martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (10/06/86)
From my reading of this news group and from acquaintanceship with many Indians of various ethnic origins including my relatives, I have the impression most Hindus casually equate Indian with Hindu. Further the Government of India has at various times claimed the right to legislate Hindu religious law. Consequently, Sikh discontent is quite understandable. I have met many Sikhs who do reject terrorism, but I have not met any who actually rejects carving a Sikh state out of some portion of India in which Hindus might live, just as Sikhs could still live in the rest of India. India is an artificial creation and has really only been unified in the past under alien conquerers. The Sikhs have had their own states in the past on the Indian subcontinent. The Muslims have already carved their own state out on the Indian subcontinent. Further, most Indians as far as I can tell, give knee-jerk support to carving a Muslim state out of the land of Israel without even the least show of good faith on the part of Muslims even though Muslims have a long history of attacking and oppressing Jews (as well as Hindus and other non-Muslim groups). My knowledge of the history of the subcontinent may be faulty but I do not believe Hindus or any other ethnic group has historical reason to fear the creation of an independent Sikh state, and therefore no demonstration of good faith should really be required except for the cessation of terrorism.
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) (10/06/86)
>India is an artificial creation and has really only been unified in >the past under alien conquerers. >Hindus and other non-Muslim groups). My knowledge of the history of >the subcontinent may be faulty but I do not believe Hindus or any >other ethnic group has historical reason to fear the creation of an >independent Sikh state, and therefore no demonstration of good faith >should really be required except for the cessation of terrorism. The considerable weight of your opinion to the contrary, many of us believe that India has a distinct identity. Opposition to a Sikh nation is not based on fear alone (although that is a significant factor in any geopolitical issue, and one which is ignored only by the naive and the unscrupulous). It is seen by us in the same light that Gandhi saw Partition, and that Lincoln saw secession. I fail to see the relevance of your remarks concerning Israel and Muslims, beyond demonstration of your bias. - raghu
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (10/07/86)
In article <5924@ut-sally.UUCP> raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes: >>India is an artificial creation and has really only been unified in >>the past under alien conquerers. >>Hindus and other non-Muslim groups). My knowledge of the history of >>the subcontinent may be faulty but I do not believe Hindus or any >>other ethnic group has historical reason to fear the creation of an >>independent Sikh state, and therefore no demonstration of good faith >>should really be required except for the cessation of terrorism. >The considerable weight of your opinion to the contrary, many of us >believe that India has a distinct identity. I would say the weight of opinion is on my side. The subcontinent has already been divided into 3 states, and the Sikhs are hardly the only secessionist movement in India itself. Besides what is this Indian identity besides the superficial Anglo-Indian culture created by the British? > Opposition to a Sikh >nation is not based on fear alone (although that is a significant >factor in any geopolitical issue, and one which is ignored only >by the naive and the unscrupulous). It is seen by us in the >same light that Gandhi saw Partition, and that Lincoln saw secession. I would tend to see the breakup of India as perhaps more similar to the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire where the superficial imperial culture was unable to hold together diverse peoples of different culture, religion and language.
