I am very surprised by the manner in which Sunith's posting below takes on the logic of the Hindu far right in India, even while trying to counter their logic.
Some points: * The issue is not of Muslims "all over the world" getting a "raw deal in non-Muslim dominated countries". It is just about pogroms (as in Gujarat or Sanvordem) where Muslims (or any other people) get persecuted, maimed, killed or their property attacked just because of their religion. We should stand up whether the people being persecuted are Hindus in Bangladesh, or Christian tribals in the Dangs. Religious fundamentalism and hate, of any variety, is bad enough. * Azim Premji didn't become the "richest businessman" because he was Muslim; he did so because he smartly saw opportunity in IT and outsourcing. Abdul Kalam didn't become the President of India because he was Muslim; he did so because his hawkish postures, relatively strong modus vivendi with Hindu fundamentalism, and his "missile man of India" postures made him acceptable to the BJP then in power. The Sania Mirzas and cricketeers make it to the top despite being Muslim, and because they're good in sport. Sad fact is that many top Yusuf Khans turned Dilip Kumars had to change their names to survive in Bollywood (as did Jews in some professions in the US). Others get long-drun gun cases slapped against them. So is it your view that minorities in India live here at the suffereance of the Hindutva mindset? Is it your point that only "religious fundamentalists" from the other communities are on the receiving end from Hindutva fundamentalists? A lot of innocents get caught in the 'cross fire'. For me, it's not a question of Hindutva versus other fundamentalisms, but all fundamentalisms versus more liberal faces of religion. All religions. Dr Rudi Heredia sj has just written a new book on conversions in India. But to compare the attitude of Christianity towards conversions with that of Hinduism towards the same is unfair, because both have different approach on proselytising and conversions. Doesn't mean to say one religion is worse than the other, or superior. It's not my claim that "Muslims alone" get a raw deal. Many weaker sections do. But in today's India, you've got to be blind or pretend you're asleep not to recognise who the underdog is. FN -- [Goanet] Bhandare's Musings Sunith Velho sunith_v at rediffmail.com Bosco, To be fair, sometimes Jekyll Bhandare does have a point but Hyde Bhandare often steps in with a lot of bigoted crap and 'factual' information backed by paranoia instead of proof. As far as this perception that Muslims all over the world are trying to build, of them getting a raw deal in non-Muslim dominated countries, I think one has to be objective about this. This paranoia of on Goanet being fed by people who have not travelled past Mumbai or Goa, of Christians in India being oppressed also has to be looked at in the same manner. In India, the President, the richest businessman, the biggest Bollywood stars and sport stars are all Muslim. To say that a moderate Muslim or Christian in India gets a raw deal in any sense is quite unfair. However, I do admit that religious fundamentalists from both the above communities are often at the receiving end from their Hindu counterparts. When we read about an isolated incident of a missionary being assaulted or killed in India, it would be insightful to think of what would have happened to a Hindu preacher intent on converting people elsewhere in the world, especially rural areas. I would even go as far to say that foreign Catholic missionaries and hate-Imams have more freedom in India than aggressive Hindu or Islamic preachers would have in any country abroad. A visit to the North-East of India or the tribal belts of Chattisgarh will confirm this. Did you see the furore that was caused in the US Senate over a simple Hindu opening prayer? What about the ruckus on Goanet when some mass in Toronto was deemed to be to 'Indian'(read Hindu). Here in the U.K., many Muslims are fighting for the right to be fundamentalist. They want official support for the right to force women to wear burkhas and other such demeaning practices. Recently a Muslim woman police constable didn't want to shake hands with the chief of police because he was a non-Muslim male. Another officer didn't want to report for duty at the Israeli embassy. Of course if they are not allowed the above 'rights', then it immediately portrayed as an attack against Islamic culture. It is a shame to see that you have succumbed to this 'Muslims are getting a raw deal' line of thought. Do Muslims in India really get a worse deal than Dalits, tribals, Tamil Brahmins, people from the North East or various other groups? I think moderate Muslims get a better deal in India than they would in Pakistan or anywhere else in the developing world. Regards Sunith
Are your reasons similar or identical as to why Muslims in India are getting a raw deal? That is if you agree they are getting a raw deal. Is your point of reference the Battle of Panipat, just about after the Portuguese arrived in Goa?
-- Frederick Noronha Journalist http://fn.goa-india.org E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] P: +91-832-2409490 M: +91-9970157402 Yahoo: fredericknoronha Skype: fredericknoronha GTalk: fredericknoronha 784, Sonarbhat, Near Lourdes Convent, Saligao 403511 Goa India
