Here are some excerpts related to Pakistan, from President Obama’s 100 day press conference last night:
QUESTION: Can you reassure the American people that, if necessary, America could secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and keep it from getting into the Taliban’s hands, or worst-case scenario, even al Qaeda’s hands?
MR. OBAMA: I’m confident that we can make sure that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure, primarily, initially, because the Pakistani army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands.
We’ve got strong military-to-military consultation and cooperation.
I am gravely concerned about the situation in Pakistan, not because I think that they’re immediately going to be overrun and the Taliban would take over in Pakistan; more concerned that the civilian government there right now is very fragile and don’t seem to have the capacity to deliver basic services, schools, health care, you know, rule of law, a judicial system that works for the majority of people.
And so as a consequence, it is very difficult for them to gain the support and the — the loyalty of their people. So we need to help Pakistan help Pakistanis. And I think that there’s a recognition, increasingly, on the part of both the civilian government there and the army, that that is their biggest weakness.
On the military side, you’re starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided, and that their biggest threat right now comes internally. And you’re starting to see the Pakistani military take much more seriously the armed threat from militant extremists. (link)
What do people think of this statement? I have a couple of thoughts below.Here are a couple of brief observations:
1) Notice that he doesn’t use the word “Islam” anywhere here. It’s implicit in his reference to the Taliban, but he’s not really focusing on the threat of global Islamic extremism. In the logic of this statement, if militants are steadily gaining ground in what is effectively a civil war, it is at least in part the government’s fault.
That is interesting, and a shift from the earlier Bush doctrine, which entailed talking a lot about Jihadism, and always insisting that “we have them on the run.” Obama is not particularly optimistic about the situation in Pakistan; quite the opposite.
2) Notice that Obama refuses to engage in speculation about what would happen to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons if the government were to be overrun by the Taliban. This is wise for two reasons. First, as President, he has to be much more careful about engaging in hypotheticals than he was as a candidate, when he made that famous comment about being willing to go around the Pakistani government to strike at Al Qaeda within Pakistan’s borders.
Second, his refusal of the question is wise, because I don’t think anyone is too worried about this particular scenario; the military is simply too strong. (There are, of course, other scenarios, many of which would not be good.)
Kashmir may have a muslim majority, but it has a significant number of other minorities. It is far more likely that muslims will have equal rights in a secular nation than hindus and buddhists having rights in an extremist islamic nation as evidence by the “jaziya” tax being collected on Sikhs in Pakistan now with the increased presence of the Taliban types.
At this point Pakistan has no legitimate claim to Kashmir and does not speak for all muslims of the subcontinent.
I know that most Hinduvats don’t read, which accounts for the astounding simplicity of their arguments, so I will post videos to aid their education. Here is analysis from people in the know, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4w3MoSga80
Nilufar, sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus
Here’s the section on Bangladesh (all the citations are at the bottom of the wiki page):
Bangladesh
The HAF report documents the long history of anti-Hindu atrocities in Bangladesh, a topic that many Indians and Indian governments over the years have preferred not to acknowledge. Such atrocities, including targeted attacks against temples, open theft of Hindu property, and rape of young Hindu women and enticements to convert to Islam, have increased sharply in recent years after the Jamat-e-Islami joined the coalition government led by the Bangladesh National Party.
Bangladesh has had a troublesome history of persecution of Hindus as well. A US-based human rights organisation, Refugees International, has claimed that religious minorities, especially Hindus, still face discrimination in Bangladesh.[54] The government of Bangladesh, a nationalist party openly calls for ‘Talibanisation’ of the state.[55][56][57] However, the prospect of actually “Talibanizing” the state is regarded as a remote possibility, since Bangladeshi Islamic society is generally more progressive than the extremist Taliban of Afghanistan. Political scholars conclude that while the Islamization of Bangladesh is real, the country is not on the brink of being Talibanized.[55] In 1971 at the time of the liberation of Bangladesh from East Pakistan, the Hindu population accounted for 15% of the total population. Thirty years on, it is now estimated at just 10.5%.[58] The ‘Vested Property Act’ previously named the ‘Enemy Property Act’ has seen up to 40% of Hindu land snatched away forcibly. Since this government has come into power, of all the rape crimes registered in Bangladesh, 98% have been registered by Hindu women. Hindu temples in Bangladesh have also been vandalised.[59][60] The United States Congressional Caucus on India has condemned these atrocities.[61]
Bangladeshi feminist Taslima Nasrin’s 1993 novel Lajja deals with the anti-Hindu riots and anti-secular sentiment in Bangladesh in the wake of the destruction of the Babri Masjid in India. The book was banned in Bangladesh, and helped draw international attention to the situation of the Bangladeshi Hindu minority.