ashutosh@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Ashutosh Rege) (10/07/86)
In article <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: > >From my reading of this news group and from acquaintanceship with many >Indians of various ethnic origins including my relatives, I have the >impression most Hindus casually equate Indian with Hindu. Further the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ My impression is that they do not. Most "Hindus" do not tend to look upon themselves as "Hindus" unless it is vis-a-vis some other religion. Usually the concern is more with the state/region/caste/sub-caste/linguistic etc. origins. If your assumption was indeed true and Hindus all over India felt some kind of unity as one people viz. Indians, there would be much more support for communal organisations which propagate the concept of a Hindu state. By the way, India's constitution states explicitly the secular nature of the state and the motto indicates reliance on truth ( Let truth prevail ) rather than trust in a god (of some denomination or other). These may be semantics but at least the formal system seems axiomatically sound. >Government of India has at various times claimed the right to >legislate Hindu religious law. Consequently, Sikh discontent is quite >understandable. I have met many Sikhs who do reject terrorism, but I >have not met any who actually rejects carving a Sikh state out of some >portion of India in which Hindus might live, just as Sikhs could still >live in the rest of India. The state of Punjab has a population which is, I believe, 60-65% Sikh. Thus from ** your ** point of view, it would comprise "a Sikh state .. in which Hindus might live". However there are complications : as far as I know, not only have Hindus & Sikhs lived in amity and peace, but additionally many households have had inter-community marriages. In fact, in several Hindu families , it is customary for one of the sons to adopt Sikhism as his religion. The point is that the current situation in Punjab, as far as I perceive it, is not a black & white affair with Sikhs pitted against Hindus and vice-versa. It is the creation of several factors, not the least of which is the political power struggle between all parties involved. To that end, I take great umbrage at the label of "Sikh terrorism" frequently used by the Western media and others, attached to the acts of a handful of irrational people who happen to subscribe to the outer manifestations of the Sikh religion. > >India is an artificial creation and has really only been unified in >the past under alien conquerers. All nations, it seems, are artificial creations of the species known as homo sapiens. At least, one hopes that nations of diversity serve some kind of model for global cooperation and reducing tensions. After all, wasn't it only recently that a certain madman had managed to hold the world to ransom with his quest for a "pure" race. I need not remind you of the number of people killed in that venture. It is disheartening that inspite of that bitter lesson, nations continue in their search for "homogeneity". > >The Sikhs have had their own states in the past on the Indian >subcontinent. > The first known appearance of man seems to have been in Africa. Following the above precedent, it might perhaps be ** "morally" ** only correct that we, as humans, trace out exactly who has descended directly from the first humans ( as opposed to being a descendant of a later-evolved human ) and give the entire world to them. The rest of us will have to pack our bags. >The Muslims have already carved their own state out on the Indian >subcontinent. > >Further, most Indians as far as I can tell, give knee-jerk support to >carving a Muslim state out of the land of Israel without even the >least show of good faith on the part of Muslims even though Muslims >have a long history of attacking and oppressing Jews (as well as >Hindus and other non-Muslim groups). My knowledge of the history of >the subcontinent may be faulty but I do not believe Hindus or any >other ethnic group has historical reason to fear the creation of an >independent Sikh state, and therefore no demonstration of good faith >should really be required except for the cessation of terrorism. Again by precedent, every human or collection of individuals should be apportioned land on earth as far as they demonstrate "good faith"
sanjay@ut-ngp.UUCP (SSSSSSSS) (10/07/86)
>India is an artificial creation and has really only been unified in >the past under alien conquerers. As you admit below, your knowledge about India's past and its freedom struggle is pitiable at best. You must realize that in the presence of alien power which stayed unwilling to identify with the land and be assimilated into the evolving yet continuing Indian culture, the variegated peoples of the Indian subcontinent *most naturally* coalesced into a single unified political entity to drive the foreign extorters out of their land. This is also the proof of the cultural identity and common heritage of the multitude of ethnic groups that domicile in India. Unity within diversity! India does not claim to have been a single political entity from the beginings of time, although at various times in history more or less of the entire land was under one king (Emporer Ashok, for example). And if you study Indian history, you will find that the struggles between the people and the "outside" rule have lasted until the rulers insisted on staying alienated in their identity and interest. Most rulers before the British, got assimilated into the identity, albeit often imparting their flavor to the local culture. >The Sikhs have had their own states in the past on the Indian >subcontinent. Sikhism was born in India (!) and is part of it. Your approach is so rediculous that if extrapolated, it would imply that every ruler who once ruled any square inch of the land has a right and obligation to claim a separate identity and sovereignty. >The Muslims have already carved their own state out on the Indian >subcontinent. At the displeasure of majority of Indians at the time. That was the reason why, incidentally, Mahatma Gandhi was assasinated - a somber testimony to the anti-partition sentiment. >Further, most Indians as far as I can tell, give knee-jerk support to >carving a Muslim state out of the land of Israel without even the >least show of good faith on the part of Muslims even though Muslims >have a long history of attacking and oppressing Jews (as well as >Hindus and other non-Muslim groups). My knowledge of the history of >the subcontinent may be faulty but I do not believe Hindus or any >other ethnic group has historical reason to fear the creation of an >independent Sikh state, and therefore no demonstration of good faith >should really be required except for the cessation of terrorism. Thank you for giving yourself away - you No-friend-of-India! :-)
