Nation within nation ........Daily Pioneer

mar 6th, 2007

mohammedans are a different nation. so let's use goradia's solution for them: create a homeland for all of them in the desert :-)

they can eat sand, commune with camels, and live happily ever after.

not! shia will kill sunni. both will kill ahmadiyas. all three of them will kill everybody else.

as for the second article, it's not funny to associate poor buddhism with these vicious semitic marxists. nobody should pun on that bengal CM's unfortunate name.

btw, if anything is opposed by romila thapar, amartya sen, jean dreze et al, it is ipso facto a good thing for the country :-)

and i just simply *love* this: west bengal mohammedans are migrating to (drum roll...) BANGLADESH in search of employment! yes, bangladesh, the employment mecca that will soon be neck-deep in sea water with global warming.

it's amazing how people ignore the obvious. how much do you want to bet that the mohammedans are migrating to bangladesh in search of ISI training and funds to come back and set up 'kashmiri emporia' in india?

{POSTING THE ENTIRE ARTICLE(S) UNDER FAIR USE PROVISIONS OF US COPYRIGHT LAW SECTION 107, BECAUSE THE URLS ARE SHORT-LIVED AND NOT PERMANENT}

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yash

http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=OPED&file_name=opd2%2Etxt&counter_img=2

Nation within nation - Prafull Goradia

Muslims swear by the Constitution and defend its sanctity, but when it comes to Article 44 they repudiate it, says West Bengal Marxist Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has announced ( The Pioneer, February 22) the "most favoured language" status for Urdu. Muslims pride themselves for this rich language which has mostly Arabic and Persian nouns, adjectives and adverbs. It also has Turkish words; for example, the word Urdu itself means lashkar or army in Turkish. The verbs are Hindi. Urdu is loved by Muslims, little matter whether some of them speak it or not. In Kochi, I have often made the eyes of my Moplah clients light up by speaking in Urdu. No matter that most of what I said they did not understand and I had to repeat in English. In Ahmedabad and Baroda, my Muslim friends prefer me to speak in Urdu although their replies would be in poor Hindi. In 1948, Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah had told students in Dhaka that Urdu embodied the best that was in Islamic culture and Muslim tradition.

Even if we buried pre-Partition history and confined ourselves to the last 55 years, we would come to the conclusion that the Sunni Muslims are a separate people. The Shias are different. If we happen to be watching an India-Pakistan cricket match, the Muslim, who is reserved when a Pakistani scores a boundary, is a Shia. He is for India. The Sunni, on the other hand, can delight in a Pakistani victory.

Pakistan does not treat its Shias well. Some ulema have proposed that they be declared non-Muslim a la the Ahmediyas. The Shia is not really a part of the world ummah; the Caliph was neither his temporal nor his spiritual head. His only extra territorial favourite is Iran. He did not participate in the protests against Saddam Hussein's execution. None of the bomb blasts ranging from Parliament House to the temples of Raghunath, Akshardham or Kashi Vishwanath had a Shia participant. In Jammu & Kashmir, the Shias of Baltistan and Gilgit have been loyal to India and have certainly not been separatists.

Coming back to the Sunnis being a separate people, a simple welfare measure like the anti-polio vaccine aroused their boycott. Almost, as if they do not mind their children being exposed to that heinous disease. So long as the community takes no chances whatsoever with reproduction.

The community's obsession with multiplying prolifically stems from Prophet Mohammed's exhortation to establish a Muslim majority across the world by qayamat. The only contraception permitted is coitus interruptus if child birth is against the woman's health. No one can be a celibate except by ulema's permission and on condition of getting himself castrated. Even holy men are exhorted to lead an active married life till as long as possible. There is no such thing as sanyas or even vanaprastha in Islam. Little wonder Muslims have consistently stayed away from the desperate national need to control population.

The Muslim would bow to any of his superiors. The sultani and nawabi palaces overflowed with servile courtiers. Dargahs are a sight to be seen of how Muslim devotees bend and bow. Yet, when it comes to merely singing, not bending, Vande Mataram, they refuse. To assert their separatism?

Somewhat similarly, Muslims are against the excavation of pre-Islamic relics. From 1959, the Muslims of Siddhpur in Gujarat were pressing the Archaeological Survey (ASI) to lay a garden around the Rudramahalaya complex, which had been turned into a Jami Masjid. When eventually in 1979, the ASI began digging the area, out came Shiv, Parvati and Nandi statues. The leaders were embarrassed and they proceeded to use their good offices with the National Minorities Commission to have the work stopped and the statues reburied. All the details have been given in the Commission's fourth annual report 1983. A civilisation should be proud and not ashamed of its rich heritage. However, when it consists of two nations instead of one, this kind of retrograde activities take place.

Muslims swear by the Constitution and defend its sanctity at the drop of a hat. When, however, it comes to Article 44 they all duck and dodge. They oppose the introduction of a uniform civil code. One nation should have one law but it is pleaded that shari'ah emerges from the Quran and, therefore, must be obeyed by all Muslims.

The same momin nonchalantly opposes shari'ah when it comes to criminal law. A thief does not offer his hand for being cut off. The shari'ah is open for amendment in countries like Indonesia and even Pakistan. In Tunisia, polygamy was abolished half a century ago, while in Malaysia a husband cannot take a second wife until the first one swears an affidavit of no objection.

