Argumentation with a implied humour is all interesting. Am only worried about what stubborn secualarist may derive from this Sanghvian rationale. One would be, "Wonder that was/*is* India". My probs is perhaps , may be, I don't have any "mythified" notions of essential and glorified Indianess.. When I say Indianness, I mean the Rasool Pokutty remarked- Omkaram for Indianness sound. (Omkara is a nice film, btw. and i liked Rasool's way of expresing ideas in Brittas interveiw in kairali)
Like Vir Sanghvi's line, here is another 'secular" and of course friendly wirte-up by novelist/history teacher Mukual Kesavan (dated 19/03/09) http://www.telegraphindia.com/archives/archive.html On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Afthab Ellath <[email protected]> wrote: > A friend and a secularist forwarded me this article > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Shageen.Prabhakaran > Date: Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:43 AM > Subject: Vir Sanghvi- Indians and Pakis are no longer the same people > > > Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan Times > Email Author > March 07, 2009 > First Published: 21:47 IST(7/3/2009) > Last Updated: 12:02 IST(8/3/2009) > > The same people? Surely not > > Few things annoy me as much as the claim often advanced by well-meaning but > woolly- headed (and usually Punjabi) liberals to the effect that when it > comes to India and Pakistan , "We’re all the same people, yaar." > > This may have been true once upon a time. Before 1947, Pakistan was part of > undivided India and you could claim that Punjabis from West Punjab (what is > now Pakistan ) were as Indian as, say, Tamils from Madras . > > But time has a way of moving on. And while the gap between our Punjabis > (from east Punjab which is now the only Punjab left in India) and our > Tamils may actually have narrowed, thanks to improved communications, shared > popular culture and greater physical mobility, the gap between Indians and > Pakistanis has now widened to the extent that we are no longer the same > people in any significant sense. > > This was brought home to me most clearly by two major events over the last > few weeks. > > The first of these was the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team on the > streets of Lahore . In their defence, Pakistanis said that they were > powerless to act against the terrorists because religious fanaticism was > growing. Each day more misguided youngsters joined jihadi outfits and the > law and order situation worsened. > > Further, they added, things had got so bad that in the tribal areas the > government of Pakistan had agreed to suspend the rule of law under pressure > from the Taliban and had conceded that sharia law would reign instead. > Interestingly, while most civilised liberals should have been appalled by > this surrender to the forces of extremism, many Pakistanis defended this > concession. > > Imran Khan (Keble College, Oxford, 1973-76) even declared that sharia law > would be better because justice would be dispensed more swiftly! I know this > is politically incorrect but the Loin of the Punjab ’s defence of sharia > law reminded me of the famous Private Eye cover when his marriage to Jemima > Goldsmith was announced. The Eye carried a picture of Khan speaking to > Jemima’s father. “Can I have your daughter’s hand?” Imran was supposedly > asking James Goldsmith. “Why? Has she been caught shoplifting?” Goldsmith > replied. So much for sharia law. > > The second contrasting event was one that took place in Los Angeles but > which was perhaps celebrated more in India than in any other country in the > world. Three Indians won Oscars: A.R. Rahman, Resul Pookutty and > Gulzar.Their victory set off a frenzy of rejoicing. We were proud of our > countrymen. We were pleased that India ’s entertainment industry and its > veterans had been recognised at an international platform. And all three men > > became even bigger heroes than they already were. > > But here’s the thing: Not one of them is a Hindu. > > Can you imagine such a thing happening in Pakistan ? Can you even conceive > of a situation where the whole country would celebrate the victory of three > members of two religious minorities? For that matter, can you even imagine a > situation where people from religious minorities would have got to the top > of their fields and were,therefore, in the running for international awards? > > On the one hand, you have Pakistan imposing sharia law, doing deals with > the Taliban, teaching hatred in madrasas, declaring jihad on the world and > trying to kill innocent Sri Lankan cricketers. On the other, you have the > triumph of Indian secularism. > > The same people? > > Surely not. > > We are defined by our nationality. They choose to define themselves by > their religion. > > But it gets even more complicated. As you probably know, Rahman was born > Dilip Kumar. He converted to Islam when he was 21. His religious preferences > made no difference to his prospects. Even now, his music cuts across all > religious boundaries. He’s as much at home with Sufi music as he is with > bhajans. Nor does he have any problem with saying ‘Vande Mataram’. > > Now, think of a similar situation in Pakistan . Can you conceive of a > Pakistani composer who converted to Hinduism at the age of 21 and still went > on to become a national hero? Under sharia law, they’d probably have to > execute him. > > Resul Pookutty’s is an even more interesting case. Until you realise that > Malayalis tend to put an ‘e’ where the rest of us would put an ‘a,’ ( Ravi > becomes Revi and sometimes the Gulf becomes the Gelf), you cannot work out > that his name derives from Rasool, a fairly obviously Islamic name. > > But here’s the point: even when you point out to people that Pookutty is in > fact a Muslim, they don’t really care. It makes no difference to them. He’s > an authentic Indian hero, his religion is irrelevant. > > Can you imagine Pakistan being indifferent to a man’s religion? Can you > believe that Pakistanis would not know that one of their Oscar winners came > from a religious minority? And would any Pakistani have dared bridge the > religious divide in the manner Resul did by referring to the primeval power > of Om in his acceptance speech? > > The same people? > > Surely not. > > Most interesting of all is the case of Gulzar who many Indians believe is a > Muslim. He is not. He is a Sikh. And his real name is Sampooran Singh Kalra. > > So why does he have a Muslim name? > > It’s a good story and he told it on my TV show some years ago. He was born > in West Pakistan and came over the border during the bloody days of > Partition. He had seen so much hatred and religious violence on both sides, > he said, that he was determined never to lose himself to that kind of blind > religious prejudice and fanaticism. > > Rather than blame Muslims for the violence inflicted on his community — > after all, Hindus and Sikhs behaved with equal ferocity — he adopted a > Muslim pen name to remind himself that his identity was beyond religion. He > still writes in Urdu and considers it irrelevant whether a person is a > Sikh, a Muslim or a Hindu. > > Let’s forget about political correctness and come clean: can you see such a > thing happening in Pakistan ? Can you actually conceive of a famous > Pakistani Muslim who adopts a Hindu or Sikh name out of choice to > demonstrate the irrelevance of religion? > > My point, exactly. > > What all those misguided liberals who keep blathering on about us being the > same people forget is that in the 60-odd years since Independence, our two > nations have traversed very different paths. > > Pakistan was founded on the basis of Islam. It still defines itself in > terms of Islam. And over the next decade as it destroys itself, it will be > because of Islamic extremism. > > India was founded on the basis that religion had no role in determining > citizenship or nationhood. An Indian can belong to any religion in the world > and face no discrimination in his rights as a citizen. > > It is nobody’s case that India is a perfect society or that Muslims face no > discrimination. But only a fool would deny that in the last six decades, we > have travelled a long way towards religious equality. In the early days of > independent India , a Yusuf Khan had to call himself Dilip Kumar for fear > of attracting religious prejudice. > > In today’s India , a Dilip Kumar can change his name to A.R. Rahman and > nobody really gives a damn either way. > > So think back to the events of the last few weeks. To the murderous attack > on innocent Sri Lankan cricketers by jihadi fanatics in a society that is > being buried by Islamic extremism. And to the triumphs of Indian secularism. > > Same people? > > Don’t make me laugh. > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