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) (10/08/86)
Yakim Martillo: >secessionist movement in India itself. Besides what is this Indian >identity besides the superficial Anglo-Indian culture created by the >British? !! raghu
raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar) (10/08/86)
In article <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: > >From my reading of this news group and from acquaintanceship with many >Indians of various ethnic origins including my relatives, I have the >impression most Hindus casually equate Indian with Hindu. More than 80% of country's population is Hindu. Predominant part of what can be called Indian Culture relates to Hinduism. If somebody equates Indians and Hindus, He is as much right or wrong as if he equates Americans and Whites!!! I think the above mistake is made more by non-Indians than Hindus!!!! > Further the >Government of India has at various times claimed the right to >legislate Hindu religious law. Consequently, Sikh discontent is quite >understandable. If you are implying that Indian state has tried to identify itself with Hinduism without caring for other religions, you are only 'absolutely wrong'. For your information, most of the religion related laws have been enacted because of demands from minority religions! Yes, it is unfortunate that state and religion have been mixed!!! > I have met many Sikhs who do reject terrorism, but I >have not met any who actually rejects carving a Sikh state out of some >portion of India in which Hindus might live, just as Sikhs could still >live in the rest of India. I can introduce you to many many sikhs who think otherwise!! If there is so much flexibility that Hindus can live in Sikh state and Sikhs in India ... Why create a Sikh state? Who is it going to benefit? Probably, some individuals with personal ambitions, and Pakistan's goal of weakening India as a power in the region!! > >India is an artificial creation and has really only been unified in >the past under alien conquerers. > The cultural entity called India has survived longer than any other known group of individuals on this planet!!! And geographically, it has occupied the Indian subcontinent. What is artificial? The political entity called India? If people with same heritage and strong cultural bonds decide to merge into one political entity, what's artificial about it? You will get the right perspective if you know that in ancient India, religious institutions commanded more power than Kings, but in a changed world, if the same people declare themselves into a single political entity, there is nothing artificial about it!!! By your logic, every country in this world is artificial!!! Did God demarcate any countries at the time of creation??? >The Sikhs have had their own states in the past on the Indian >subcontinent. > The purpose of Sikh King was to protect Hinduism from Islam. The purpose of Sikh state was to throw Mugal invaders out of India. They had joined to form the Indian state as had 500 or so other states!! >The Muslims have already carved their own state out on the Indian >subcontinent. Do you know that there are more moslems in India than in Pakistan? And the theory of nation based on religion died with the creation of Bangladesh!! > >Further, most Indians as far as I can tell, give knee-jerk support to >carving a Muslim state out of the land of Israel without even the >least show of good faith on the part of Muslims even though Muslims >have a long history of attacking and oppressing Jews (as well as >Hindus and other non-Muslim groups). My knowledge of the history of >the subcontinent may be faulty but I do not believe Hindus or any >other ethnic group has historical reason to fear the creation of an >independent Sikh state, and therefore no demonstration of good faith >should really be required except for the cessation of terrorism. Hindus and Sikhs are two different shades of same cultural heritage and they have and they will and they will have to live together even if there happens to be a hypothetical situation of different political entities!!! Once one realizes this, the point of having two political entities is lost even to the reasoning sikhs! Isn't Europe trying to gather under the umbrella of EC for the common gain of everyone!!! The main problem is that, historically religion has been prime consideration for an individual and not the state. Where as most leaders and reasoning people saw the great advantages of having one state for all the people of Indian heritage, some are still clinging to the notion of superiority for religion. I am tired of typing and don't have much time also now!!!!! One can talk about these things for ever............. So, bye now.
murali@cvl.UUCP (Muralidhara Subbarao) (10/08/86)
In article <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: > >I have met many Sikhs who do reject terrorism, but I >have not met any who actually rejects carving a Sikh state out of some >portion of India in which Hindus might live, just as Sikhs could still >live in the rest of India. > Mr. Martillo, clearly you reject terrorism, but would you reject carving a YakimMartillo state out of some portion of USA, say the territory around your house with area equal to Area of USA --------------- ???? Population of USA And of course others might use your territory just as you could use the rest of USA for say to watch football or to go shopping. murali.
