Mumbai rocked by deadly shootings---BBC

[Gandhi90s]

Originally Posted by UA Fan

Yes it does pain me, which is why I specifically mentioned that i might disagree with annagie on christian-hindu issues, but agree with him for the most part about Hindu-muslim issues.

may i ask if you have lived in India?

I have not, but I have visited often in the last few years, and am going again next week.

[anaggie]

Originally Posted by Yaatri

Are you an Indian or an American?

Born in India, lived there for 10yrs, moved to America, nationalized in 1992 and go back every 2 yrs and spend at least 1 month with family and friends to reconnect and retouch. So, I am an American first (no need to test my patriotism, I will bleed on the flag to make sure it runs red !) But I am also very proud of my motherland and refuse to take any CRAP from anyone.

I also married my wife who is from Pune and lived there all her life. Through her, I have also seen what atorcities Muslims have committed to Hindus and so my viewpt might be skewed against the fundamentalist islamic veiwpoint.

[Yaatri]

Originally Posted by anaggie

Born in India, lived there for 10yrs, moved to America, nationalized in 1992 and go back every 2 yrs and spend at least 1 month with family and friends to reconnect and retouch. So, I am an American first (no need to test my patriotism, I will bleed on the flag to make sure it runs red !) But I am also very proud of my motherland and refuse to take any CRAP from anyone.

I also married my wife who is from Pune and lived there all her life. Through her, I have also seen what atorcities Muslims have committed to Hindus and so my viewpt might be skewed towards the fundamentalist islamic veiwpoint.

Ah Pune!. That explains a lot. Ever heard of Godse?
Lots of people, including some extremists have perceived grievances against other communisities.

No one questioned your patriotism. I wonder if your love for America as as misplaced and misdirected as your love for India.

And I think you meant to say against when you said "skewed towards the fundamentalist islamic veiwpoint."

[anaggie]

Originally Posted by Yaatri

Ah Pune!. That explains a lot. Ever heard of Godse?
Lots of people, including some extremists have perceived grievances against other communisities.

No one questioned your patriotism. I wonder if your love for America as as misplaced and misdirected as your love for India.

And I think you meant to say against when you said "skewed towards the fundamentalist islamic veiwpoint."

Never heard of Godse...also that is what I meant to say...it has been edited. Thanks.

My patirotism is not misplaced or misguided. I even signed up for service when 9/11 happened. I am extremley loyal to my friends/countrymen and people. If someone hits at them, they hit at me. I will not stand for that.

Sorry if that offends you.

[anaggie]

Originally Posted by Gandhi90s

I have not, but I have visited often in the last few years, and am going again next week.

Ahhhh...you are one of those. Explains evverything.

[dodo]

Originally Posted by Yaatri

Ah Pune!. That explains a lot. Ever heard of Godse?

OMG!!!

[Gandhi90s]

Originally Posted by anaggie

But I am also very proud of my motherland and refuse to take any CRAP from anyone..

Ooh, how macho! I'm sure your wife is suitably impressed.

Originally Posted by anaggie

I also married my wife who is from Pune and lived there all her life. Through her, I have also seen what atorcities Muslims have committed to Hindus and so my viewpt might be skewed towards the fundamentalist islamic veiwpoint.

My paternal grandfather grew up in Pune, spent his adult life in Mumbai, and is now retired in Pune. Strange, he never mentions all these atrocities that your wife has apparently witnessed.

Originally Posted by anaggie

Never heard of Godse

Are you sure you grew up in India? Does the name Gandhi ring a bell?

Originally Posted by anaggie

Ahhhh...you are one of those. Explains evverything.

Is that supposed to mean something?

[CO FF]

Originally Posted by alanR

Told you the "real" target was Jews - everyone else killed or injured is just a smokescreen to cover up the "real" intent

I eagerly await your explanation of how the attack on Nariman House (as opposed to all the other, unrelated venues) was anything but antisemitism.

Originally Posted by Yaatri

You need to get real and look beyond yourself my dear friend. I did not say jews were not targeted. If you could see beyond your own self, you would understand what the implication was. Iyt is stupid for anyone to think that it was domestic terrorism or that only jews were targeted.

Indians jews are so few in numbers that they could not have much impact on domestic issues.

Do you still maintain it was domestic terrorism?

I don't think only Jews were targeted. Nor did I say that.

And, if you go back to my original post where I used the words "domestic terrorism", you'll see the small-font note at the bottom saying I was being sarcastic about that.

