims.
> 
> All those reforms had the single minded aim of unifying the
> diverse peoples of 
> India and reducing their differences. Everything the Indian
> state could do to 
> Hindus to reduce their social splintering was done -
> reducing the impact and 
> importance of caste, community and language.  Anyone
> who remembers the 1950s 
> and 1960s will recall the degree to which it made a
> difference being 
> a "Punjabi" or a "Madrasi" , or Brahmin and Shudra compared
> to what it is 
> today. Much is written about the caste issue and the North
> India south India 
> issue. Even Naipaul has a hilarious passage about this in
> one of his early 
> India books. On the other hand next to nothing is written
> about the overall 
> effect of reducing the effect splintering of Hindus into
> caste, region and 
> color. 
> 
> Hindus are gradually being made into a relatively uniform
> homogeneous mass in 
> response to the very criticsim Hindus faced about their own
> social 
> fissiparous tendencies. And when you have an increasing
> percentage of Hindus 
> seeing eye to eye, minus the divisons of caste and region,
> you see a Hindu 
> virwpoint that begins to appear like "The menacing rise of
> Hindutva"
> 
> Many of the questions being raised by "Hindutva" are a
> direct consequence of 
> the coming together of Hindus due to decades old policies
> of Hindu social 
> reform and pro-active upliftment of the much advertised
> Hindu downtrodden.
> 
> On the question of Muslims, the reformed Hindus are asking
> why no effort was 
> made to impose any reform on Muslims in India unlike the
> reforms that Hindus 
> endured. Particular sore points are the fact that the
> govenment of India 
> controls Hindu temple funds and might spend those funds on
> vote bank sops.
> 
> As a Hindu growing up in India I can quote several
> instances as a child of 
> being made aware of the feeling that there was something
> wrong about being 
> Hindu. I will not go into detail about that now - but I
> bring that up to 
> point out how Hindus are now behaving like the worm that
> has turned and there 
> is little you can do to tell them that they are wrong, at
> least in some 
> areas.
> 
> For example, the economic growth rate of 3-4% was called
> the Hindu growth 
> rate. Whilst there was no protest at this cliche from
> Hindus at that time, 
> the same  Hindus are taking credit for India's
> improving economy now. After 
> all if poor performance can be blamed on the majority
> Hindus of India, there 
> is absolutely nothing wrong in the majority later taking
> credit for a good 
> performance.
> 
> One of the less recognised aspects of Hindutva is that
> there is 
> nothing "resurgent" about it. It was always there covered
> over by colonised 
> mindsets and a Hindu community divided over various issues
> and under constant 
> criticism from "culturally superior" people for having such
> divisions. Hindus 
> have responded to those criticisms and what do you get?
> Hindutva of course.
> 
> shiv

Shiv,

Your utterly fascinating posts of 6:44, 6:53, 9:41 and 10 something. 
Unfortunately, I just got to see them, and have to rush out; will be tied up 
until past noon.

I have some really good stuff for you. 

Don't go anywhere.

IG


  Now surf faster and smarter ! Check out the new Firefox 3 - Yahoo! 
Edition http://downloads.yahoo.com/in/firefox/?fr=om_email_firefox