In October 2006, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom published a report titled ‘Policy Focus on Bangladesh’, which said that since its last election, ‘Bangladesh has experienced growing violence by religious extremists, intensifying concerns expressed by the countries religious minorities’. The report further stated that Hindus are particularly vulnerable in a period of rising violence and extremism, whether motivated by religious, political or criminal factors, or some combination. The report noted that Hindus had multiple disadvantages against them in Bangladesh, such as perceptions of dual loyalty with respect to India and religious beliefs that are not tolerated by the politically dominant Islamic Fundamentalists of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Violence against Hindus has taken place “in order to encourage them to flee in order to seize their property”.The previous reports of the Hindu American Foundation were acknowledged and confirmed by this non-partisan report.[62]
On November 2, 2006, USCIRF criticized Bangladesh for its continuing persecution of minority Hindus. It also urged the Bush administration to get Dhaka to ensure protection of religious freedom and minority rights before Bangladesh’s next national elections in January 2007.[62]
Just a small snippet on Pakistan: Temple Destruction
Several Hindu temples have been destroyed in Pakistan. A notable incident was the destruction of the Ramna Kali Mandir in former East Pakistan. The temple was bulldozed by the Pakistan Army on March 27, 1971.The Dhakeshwari Temple was severely damaged during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, and over half of the temple’s buildings were destroyed. In a major disrespect of the religion, the main worship hall was taken over by the Pakistan Army and used as an ammunitions storage area. Several of the temple custodians were tortured and killed by the Army though most, including the Head Priest, fled first to their ancestral villages and then to India and therefore escaped death.
In 2006, the last Hindu temple in Lahore was destroyed to pave the way for construction of a multi-storied commercial building. The temple was demolished after officials of the Evacuee Property Trust Board concealed facts from the board chairman about the nature of the building. When reporters from Pakistan-based newspaper Dawn tried to cover the incident, they were accosted by the henchmen of the property developer, who denied that a Hindu temple existed at the site.[70]
Several political parties in Pakistan have objected to this move, such as the Pakistan People’s party and the Pakistani Muslim League-N.[71][72] The move has also evoked strong condemnation in India from minority bodies and political parties, including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Congress Party, as well as Muslim advocacy political parties such as the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat.[73] A firm of lawyers representing the Hindu minority has approached the Lahore High Court seeking a directive to the builders to stop the construction of the commercial plaza and reconstruct the temple at the site. The petitioners maintain that the demolition violates section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code prohibiting the demolition of places of worship.[74] See also: Decline of Hinduism in Pakistan
Hmm, denial of the existence of a previous hindu temple…sounds familiar.
Anyhow, as I wrote to Kabir, the one point that I do agree with you all on is that this post shouldn’t be an all you can eat hate-fest. I think the mutineers want it to be about political developments in Pakistan. I know you are Bangladeshi(-American?), Nilufar, but if Kabir or other posters with links to Pakistan could respond to my question about Kayani or Sharif, I think it would go a long way towards refocusing the debate to what it was meant to be. Thanks.
Wiki entries? Really? Try again.
I know in your caste-driven world, it is hard to imagine cross-cultural associations so it will surprise you to know how many Pakistanis and Bangladeshis share in-laws and relatives, languages, and of course religion. But it’s okay — stay in your comfortable world of sanctified and stratified spaces.
India’s Muslims See Bias in Housing
Muslim India struggles to escape the past “Indian Muslims often feel under pressure not to antagonise the Hindu majority and this sets them apart from many of their brethren in the rest of the Islamic world.”
“More worrying, Muslims are falling behind Hindu Dalits, or untouchables, seen as the lowest social class. “In terms of educational achievement, Indian Muslim men in cities are less literate than their Dalit peers,” says Abusaleh Shariff, a member of the prime ministerial committee conducting a socio- economic survey of Indian Muslims. … Academics say that rather like African Americans, Indian Muslims have become victims of history and discrimination. Some suggest that mimicking US policy on African Americans might help.