reddy@ctnews.UUCP (T.S.Reddy) (10/08/86)
In article <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>, martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) writes: > > From my reading of this news group and from acquaintanceship with many > Indians of various ethnic origins including my relatives, I have the > impression most Hindus casually equate Indian with Hindu. By the same token, wouldn't you casually equate the U.S. as white anglo-saxon?. The majority of Americans are, after all, from that denomination. Does this make you throw your hands up in the air in despondency? > Further the Government of India has at various times claimed the right to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > legislate Hindu religious law. This point is so vague that I will not even try and refute it. > India is an artificial creation and has really only been unified in > the past under alien conquerers. Independence was obtained by people from all over India (Gandhi, Nehru, Tilak, Bose, Bhagat Singh, Azad to name a few) who believed in the concept of a secular united country. The country came together not under the power of the gun as in so many instances, but under a set of ideals. History has shown that the only people who have benefited from a divided India have been aliens. > > The Sikhs have had their own states in the past on the Indian > subcontinent. So have the Scots in Great Britain, Tibetans in China, Palestinians in Israel ..... > Further, most Indians as far as I can tell, give knee-jerk support to > carving a Muslim state out of the land of Israel without even the > least show of good faith on the part of Muslims Let's get this straight. The state of Israel was carved out from what was originally known as Palestine. It is not a Muslim state, but a home for the Palestinians that India supports. > do not believe Hindus or any other ethnic group has historical reason > to fear the creation of an independent Sikh state, and therefore no > demonstration of good faith should really be required except for the > cessation of terrorism. No State, least of all a modern one, has sustained or will sustain itself by maintaining any sort of status quo. Only those which allow freedom for it's citizens, free speech and in which there is a constant self-appraisal will survive. Pick up any Indian newspaper and you will notice just this sort of dynamism. Things may not be perfect but nothing is being swept under the rug. I have used some of the examples above just to point out the fallacy inherent in Yakim's argument and if I have offended anybody, I apologize sincerely.
mwg@petrus.UUCP (Mark Garrett) (10/08/86)
++ Yakim Martillo writes: > >Besides what is this Indian > >identity besides the superficial Anglo-Indian culture created by the > >British? It's clear that this guy's education on India consists of having seen several episodes of "Mountbatten"; but he missed "Gandhi." ::: )) ::: )) ----------- )) ::: )) ::: )) (big smily...sorry, was that cruel?)
nkg1@ihlpg.UUCP (Neeraj K. Gupta) (10/08/86)
> In article <5924@ut-sally.UUCP> raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes: > >>India is an artificial creation and has really only been unified in > >>the past under alien conquerers. > > >>Hindus and other non-Muslim groups). My knowledge of the history of > >>the subcontinent may be faulty but I do not believe Hindus or any > >>other ethnic group has historical reason to fear the creation of an > >>independent Sikh state, and therefore no demonstration of good faith > >>should really be required except for the cessation of terrorism. > > >The considerable weight of your opinion to the contrary, many of us > >believe that India has a distinct identity. > > I would say the weight of opinion is on my side. The subcontinent has > already been divided into 3 states, and the Sikhs are hardly the only ~~~~~~~~~~~~ It was basically two states. But that is besides the point. The very fact Pakistan was further divided into two parts, shows that religion itself is not the glue that binds people. And the mideast with all its factions and groups belonging to the same religion and community are fighting amongst themselves instead of THEIR common enemy. So the point is the driving force is not proximity to religion or any other common socio-religious aspect, but the motive of controlling power. The common man is merely used as a pawn by creating ideas of artificial identities within groups that can be exploited. > secessionist movement in India itself. Besides what is this Indian ~~~~~~~~~~~ The identity of the subcontinent being a common identity has its roots as far back as 3000 bc, the identity of BHARAT, the identity of ARYA_VRATA. The diversity is that of any group of people evolving a unique entity as does each individual. The unity is in the commonality of many different cultural aspects, religeous aspects, scattered throghout out BHARAT, though outwardly seen as different, are in essence similar. > identity besides the superficial Anglo-Indian culture created by the > British? Even before British, India was united by one ruler many times-Ashoka, Chandragupta Maurya, Akbar. The fact is inspite of Britishers trying their best to destroy that cultural identity, they failed. It showas itself in our music, dances and other forms of arts and culture. We borrowed from British, what was considered to be good, as has happened before