You seem to have relied on quotes of my post from people who disagree with my meaning and therefore didn't quote in full.

[Yaatri]

Originally Posted by Gandhi90s

Muslims in the poor and rural parts of India are indeed "suppressed" and discriminated against, as are women and those of low caste. As I said, they have strong feelings of powerlessness and disenfranchisement, as did blacks in rural white America 50 years ago. Religion is incidental in the first case and irrelevant in the second. The proof lies in the fact that educated Muslims in India (and blacks in the US) are part of the mainstream and the majority of them do not go arund preaching hatred and violence.

Instead of responding those parts of your "speech" that I agree with, I decided to respond to those I take exception to.

Your handle is most recognisedly Indian, but I some of your words indicate your knowledge of Indian history and society is rather superficial.

Many Muslims are backward and poor. But the reason for that is not that they are disenfranchised. When blacks were brought a slaves to America first, and a good five hundred years before, Hindus were the disenfranchised ones. For much of pre-British period since the advent of Islam in India, Hindus were disenfranchised while Muslims were the "upper class". HIndus had to pay a special tax to the Muslim rulers as "protection" money, so to speak. Muslims are backwards because
1. When the British came to India, they saw themselves gradually replaced by the Europeans. They did not take advantage of modern education brought to India by the British while Hindus did. That's why there were so few Muslims in organisations such as Indian National Congress.
2. Because Muslims were the upper class in India, and Persian/Urdu the official language for all practical purposes, which, by the way, persisted at local level into the post independence era in many parts of India in courts and law enforcement areas. Many poor, uneducated lower caste Hindus converted to Islam as Muslims were the upper class. Urdu, is considered more refined than Hindi evcen among some Hindus. This would be akin to Norman domination pf the English. Some of my older relatives could not read or write Hindi, although they could write Persian and Urdu fluently.
3. There have been 3 Muslim Presidents in India. Dr Zakir Husssein, Dr Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and Abdul Kalam in a span of les than sixty years. The second vice-President of India was a Muslim. You have to be ignorant if you think Muslims hare disenfranchised in India. Azim Premji, the CEO of WIPRO, a software Company is a Musilm and a sucessful Muslim businessman, who was never felt humiliated or discriminated against until he ran into TSA.

Since the Muslims did not take to western education as readily as Hindus did, Hindus had opportunities in businesses and Government that the Muslims did not. Wrong with hand or becoming a Mullah clergy were the only two avenues open to those Muslims who chose not avail of education. Muslims were tailors, weavers, carpenters etc. As the economy modernised, and population, among the poor less educated Muslims grew faster than not just that of Hindus, bu also faster than educated Muslims, they fell further and further behind even among their own community, isolated from the educated, more moderate Muslims. So you see the claim that Muslims have their clergy and themselves to blame for their plight seems far more logical than your hollow claim of disnfranchisement.

This response is not meant to be an exhaustive account of Hindu-Muslim relations. But it should make you think that claims of Muslim disenfranchisement are bogus and if you have fallen for the line that they are oppressed much like the blacks were I have to question your sources.

[Yaatri]

Originally Posted by anaggie

Never heard of Godse...also that is what I meant to say...it has been edited. Thanks.

My patirotism is not misplaced or misguided. I even signed up for service when 9/11 happened. I am extremley loyal to my friends/countrymen and people. If someone hits at them, they hit at me. I will not stand for that.

Sorry if that offends you.

You are Marathi, your wife is from Pune, who "knows" about atrocities committed by Muslims against Hindus all too well and has not heard of Nathuram Godse! You want us to thin you are well informed and your arguments are rational?

[Gandhi90s]

Originally Posted by Yaatri

Instead of responding those parts of your "speech" that I agree with, I decided to respond to those I take exception to.

I will return the favor.

Originally Posted by Yaatri

Your handle is most recognisedly Indian, but I some of your words indicate your knowledge of Indian history and society is rather superficial.

No argument from me there.

Originally Posted by Yaatri

Many Muslims are backward and poor. But the reason for that is not that they are disenfranchised.

The causes for their poverty are irrelevant in this argument. The fact is that they perceive themselves to be disenfranchised today, for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by Yaatri

There have been 3 Muslim Presidents in India. Dr Zakir Husssein, Dr Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and Abdul Kalam in a span of les than sixty years. The second vice-President of India was a Muslim.

Even I know that the Indian Presidency is a purely ceremonial office, much like the British monarchy. However, the fact certainly has symbolic importance.