And Hindu-Talibans are not just in India — http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7321186.stm
—
And the beat goes on, badum dee dum.
Actually, Nilufar, in your excitement to rebut these facts prematurely, and with newspaper articles, you neglected to notice that I pointed out the citations to the wiki entry i posted, which include US Department of State Reports on human and religious rights. So yes, a bunch of vigilante clowns running around manhandling “pub going and loose women” one time is really the same as the institutionalized rape and and forced conversion of hindu women over the last 60 years. 98% of rape victims in bangladesh are hindu women…quite a record that you are defending there.
Anyhow, as I noted earlier, I do want to keep our discussion civil. In tandem with the state department report that was cited on that wiki article. Here’s amnesty
http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=3E98866CD771713180256BAE0056CB65&c=BGD
Commission on International Religious Freedom http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR_2006/bangladesh.pdf
in case you are worried about another “hindu-zionist” conspiracy, here’s bangladesh’s own Awami League: http://www.albd.org/humanright/ai/01122001attacks.htm
And just so that Pakistan doesn’t feel left out: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MARP,,PAK,,469f38c678,0.html
There is a pretty comprehensive report by the Hindu American Foundation, but, I know you’ll cast it aside anyways, so didn’t bother posting.
Finally, I think any comparison of Indian Muslims to African Americans is ridiculous and misguided. African Americans did not conquer the United States and rule large parts of it for 600 years. Also, last time I checked, I don’t think there is African American Personal Law administered by an African American Personal Law Board in the United States, and no Kwanza pilgrimmages to Africa subsidized by the US Treasury, with federal Kwanza houses dotting the eastern sea board. Also, is billionaire Azim Premji a hindu? cause last time I checked, he wasn’t, and Bollywood continues to be dominated by the Khans. I would like to see such stories possible in Pakistan or Bangladesh, but I suppose one can only dream. Considering the virtual extinction of hindus in Pakistan and the impending extinction in Bangladesh (population has dropped from 30%-10% since partition–and from 16%-10% since 1971), I really don’t think your case will benefit by going down this path considering the muslim population in India has actually grown. As I said before, let’s stick to talking about political developments in Pakistan since that is what this post is about. Thank you.
Satyajit, why is the Mughal empire such an issue for you? I sincerely don’t understand why it bothers BJP supporters that India was a for a long period ruled by kings that were Muslim. Their reason for conquering India was not religiously-based, it was normal at that time for kings to come and raid neighboring kingdoms,etc. Over time, the Mughals assimilated and became “Indian”. They were not an occupation force or anything. There’s an interesting post over that http://www.thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com called “Hinduism 7: The Wall of Amnesia” which focuses on Raja Man Singh and points out how many of Akbar’s nauratan’s were actually Hindu (the minister of finance and the military commander among them). The post points out how the Muslim/Hindu “enemity” is actually fairly recent and dates back to the British institution of seperate electorates. It’s not a useful way to examine historical issues.
Also, the fact that hindu temples have been destroyed in Pakistan and Bangladesh (which I’m not disputing), doesn’t mean it’s alright for India to demolish mosques. After all, Pakistan is an “Islamic Republic” while India is a secular state. I don’t think claiming moral equivalence is particulary useful or appropriate. After all, in no other context does India want to emulate Pakistan; why do so in this case?
Getting back to your questions about Kayani and Sharif, I don’t think the US should encourage another military coup. While Zardari is unpopular and corrupt, he is the elected leader. I think it is important that democratic institutions be allowed to function. Regarding Sharif, I don’t think the US should be trying to put him in place as the next leader of Pakistan; this strategy of meddling in internal affairs hasn’t worked in the past. It doesn’t make sense to keep propping up one chosen leader and then replacing them with someone else. Again, democracy has to be allowed to work. Only then can it develop.
LOL–talk about “negationism.” Just repeating falsehoods 100x doesn’t make them truly, I’m sorry to say.
Rob,there’s no arguing with you. You are blinded by your ideology and are reinterpreting history based on that. There’s a vast amount of scholarship on the Mughals which makes the case that I am making. Look it up if you can take off your ideological blinders. I’m done talking to you because you’re not interested in genuine, intellecutal debate.
What’s your source for this again? The same place you pull most of your stuff out of?
