Shiv, Please read below, interspersed with your thoughts.
--- On Mon, 4/5/09, ss <[email protected]> wrote: > From: ss <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [silk] In UP, Brahmins do tactical voting, not Muslims > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, 4 May, 2009, 6:44 AM > 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. Get down to it, do, but while you're at it, please keep the very significant happenings immediately before Partition in mind. Some of it is hair-raising stuff if you're Congress-oriented. > > 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. Why aren't you taking this just that one little step further? Clearly NO community votes en bloc; even if at times of extreme stress, they do (Muslims ~ Babri Masjid, ~ Bombay riots, ~ Godhra; Christians ~ Kandhamal; Sikhs ~ Blue Star, Indira Gandhi's assassination), it seems that they fall apart into their underlying affinity blocs pretty quickly, as soon as decently possible after the stress point has passed. > 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. This is perfect. But. I don't see why you should not extend the logic further, as it ought to be extended: we should have a nomenclature problem with all religions, and stop considering religious affiliation as a significant differentiator in terms of public life. > > 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. You may well be right, but I advise extreme caution. In the case of contemporary Pakistanis, it is certainly not true that they are undifferentiated, or that they consider themselves undifferentiated. There are sections that keep insisting, like stuck records, that they are one Qaum, there are other sections that protest hotly that this is a distortion of reality. This that I have written is about Pakistan and Pakistanis. It may or may not apply to Indian Muslims. I am hesitant to say anything without having made a serious effort to go through available information. One of the difficulties in coming to a reasonable evaluation of the situation is that a knowledge of Urdu and access to the Urdu press and media of both nations is vital, and I lack both. However, Shiv, please note this: there is a valuable document which deals with the situation as it was at the time of partition and immediately prior to that. If you wish, I can forward it to you. Incidentally, the essay is very rich and fulfilling and answers many questions and doubts about the events of 46 and 47, and about many years prior to that besides. This is the best analysis of the segments among Muslims that I have read. > 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) Yes, please. I really want to track what happened to the pre-Partition themes and manifestos during the subseqent 60 + years. I especially want to know why Hindutva has such a following. > 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. Very, very much on target. And it needs education to go beyond this. > 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: This seems logical and acceptable judging from the Pakistani record. Exactly this has been happening on that side of the border. > > 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. Absolutely. And I believe that one of the reasons was the collective guilt of the top Congress leadership at having caused Partition to happen almost single-handed. > 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). Judging from the evidence available elsewhere, Muslims were quite ready to accept them, but Congress knew better than them what was good for them. > 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 > After looking leisurely at your four mail messages, I hope to download and read this. > > 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 Yes, it's bad, it's perverted, it's a typical piece of nonsense. Unfortunately, it's true. This is exactly the attitude of many pro-Taliban commentators and citizens, who defend it, finally, after being defeated on every other battlefield. Looking forward to reading your other three articles in a few minutes. Regards, Now surf faster and smarter ! Check out the new Firefox 3 - Yahoo! Edition http://downloads.yahoo.com/in/firefox/?fr=om_email_firefox