during Muslims comming to India. The fusion of Muslim art and architecture with Hindu art and architecture created a unqiue form not seen any where else in the World. TajMahal being just one of the best known examples. My argument is, if their was antagonism amongst common Hindu Muslim people, then one of the two things should have happened: 1) Over the thousand years of stay of Muslims in India, "those antagonism or fights, should have either killed all the Muslims, who were very small in number. OR 2) All the Hindus should have been converted to Muslims, as happened in Indonesia. None of the two happened. The only wars were between kings trying to expand their personal territory. These wars were fought amongst Muslims, Hindus and with each other ,but only by kings. At times it created Hindu and Muslims as allies against another Muslim king etc. etc. Almost all Mughal Kings after Humayun killed their brothers to assume power. > > > Opposition to a Sikh > >nation is not based on fear alone (although that is a significant > >factor in any geopolitical issue, and one which is ignored only > >by the naive and the unscrupulous). It is seen by us in the > >same light that Gandhi saw Partition, and that Lincoln saw secession. > > I would tend to see the breakup of India as perhaps more similar to ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ wishfull thinking. > the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire where the superficial imperial > culture was unable to hold together diverse peoples of different > culture, religion and language. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ China had its share of smaller kingdoms in the past. AND what about USA, so many diverse groups with different culture religion and language? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
ams@briar.UUCP (Ali Shaik) (10/08/86)
In article <1236@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>, martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) writes: > > I would tend to see the breakup of India as perhaps more similar to > the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire where the superficial imperial > culture was unable to hold together diverse peoples of different > culture, religion and language. India is a secular democracy in which people of different backgrounds coexist rather well, thank you. They do have their problems, and the country has the pressures of economic development. I don't see any reasons for your gross generalizations and scenarios of doom like the above, however. Ali Shaik ihnp4!philabs!ams
venu@umcp-cs.UUCP (Venugopala R. Dasigi) (10/08/86)
In article <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: > >From my reading of this news group and from acquaintanceship with many >Indians of various ethnic origins including my relatives, I have the >impression most Hindus casually equate Indian with Hindu. Further the >Government of India has at various times claimed the right to >legislate Hindu religious law. Consequently, Sikh discontent is quite >understandable. I have met many Sikhs who do reject terrorism, but I >have not met any who actually rejects carving a Sikh state out of some >portion of India in which Hindus might live, just as Sikhs could still >live in the rest of India. > >India is an artificial creation and has really only been unified in >the past under alien conquerers. I think the terms Indian and Hindu are equated in the same sense as (rather, in my opinion, to a lesser degree than) the terms Indian and Hindi (the language) are equated. Hindi is the national language, but to my knowledge there is no national religion! I would like to see specific instances where Indian government has not treated all religions equally. There are many people in India whose mother tongue is not Hindi, and I don't think they are all interested in independent states of their own. I find the last statement in the quoted part too gross. What unifies India is its culture, which transcends the diversities in language and religion. The culture has not been brought into India by any aliens. --- Venu -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Venugopala Rao Dasigi UUCP : {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!venu CSNet : venu@umcp-cs ARPA : venu@mimsy.umd.edu US Mail: Dept. of CS, Univ. of Maryland, College Park MD 20742.
raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar) (10/08/86)
In article <1236@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: >secessionist movement in India itself. Besides what is this Indian >identity besides the superficial Anglo-Indian culture created by the >British? Look at the world again. You seem to have missed something. Shouldn't pass judgements on things you hardly know about!!!!! >
venu@umcp-cs.UUCP (Venugopala R. Dasigi) (10/08/86)
In article <1236@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: >Besides what is this Indian >identity besides the superficial Anglo-Indian culture created by the ^^^^^^ >British? Even if one takes the above rhetoric question at face value, I believe that if something is "Anglo-Indian," it must atleast be partly Indian. --- Venu -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Venugopala Rao Dasigi UUCP : {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!venu CSNet : venu@umcp-cs ARPA : venu@mimsy.umd.edu US Mail: Dept. of CS, Univ. of Maryland, College Park MD 20742.