So Muslims in India are outsiders and interlopers but Hindus don’t discriminate against them because Hindus are so forgiving and loving and don’t have prejudice and discrimination inherently built into their system of belief. In your imaginary homeland, the plight of Indian Muslims — endemic poverty and discrimination — is not the result of prejudice, even though Muslims shouldn’t be in India in the first place.
And if you think that a few Khans in Bollywood and one Muslim CEO represent the true condition of Indian Muslims then you’re …oh — oh — oh, wait, you do believe that. That’s cool — that’s the kind of thinking that has made your posts so amusing on this site. You’re a true comedian, yaar.
And if you think Zionism is any more loving of Hindus than it is of Muslims, think again. Just because the enemy of your enemy is ethnically cleansing your enemy o’er there — the kind of ethnic cleansing you can only dream of — doesn’t mean that you will be welcomed into their arms. How about instead of flooding the Gulf States with your millions of Hindu workers, start sending them to Israel and see how well they are treated there. Hint: There are special roads and schools just for Jews.
Kabir,
At the same time, I do think it’s important that muslims be mindful that at least a few of these mosques were constructed upon the most sacred sites in hinduism. Many of them, like Babri, are not in use and were only constructed to insult hindus. While I certainly cannot and will not advocate vigilantism, I also do not see the harm in the waqf board negotiating with the hindu community regarding a choice few of the most sacred sites so that an honorable agreement for both sides can be reached. History must be properly accounted for not to condemn the son for the crimes of the father, but rather so that all communities can come to terms with the good and the bad that took place (on either side), address problems, and unify to move forward to a better future for all. That’s why hindus take issue with the NCERT history textbook controversy since we are continued to be taught the ridiculous tripe that the British fed Indians (and modern day Pakistanis/Bangladeshis) to divide them and make them feel inferior. My point is that, whether it was the power of the Mauryas, the culture of the Guptas, or the fabulous wealth of the Mughals, there is much to be proud about in Indian history (whether hindu or muslim). Aurangzeb is a contemptible figure for me, but I still took relish in the defeat he inflicted upon the British. Tipu Sultan was often an iconoclast himself, but all Indians appreciate the thrashing he periodically gave the EIC. And while Ghiyasuddin Balban certainly was no friend to the hindus, his determined resistance (along with Alauddin Khilji’s) kept the Mongol Empire out of the subcontinent when they had demolished the other half of the civilized world. So no, there is much that I appreciate as well. Please understand, that I am just trying to broker a polite yet candid exchange.
Thanks for your response on Kayani and Sharif. I appreciate your resetting the discussion to more productive topics. Let me know if you have any questions that I may be able to answer.
Best,
Satyajit Wry
Kabir wrote:
Aren’t elected leaders, by definition, supposed to be popular (ie, have popular support)?
Kabir wrote:
OK, so Akbar had a few Hindu officials in his government. What does that prove? The British Raj also drew extensively from the local population. That didn’t make them any more friendly towards their subjects.
Nilufar, all the facts are there for you to read them if you really want to. I think at this point, no matter what I say, you’ll find some thing to hate on. I have said many kind words about aspects of islam’s history in India and consider indian muslims to be as much a part of our modern society as anyone else–from the looks of things in Bangladesh, I gather the converse doesn’t apply to hindus in your country of origin. Based on your vitriol filled messages, I really don’t think you’re interested in productive discussion or even polite debate. Perhaps you should take a page out of Kabir’s book. He believes very strongly in his views, many or most of which I disagree with, but he’s been able to discuss the topic politely and productively. I really think you should at least try to do the same.
Satyajit, I appreciate the clarification. I thought you had an issue with the Mughal Empire because of what you wrote above: “African Americans did not conquer the United States and rule large parts of it for 600 years”. I took this as a reference to the Mughal Empire. rob certainly has a problem with the Mughal Empire, but I am glad to see that you are more nuanced and open-minded than he is.
I don’t like Aurangzeb either, but I think it is important to put in context that these were dynastic rulers who killed and imprisoned their own fathers/brothers, much as the Roman Emperors or the English kings did. Aurengzeb was probably not always motivated out of a hatred of hindus, though he was certainly one of the most intolerant of the Mughals. There is a play written by Akbar Ahmed, a professor of Islamic Studies at American University, called “The Trial of Dara Shikoh” which dramatizes the conflict between Dara and Aurgenzeb. It’s important for people (esp. Americans) to recognize that not all Muslims were like Aurangzeb, many were like Dara as well. It’s just that in these times fundamentalist voices have much greater credibility than moderate one’s and this has a lot to do with reasons of geopolitics that are much too complicated to get into here.