Originally Posted by Yaatri

You have to be ignorant if you think Muslims hare disenfranchised in India. Azim Premji, the CEO of WIPRO, a software Company is a Musilm and a sucessful Muslim businessman, who was never felt humiliated or discriminated against until he ran into TSA.

You are taking my statements out of context. I said very clearly that educated, cosmopolitan minorities do not suffer discrimination. See here.

Originally Posted by Yaatri

Since the Muslims did not take to western education as readily as Hindus did, Hindus had opportunities in businesses and Government that the Muslims did not. Wrong with hand or becoming a Mullah clergy were the only two avenues open to those Muslims who chose not avail of education. Muslims were tailors, weavers, carpenters etc. As the economy modernised, and population, among the poor less educated Muslims grew faster than not just that of Hindus, bu also faster than educated Muslims, they fell further and further behind even among their own community, isolated from the educated, more moderate Muslims. So you see the claim that Muslims have their clergy and themselves to blame for their plight seems far more logical than your hollow claim of disnfranchisement.

While the history lesson is interesting, I don't see its relevance to the present-day situation. Are you saying that the Muslims deserve to stay poor and backward because "they asked for it?"

Originally Posted by Yaatri

claims of Muslim disenfranchisement are bogus and if you have fallen for the line that they are oppressed much like the blacks were I have to question your sources.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I don't think we are that far apart, except for our interpretations of words such as "oppresssed" and "disenfranchised," where there is certainly room for disagreement. I hope you would agree that the resurgence of militant Hinduism bears a good portion of the blame for the current Hindu-Muslim tensions.

[Yaatri]

Originally Posted by dodo

Question for Yaatri because I know that you grew up in India and are still in touch with people there.
1. What % of the population does speak Hindi and do they do so in the Maharashtra state ( I thought that the lingua franca would be Marathi based on my understanding of the language of the descendants of people from that state in parts of Africa) ? I know that some Indian actress made a big boo-boo on David Letterman's show by saying that Hindi is the official language.

2. Is it common for non-Hindus to speak Hindi in states where Hindi is the Lingua Franca.

Reason I am asking:
a. the e-mail supposedly sent by the Daccan Mujahideen was written in Hindi
b. the Chef who was shot 4 times at the Taj was addressed in Hindi by one of the terrorists.


Thanks for your answer

Our Honorary/self proclaimed Gandhian has given a fairly good response.

1. Hindi was adopted as the official language in the Indian constitution, which, by the way was written in English.
2. English was to continue as a secondary language and also as a de-facto official language for use by the federal Government in communications with the State Governments for a limited period or until the Parliament decide to do away with English. (That isn't going to happen). The States were free to adopt any language for it's internal operation.
3. The Federal Government made efforts to teach Hindi to Federal Civil Servants (The ICS/IAS) but resistance from non-Hindi speaking states, sometimes not non-violent, ensured that Hindi will never be imposed on non-Hindi speaking Indians.
4. Some states adopted a language other than Hindi and English and made it compulsory for kids to learn in schools that came under the State's jurisdiction. Some states bounced back and forth between English and the local language. U.P. the most populous state with the largest Hindi speaking population and one of the poorer states adopted English and made it compulsory from 1st grade in the sixties nut dod and about turn later on.

Urdu and Hindi are not very different. They have the same syntax and rules of grammar, but Urdu relies more heavily on borrowing words from Persian while Hindi, on Sanskrit. You can speak Hindi without Persian origin words, but it would be impossible to speak Urdu if you were to deny its Indianness. My Paksitani friends say I am speaking Urdu when I think I am speaking Hindi. When I make an effort to use more Persian origin words, I am complimented on the refined state of my Urdu. So, if I wrote Hindi using Roman characters you might not be able to distinguish it from Urdu and vice-versa.

Marathi has no chance of ever becoming India's official language, however patriotic anaggie may feel. There are likely more Gujrati speakers in Africa than Marathi. They are quite similar to each other, but not quite as smilar as Hindi and Urdu. As I mentioned before, some of my older relatives could not read or write Hindi, but they could read and write Persian or Urdu very fluently. Even I remember the days when the local POlice in Delhi wrote their reports in Urdu.

I cannot speak for all Muslims but many, even in the non-Hindi speaking south, especially around Hyderabad, speak decent Urdu. If one can speak Urdu, one can definitely understand spoken Hindi and vice-versa. It is safe to say that a large percentage of Muslims can speak Urdu, and by implication Hindi.

