DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**lopezsokero** · 02-24-2011, 11:56 PM

Kind of. Although you're leaving out Operation Blue Star and a bunch of antecedents to Indira's assassination . I also wouldn't describe Hindus as hosts and Muslims as guests. I mean, Muslims have been on the subcontinent far longer than those of European descent have been in what is now the United States. I don't think it's proper to label a large group of people into millennial second-class status. But, by broad strokes I'd agree. Most separatism in India is political or ethnic and not religious.

Of course, you should also take into account that the Babri mosque itself was built using ruins of an older Hindu temple at the same site. It is like the Moors taking over Spanish churches and turning them into mosques, except that in the case of Hindu "idolators" the place of worship is desecrated first and torn down, and then the stones used to build a victor's place of worship. And not just any temple, but one that the locals believe to be the birthplace of one of their most beloved deities. Archeological Survey of India has found ruins and older temple foundations at the site, so it's not just hearsay either as some Indian (Marxist or Christian-led) news media always report.

Actually, the biggest separatism in India happened on religious grounds. There would not be a Pakistan and Bangladesh today had the moderates among the Muslim elite back in 1930s raised their voices against the few who insisted on having a separate "land of the pure" (that's what "Pakistan" translates to).

Apparently, the Muslim elite figured they could not see themselves being led by Hindus over whom they held dominion for close to 1000 years... even if the Hindus (Congress Party) went so far as to guarantee a secular constitution where everyone would be equal (in India today, Muslims and all other religions are more than equal as they don't have to follow one civic code, they have their own faith-based family and personal laws).

Even today, the fight over Kashmir is not an ethnic fight. It is most certainly a religion-driven fight. On both sides, in fact. India insists that its secular democracy guarantees Kashmiris freedom to worship and equal rights. In fact, more than equal rights, for no other Indians can buy property in Kashmir, for example... even though the Islamic armed insurgency has cleansed the Valley of pretty much all the Hindus and Sikhs...numbering close to 1 million. Funny how nobody mentions these facts.

In the Northeast of India, some ethnic conflicts have taken on religious tinge. The mass proselytized (and recent) Christians now forbid Goddess worship in Tripura, for example. And Hindus have been attacked and killed for merely being Hindus.

As for Operation Blue Star, that was after a long seige and a lot of political talking-to to the Sikh separatists who had taken over the Golden Temple. It could be translated to what happened to Branch Davidians in Waco. Did the U.S. not send in armed force to evict the goons? At some point, separatism in India will not be tolerated... and in recent times, that point has been raised to a significant degree, and truly the world has taken note of the restraint shown by India... even as the Indian Parliament was attacked, the very seat of government, back in 2002 (IIRC) by Pakistani terrorists.

As it happens, the Sikh separatists were being armed and egged on by Pakistani ISI secret service agents all along.

It's not as if Sikhs are being continually victimized in India. Heck, they demanded their own state and got one when the broke up a bigger state, just so the Sikhs can maintain their majority.

And Muslims were guests at one point. Muslim traders made it to southern coast of India first as businesmen. They got there before the invasions in the Northwest, even. And the first Muslim rulers of northern India certainly didn't consider themselves local... they even tried to rule from Kabul and Bukhara and points north. Only reluctantly did they made home in Delhi... and of course, subjugated as many locals as possible. The narrative of Sikhism itself wouldn't have formed were it not for trying to "evict" the Muslims. Sure, all that is water over the bridge. We are talking about 1000 years, afterall. But my point is that many Muslims themselves, even now, think of their community as separate from the Indian mainstream. And their elite, even as little as 60 years ago, had no problem fighting for a division of India on religious grounds. How can that be tolerated anywhere... and of course, it hasn't been to my knowledge. Perhaps East Timor, where the Christian converts insisted on separating off from Indonesia, but what a small scale that is versus the mass exodus of people in 1947 in South Asia...

02-24-2011, 11:56 PM	#9
lopezsokero Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 466 Senior Member	Kind of. Although you're leaving out Operation Blue Star and a bunch of antecedents to Indira's assassination . I also wouldn't describe Hindus as hosts and Muslims as guests. I mean, Muslims have been on the subcontinent far longer than those of European descent have been in what is now the United States. I don't think it's proper to label a large group of people into millennial second-class status. But, by broad strokes I'd agree. Most separatism in India is political or ethnic and not religious. Of course, you should also take into account that the Babri mosque itself was built using ruins of an older Hindu temple at the same site. It is like the Moors taking over Spanish churches and turning them into mosques, except that in the case of Hindu "idolators" the place of worship is desecrated first and torn down, and then the stones used to build a victor's place of worship. And not just any temple, but one that the locals believe to be the birthplace of one of their most beloved deities. Archeological Survey of India has found ruins and older temple foundations at the site, so it's not just hearsay either as some Indian (Marxist or Christian-led) news media always report. Actually, the biggest separatism in India happened on religious grounds. There would not be a Pakistan and Bangladesh today had the moderates among the Muslim elite back in 1930s raised their voices against the few who insisted on having a separate "land of the pure" (that's what "Pakistan" translates to). Apparently, the Muslim elite figured they could not see themselves being led by Hindus over whom they held dominion for close to 1000 years... even if the Hindus (Congress Party) went so far as to guarantee a secular constitution where everyone would be equal (in India today, Muslims and all other religions are more than equal as they don't have to follow one civic code, they have their own faith-based family and personal laws). Even today, the fight over Kashmir is not an ethnic fight. It is most certainly a religion-driven fight. On both sides, in fact. India insists that its secular democracy guarantees Kashmiris freedom to worship and equal rights. In fact, more than equal rights, for no other Indians can buy property in Kashmir, for example... even though the Islamic armed insurgency has cleansed the Valley of pretty much all the Hindus and Sikhs...numbering close to 1 million. Funny how nobody mentions these facts. In the Northeast of India, some ethnic conflicts have taken on religious tinge. The mass proselytized (and recent) Christians now forbid Goddess worship in Tripura, for example. And Hindus have been attacked and killed for merely being Hindus. As for Operation Blue Star, that was after a long seige and a lot of political talking-to to the Sikh separatists who had taken over the Golden Temple. It could be translated to what happened to Branch Davidians in Waco. Did the U.S. not send in armed force to evict the goons? At some point, separatism in India will not be tolerated... and in recent times, that point has been raised to a significant degree, and truly the world has taken note of the restraint shown by India... even as the Indian Parliament was attacked, the very seat of government, back in 2002 (IIRC) by Pakistani terrorists. As it happens, the Sikh separatists were being armed and egged on by Pakistani ISI secret service agents all along. It's not as if Sikhs are being continually victimized in India. Heck, they demanded their own state and got one when the broke up a bigger state, just so the Sikhs can maintain their majority. And Muslims were guests at one point. Muslim traders made it to southern coast of India first as businesmen. They got there before the invasions in the Northwest, even. And the first Muslim rulers of northern India certainly didn't consider themselves local... they even tried to rule from Kabul and Bukhara and points north. Only reluctantly did they made home in Delhi... and of course, subjugated as many locals as possible. The narrative of Sikhism itself wouldn't have formed were it not for trying to "evict" the Muslims. Sure, all that is water over the bridge. We are talking about 1000 years, afterall. But my point is that many Muslims themselves, even now, think of their community as separate from the Indian mainstream. And their elite, even as little as 60 years ago, had no problem fighting for a division of India on religious grounds. How can that be tolerated anywhere... and of course, it hasn't been to my knowledge. Perhaps East Timor, where the Christian converts insisted on separating off from Indonesia, but what a small scale that is versus the mass exodus of people in 1947 in South Asia...
	Quote