ramesh@oliveb.UUCP (Ramesh Dimbum) (10/08/86)
In article <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: > >From my reading of this news group and from acquaintanceship with many >Indians of various ethnic origins including my relatives, I have the >impression most Hindus casually equate Indian with Hindu. Further the >Government of India has at various times claimed the right to > >Hindus and other non-Muslim groups). My knowledge of the history of >the subcontinent may be faulty but I do not believe Hindus or any ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is not 'may be faulty' --> it is faulty. I think you should read Indian History and make a thorough investigation before you write any more articles like this one because you made sweeping statement by talking to a couple of YOUR friends and couple of YOUR FRIENDS do not represent 700 MILLION people IN INDIA and about 500 thousand here in the U.S.A. Ramesh. ** It is much EASIER TO SUGGEST SOLUTIONS WHEN YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE PROBLEM!!!! **
debray@megaron.UUCP (10/08/86)
Martillo: > From my reading of this news group and from acquaintanceship with many > Indians of various ethnic origins including my relatives, I have the > impression most Hindus casually equate Indian with Hindu. You're mistaken. Maybe you've been hanging out with the wrong people?! > Further the Government of India has at various times claimed the right > to legislate Hindu religious law. Presumably, you're referring to things like the effort to ban cow slaughter. Yes, the amendment was proposed, and no, it didn't go through. What of it? There's been legislation in the USA to make the value of pi be 3! Point, if you can, to laws that force non-Hindus in India to follow Hindu religious laws. > The Muslims have already carved their own state out on the Indian > subcontinent. Ah! The path to peace and harmony ... give everyone their own state. Hey, I'm considering founding this religion that has these really interesting rituals involving large quantities of grass and pretty sixteen year old virgins ... can I have my own state too? > Further, most Indians as far as I can tell, give knee-jerk support to > carving a Muslim state out of the land of Israel ... My impression is that the official pro-Arab policy of India at the UN (which I, personally, don't think is right) comes from the near-monopoly the Arabs enjoyed (in the 70's, at least) on oil. It's also my impression that Indians, as individuals, have no quarrel with the Jews. So what's your point? > I do not believe Hindus or any other ethnic group has historical > reason to fear the creation of an independent Sikh state ... My understanding is that most Indians (including me) who oppose the creation of an independent Sikh nation (as opposed to a Sikh state within India) do so not because they fear the notion of a Sikh nation, but because they think that such a move could lead, eventually, to the disintegration of India. And this is true not only of the Sikhs, but also of the Nagas and the Mizos (who've been fighting for independence quite a bit longer than the Sikhs, by the by). --- Saumya Debray University of Arizona, Tucson debray@arizona.edu {allegra, cmcl2, ihnp4, ucbvax}!arizona!debray
dilip@milano.UUCP (10/09/86)
In article <3735@umcp-cs.UUCP>, raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar) writes: > > If you are implying that Indian state has tried to identify itself with > Hinduism without caring for other religions, you are only 'absolutely wrong'. > For your information, most of the religion related laws have been enacted > because of demands from minority religions! Yes, it is unfortunate that state ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think this gets at the crux of the increasing spectre of separatism India faces today. In an effort to be evenhanded and fair, I think we have gone overboard on the other extreme. Separatist leaders from the smaller religions are encouraged to press their demands, because the Government has shown it wastes little time in accomodating such demands shortsightedly. Would these demands have been met had they been made by the Hindus? Are we bending over backwards in the name of secularism? Does secularism mean we must treat minority religions specially or that we must treat all religions fairly and equally? regards, dilip. -- Dilip D'Souza MCC Software Technology, Austin. dilip@mcc.COM or [seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid]!ut-sally!im4u!milano!dilip (512) 834-3491
rege@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Ashutosh Rege) (10/09/86)
Apropos the recent debate spurred by Mr. Martillo's comments, may I add my two bits worth? First of all, I fail to see what Mr. Martillo is driving at. Granted the world of fantasy and idealism, why is it so difficult to keep in mind the world of real-politik. Mere ranting and raving is not going to make valid theses. Does Mr. Martillo suggest that the Indian Govt. should accede to the demands of the separatist movements. If so, what cogent reasons are there for the Govt. to do so ? It certainly will not act on Mr. Martillo's behest. Does Mr. Martillo object to the Indian Govts. support of the Palestinian movement ? From the Indian Govts.' point of view there is very little utility in doing otherwise. India needs the Arab oil and the political parties need the Muslim vote. If there was a powerful Jewish lobby in India as in this country, the govt. would have supported Israel. This is what ALL govts. do. Surely Mr. Martillo is not so naive to be ignorant of that. Finally, from a strictly utility-theoretic point of view, it is does not make much sense for the majority of Indians to support seccessionist movements, since they do not (most of the time) lead to any improvement in their standard of living/distibution of wealth/decentralisation of power etc. To that end, I think it would be highly improbable that there would be any split in India as a geo-political entity, inspite of the good wishes of certain people. Most Indians, I am sure are aware of the considerable freedom they enjoy vis-a-vis several neighbouring and other states. P.S. I am assuming that Yakim Martillo is male. No sexism intended,if otherwise