It is not that a uniform code is not practicable. That has been amply demonstrated by the State of Goa which has only one code happily inherited from the Portuguese. The fact that the rest of India has not adopted it only indicates that there are two nations within it. How else can one explain the institution of haj subsidy? No member of any other religion is paid a rupee to go on pilgrimage and become holier than he is?

Had there been one nation, the Prime Minister would not have to proclaim "Muslims first" from his housetop. The Planning Commission would not be asked to give priority to Muslims, nor would all the Ministries be asked to spend at least 15 per cent of their budget on the community.

Despite being treated as favourites, a number of Muslim organisations carried out demonstrations against the visit of US President George W Bush last year. They knew that in the Hindu ethos a guest is equated with god. In Muslim culture also, there is a distinction between mehman and mezban. Yet, the national guest was insulted. In a single nation, this would not have happened.

It is uncanny that communal riots are invariably between Hindus and Muslims. There has never been a Hindu Christian riot. The Christians have never claimed to be a separate nation. There is something not only separate but special about the Muslims. Otherwise, why should they be at loggerheads also with the Christians across the world? Why should Phillipines suffer from separatism or Buddhist Thailand face secession or Chinese Xinjiang be turbulent?

Including the Jews, five civilisations are arraigned against one. One answer to this global phenomenon is the establishment of an Islamistan in the thinly populated, petro-rich, holy sub-continent of Arabia where all the Muslims of separate nations within the dar-ul harbs can gather, settle and live happily ever after. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=OPED&file_name=opd3%2Etxt&counter_img=3 Buddhism angers Muslims - Editorial   Religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, more so in a parliamentary system where each vote is valuable. Lenin had called Parliament a pigsty. But in a bourgeois democratic system, the pigsty is a temple even the Communists cannot avoid. Muslim community forms a sizable section of the voting population. The Government's attempt to acquire agricultural land for the purpose of industrialisation is an ominous sign to the cultivators. Most of them being Muslim, the threat perception naturally boils down to a religious sentiment. The damage has been done at Nandigram. Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee is acting as a crisis manager. Marxists are known as atheists. Instead of wooing religious groups, they are supposed to generate social awareness that would culminate into mass movement. It is assumed that they keep pandits and maulanas at bay. But, of late, a sense of pragmatism has got the better of them and they are now bent on wining over religious leaders. The spree of industrialisation is a danger signal to most Muslims. The land owning class in the country has mostly been the Hindu gentry while the farmers were mainly Muslim. The acquiring of land by the State Government, Muslim organisation Jama'at-Ulema-i-Hind thinks, will jeopardise farmers' interests. The Jama'at is, therefore, in the forefront to raise their voice and organise massive protest meetings in the affected districts of West Bengal. The Sachar committee report highlighting the plight of the minority community in West Bengal has aggravated the problem. The Marxist leadership is seeing red especially in view of the impending panchayat election. Out of the State's total population, 27 per cent is Muslim. They may decidedly swing the voting pattern to endanger Communists' chances of victory. The Chief Minister first discovered a communal conspiracy behind the protests led by the Jama'at. Then it was pointed out to him that the Jama'at was all through secular in character. So much so, during Partition, this organisation was opposed to the two-nation theory. It was basically a cultural organisation that has recently got drawn into the political vortex. It was then that Mr Bhattacharjee backtracked and remarked that he did not dub the Jama'at communal. But he still holds that there is a communal undercurrent that may disturb the social tranquillity of the State. That the CPI(M) leadership in Bengal is perturbed is evident from the fact that they are pampering another Muslim organisation Jama'at-ul-Bangla which is basically a byproduct of Furfura Sharif that is totally religious in character. It was almost a non-entity that has suddenly come into the limelight. They organised a seminar which was addressed by the Chief Minister and the chairman of the Left Front. Interestingly, two prominent Muslim Marxist leaders distanced themselves from the meeting. Land and Land Revenue Minister Rejjak Mollah has observed that the backwardness of West Bengal's Muslims is a social issue. Only a socio-political transformation can cure the ill. Speaker of West Bengal Assembly Hasim Abdul Halim has echoed the same sentiment. If religious institutions could resolve the problems of social backwardness, we would have no problems. In the past, the CPI(M) never adopted such tactics. One doubts if it can come out of this morass. The Sachar committee has pointed out that insofar as Muslim employment is concerned, Narendra Modi's Gujarat is much ahead of West Bengal. It is not enough to say that there is no communal riot in West Bengal. Communists can take credit only partly; the reason for communal harmony lies in the 19th century social reform movement. It is a shame that educated middle class Muslim boys are moving in hordes to Bangladesh in search of employment. The CPI(M) leadership in Bengal has failed to understand the dialectics. The much-vaunted industrialisation is alienating them from their traditional support base. Prominent figures like Romila Thapar, Sumit Sarkar, Jean Dreze, etc, have come down heavily against the modus operandi of West Bengal Government in acquiring land. The Left is today a house divided. The CPI, Forward Bloc and RCPI leaders are turning more and more vociferously against the policies of the Chief Minister. Veteran Forward Bloc leader Ashok Ghosh has observed that the pattern of industrialisation pursued by Left Front Government is nothing but surrender to US imperialism. If need arises, they have to think of forming a new front.

---