[anaggie]

Originally Posted by Yaatri

You are Marathi, your wife is from Pune, who "knows" about atrocities committed by Muslims against Hindus all too well and has not heard of Nathuram Godse! You want us to thin you are well informed and your arguments are rational?

I am sorry, I do not know who he is, but my wife does. I only lived in India(kolkatta and nagpur) till I was 10 yrs old so and have not studied Indian history.

I now know who is and my wife agrees with what Godse did. If not, then maybe India would not be a 3rd world country with the amount Gandhiji gave to them to run the country.

My wife and family agree with Tilaks' thoughts. He would gotten freeedom much earlier than Gandhiji.

[Gandhi90s]

Originally Posted by anaggie

I now know who is and my wife agrees with what Godse did.

Figures. (For those who don't know, Godse was the man who assassinated Gandhi.)

If you and your wife support what he did, I don't really know what to say.

No offense, but you and your family seem to be quite the fanatics.

[Yaatri]

Originally Posted by Gandhi90s

I will return the favor.

Yes, indeed. Please do feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by Gandhi90s

The causes for their poverty are irrelevant in this argument. The fact is that they perceive themselves to be disenfranchised today, for whatever reason.

Why are causes irrelevant? Ok for me to attack you if I feel you are oppressing me? If you don;t understand rthe cases, you can't solve the problem!

Originally Posted by Gandhi90s

Even I know that the Indian Presidency is a purely ceremonial office, much like the British monarchy. However, the fact certainly has symbolic importance.

Yes, it is largely ceremonial, but three smart dedicated Muslims chose to occupy that office. There are some in every cabinet too. Dr Maulana Azad, Prof. Humayun Kabir, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Dr Mohammad Chaagla go back to the earliest cabinets formed by Nehru. It's dishonest to disregard it as "merely ceremonial" and yet claim disenfranchisement. At their own insistence, Muslim Personal law Governs divorces in India among Muslims, Which is another reason for lack of education among Muslims in India. Lack of education, especially among women, is the most fundamental cause of widespread fundamentalism be it among Indian Muslims, Hindus, the Afghanistan, Pakistan, Or among U.S. Christians.

Originally Posted by Gandhi90s

You are taking my statements out of context. I said very clearly that educated, cosmopolitan minorities do not suffer discrimination. See here.

No, I am not. Simply pointing to inconsistencies in your arguments.

Originally Posted by Gandhi90s

While the history lesson is interesting, I don't see its relevance to the present-day situation. Are you saying that the Muslims deserve to stay poor and backward because "they asked for it?"

No charge for the History lesson. My father told me many years ago, but I verified it here on OMNI that trying to educate the willing is fraught with dangers to your health. I am not saying they deserve to stay poor. But that there are reasons why they are poor. What I have described also will answer questions about why there is such a difference between India and Pakistan. Out of one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, very few Indian Muslims have resorted to terrorism. That's because, Indian Muslims are better educated than Muslims in some other parts of the world. It's dishonest for you or their leadership to claim that they are disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement or discontentment due to discrimination, even among ghe educated is more likely.

Originally Posted by Gandhi90s

You have your opinion and I have mine. I don't think we are that far apart, except for our interpretations of words such as "oppresssed" and "disenfranchised," where there is certainly room for disagreement. I hope you would agree that the resurgence of militant Hinduism bears a good portion of the blame for the current Hindu-Muslim tensions.

I am not denying there are Militant Hindus, but they are few in number as there are few Muslim terrorists. Militant Hindus are not as powerful as you might think. BJP would not have lost the last election if miltiant wing of BJP were so powerful. Rise of Hindu Militancy is a consequence, not cause of Islamic terrorism, some rea and some perceived and Sikh terrorism. It cannot be denied that Hindus have been targets of Sikh terrorism in Punjab and Pakistan supported groups in Kashmir. There reasons for Hindu militancy, but I would not condone it. There will always be militants. Godse, who killed Gandhi, NOT Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was a Hindu militant who lived more than sixty years ago, but Hindu militancy did not threaten India then and does not threaten India now like the terrorism has for the last two decades. There aren't just poor Muslims; there are poor Hindus, poor Sikhs and poor Christians too in India; more poor Hindus than poor Muslims. What's your basis for claim that poor people are poor because they are oppressed? With the exception of a few rich people, the whole damn country is poor. Why do you think so many of us came here? To salute to the TSA? I don't get your point.