badri@ur-valhalla.UUCP (Badri Lokanathan) (10/09/86)
In article <3735@umcp-cs.UUCP> raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar) writes: >The cultural entity called India has survived longer than any other known >group of individuals on this planet!! This statement is logically incorrect. How can a culture survive longer than a group of individuals? After all, isn't a culture formed by a group of individuals? >The purpose of Sikh King was to protect Hinduism from Islam. The purpose >of Sikh state was to throw Mugal invaders out of India. They had joined to >form the Indian state as had 500 or so other states!! > Incorrect. Are you trying to say that the Sikh King was either elected or asked to protect hinduism? Wrong. Rulers like Ranjit Singh were initially rulers of small territories which they expanded by means of capturing territory from the other rulers of that time, the mughals (as did several other princes, Shivaji for instance.) This talk of Sikh rulers protecting hinduism is poppycock. > >The main problem is that, historically religion has been prime consideration >for an individual and not the state. Where as most leaders and reasoning >people saw the great advantages of having one state for all the people of >Indian heritage, some are still clinging to the notion of superiority for >religion. > Are you talking about India or the world in general? Surely historical evidence does not support your claim. In India, during the Independence movement, the call for independence centered around the creation of "Hindustan" (though eventually "Bharat" was chosen.) Religion, to this day, has been invoked by leaders whenever unification of forces is required. It always strikes the right chord in people, who then are willing to "die for the cause" - Jihad, for instance. This is exactly what different leaders of the middle east are trying - e.g. the Islamic bomb. Why, even President Reagan frequently invokes christianity in his messages. Why should the minorities of the US have to tolerate cliches like christian faith/charity/blah? christianity => good? -- "We will fight for the right to be free | ARPA: ur-valhalla!badri@rochester.arpa We will build our own society | UUCP: {cmcl2,columbia,cornell,harvard, We will - we will sing | ll-xn,nike,seismo,topaz} We will sing our own song." -UB40 | !rochester!ur-valhalla!badri
raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar) (10/10/86)
In article <821@ur-valhalla.UUCP> badri@valhalla.UUCP (Badri Lokanathan) writes: >In article <3735@umcp-cs.UUCP> raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar) writes: >>The cultural entity called India has survived longer than any other known >>group of individuals on this planet!! > >This statement is logically incorrect. How can a culture survive longer >than a group of individuals? After all, isn't a culture formed >by a group of individuals? You seem to believe in hair splitting and stretching statements to their extremes for their possible meanings without caring for context etc. Anyways, I said 'cultural entity' and not culture. Cultural entities have to include 'individuals'!! Also, what is culture minus individuals? I don't know. > >>The purpose of Sikh King was to protect Hinduism from Islam. The purpose >>of Sikh state was to throw Mugal invaders out of India. They had joined to >>form the Indian state as had 500 or so other states!! >> >Incorrect. Are you trying to say that the Sikh King was either elected >or asked to protect hinduism? Wrong. Rulers like Ranjit Singh were >initially rulers of small territories which they expanded by means of >capturing territory from the other rulers of that time, the mughals >(as did several other princes, Shivaji for instance.) >This talk of Sikh rulers protecting hinduism is poppycock. What about Guru Teg Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh? >> >>The main problem is that, historically religion has been prime consideration >>for an individual and not the state. Where as most leaders and reasoning >>people saw the great advantages of having one state for all the people of >>Indian heritage, some are still clinging to the notion of superiority for >>religion. >> >Are you talking about India or the world in general? Surely >historical evidence does not support your claim. >In India, during the Independence movement, the call for independence >centered around the creation of "Hindustan" (though eventually >"Bharat" was chosen.) >Religion, to this day, has been invoked by leaders whenever unification of >forces is required. It always strikes the right chord in people, who >then are willing to "die for the cause" - Jihad, for instance. >This is exactly what different leaders of the middle east are trying >- e.g. the Islamic bomb. Why, even President Reagan frequently invokes >christianity in his messages. Why should the minorities of the US have >to tolerate cliches like >christian faith/charity/blah? christianity => good? >-- You got the point right but I don't know what you are objecting to!! All I am saying is that in case there is a clash between the interests of ones religion and those of India, it is in the interest of the country that the latter prevail. But if the religion takes superiority, we'll have another middle-east on Indian subcontinent. Should one forget about religion? NO. Its a personal matter and everybody should have freedom to find his God, the way he thinks appropriate, without imposing his views on others.