Pot, meet kettle.
TTCUSM, Yes elected leaders are supposed to have popular support, but that is not the case with Zardari, who anyway only came to power because Benazir was murdered. I think his coming to power mostly reflected the hatred of military dictatorship. Anyway, the point is that he was elected, and it’s not right to support replacing him with a military coup. If we do that, then democracy will never develop in Pakistan.
Regarding the Mughal Empire, the point is that our modern tendency to interpret everything through the Muslim vs. Hindu dichotamy is not the most appropriate way to interpret history. As has been pointed out on http://www.thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com, this dichotomy only gained strength after the British introduction of seperate electorates. The Mughals happened to be Muslim; that was not necessarily the most important aspect of their rule. As the SouthAsianIdea makes clear, the empire was rule of the elite over the masses, not of “Muslims” over “Hindus”.
Kabir, sure, no problem. I too agree about Dara–truly a tragedy. As you may have noticed on our previous thread, I did point out that we all would have been better off had he secured the throne in place of Aurangzeb. A Mughal emperor that was able to translate the Gita into Persian certainly would have had a seat at my table…
Don’t be so patronising, and don’t be such an ignorant bigot. The idea that Islamic societies are not stratified is preposterous. As for cross-cultural associations, there are more cross-cultural associations in India than your reduced-by-bigotry mind can filter or imagine. Get off your pompous horse. The most pathetic thing about you is that whilst your heart bleeds for Muslims in India minorities in Bangladesh are hounded, persecuted, mistreated and lead a hellish life. If you had any humanity at all you’d be admitting to that and attending to it. Instead you spend your time pissing hatred for Hindus on this blog, like a vile thug, building a forcefield of persecution. Deal with the facts … Hindus aren’t even humans to thugs like you are they?
Razib Khan who blogs here can attest to that supra-bigotry in the fabric of Bangladeshi society. It exists amongst Pakistanis too.
God almighty, typical brain-maddened, crippling pathetic OBSESSION with Jews.
So talking of dreams, what you actually mean is the ACTUAL ethnic cleansing that more or less wiped Hindus and Sikhs off the face of Pakistan, that has taken place in Bangladesh, and was actually enacted by the Pakistani army in 1971 when they carried out a genocide of Bengali Hindus and Muslims? Wash your mouth out with soap you shameless, racist liar.
It’s enough to make you want to re-read Taslima Nasreen’s Lajja …. hounded out of her homeland, persecuted, ostracised, death threat upon death threat spat on her head, hated, treated as vermin, betrayed by her own people…Why? Because she wrote a novel about the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh. Yeah, Bangladeshis, attend to your own minorities and we’ll attend to our own, save the ummah Islamist Jew obsession for websites seething with your own type of bigot. You couldn’t give a flying fart for the Muslims of India, all those bleeding hearts just want to spit at India and Hindus in totality. Same kind of rhetoric and mentality you see amongst many Pakistanis (those brave brothers of cross-cultural non-stratified unity who killed hundreds of thousands in cold blood in 1971 oh how non-stratified they are)
Ammo,
Take a chill pill, you freaking pscho. You’re the racist liar here, not me.
How about feeding your millions of starving slumkids instead of OBSESSING over Muslims.
While your heart bleeds for Hindus in Bangladesh, millions of your Hindu kids are starving in slums in India. It goes both ways, you freak.
It’s this blog that makes pissing on Muslims a pass time, so don’t dish it if you can’t take it.
Wash YOUR mouth out. Why do you and rob go feed the 250 million malnourished kids, you sputtering moron, instead of picking on Muslims as a daily enterprise on this site? You want to talk about OBSESSION?
I am quite familiar with Razib from this blog. Who cares what he has to say. Your sources for validation are a joke.
Yes, Ammo, please just refer to one book by one author and make that the national narrative.Typical response from readers on this board. Interesting how commenters here insult Muslims on a daily basis, but the vitriol starts spewing when India’s inadequacies are suddenly pointed out.
You don’t give a flying fart about Hindus in other countries. Focus on feeding your own starving kids and dowry-burning bahus and stop worrying so much about how women and children are faring in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Nilufar the Islamist BIGOT
My heart doesn’t bleed for Hindus in Bangladesh — they are meat for racist Jew OBSESSED Islamist cannibals like you. I feel sorry for them and hope they can secure their rights. It’s quite likely there won’t be any Hindus left in Bangladesh at all in a couple of generations. But there will always be Muslims in India. I hope and pray they secure advancement in a just and equitable society one day.
It’s interesting how you use malnourished children as a taunt — first of all it’s blackly funny coming from a Bangladeshi, which is full of malnourished, poverty stricken children.
Secondly because it shows the cannibalistic mentality that treats human suffering as a rhetorical device to denigrate other people. This is aform of MENTAL SICKNESS. Malnourished children are helpless, suffering innocents, and you view them as meat for your rhetorical grinder. Hoe utterly repulsive.
Here’s the deal. You fix up the starving slumchildren in Bangladesh, and India will attend to the sick and poor in India. It doesn’t happen overnight, you know.
Yeah, Razib Khan is great. He tells the TRUTH.
“Rob,there’s no arguing with you. You are blinded by your ideology and are reinterpreting history based on that. There’s a vast amount of scholarship on the Mughals which makes the case that I am making. Look it up if you can take off your ideological blinders. I’m done talking to you because you’re not interested in genuine, intellecutal debate.”
Kabir/Rob,
Generally when a discussion reaches the point of reference show-and-tell, and one side can only cite one source (Elst in this case), I am struck by the parallel of John Hagee attempting to debate an paleontologist on the fossil record–one of the participants could cite no sources, present no degree and still sound more authoritative to the audience than the other. Care to guess the popularly chosen and thus effectively credentialed party in this hypothetical debate?
Kabir, I believe I have a nuanced view of the Mughal empire – some good guys, some bad.
Nevertheless,I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the area of Uttar Pradesh known as Braj. There is a famous mandir there, the Govind Deva Mandir, pictured here. As you can see, this temple is missing a top. It used to be 7 stories high but now it is only 3 stories high because it was razed, or the top 4 stories were chopped off because the Mughal king of the area was jealous and furious that he could see the high top of the temple from as far away as his distance so he destroyed it.
A number of other temples in Braj, the region of 5,000 Krishna temples, were destroyed and new ones later had to be built. There was a time when due to all of this the sacred Radha Krishna deities in the temples had to be moved underground in the dead of night to Jaipur and Udaipur in Rajasthan (so that the grave offense of smashing deities would not take place), and that is why the original Deities of Braj reside in Jaipur and later duplicates were made to fill the temples in Braj.
This is living history that you can see with your own eyes even today.
Go to Jaipur, go to Braj. Its living history.
Lets not over-romanticise the Mughal period, hai na?
I think the same argument can be used against you.
Oh you poor little victim you. I’m sorry you find honest appraisals of history so insulting and feel the need to heap hatred and scorn to assuage your bruised ego.
I really wish there was a way to let hatemongers like you reap what you’ve sown without having to drag the sensible folks in the middle down with you.
Ponniyin, I don’t think so. I’m perfectly willing to hear other points of view, as long as they are given in a respectful manner. I have a nuanced view of the Mughal Empire and am not defending all the rulers as assimilating and becoming “Indian”. Satyajit and I both agree that Aurungzeb did far more harm than good. Rob on the other hand gives a blanket condemnation of the Mughals, citing a partisan historian. Arguing that the Mughals were a relgiously-motivated occupying force is just wrong and historically incorrect.
Anyway, I am happy to productively debate with other commenters, even if they hold political views I disagree with, as long as no one talks of dismembering Pakistan (like rob did). I think I’ve exhausted what I have to say on this thread, so I’m done here, but I’m not by any means letting the BJP types win the debate.
I would say that destroying temples is religiously motivated, wouldn’t you?
Surely if the Govind Deva Mandir was a mosque, it would still have its top.
Equally arguing that Islam or the various hateful verses of Quran and Hadiths against polytheists did not play a role in the treatment meted out to Hindus under Mughal/Islamic rulers is just wrong and historically incorrect.
to Nilufar..
Check your facts before you cry about Indian Hindus working in gulf..
Indians Hindus or Muslims are the most law abiding citizens in Gulf..yes India is the biggest trading partner to Saudi Arabia and Dubai. India’s trade with UAE is 8 billion USD and with Saudi its more than 10 billion USD per year…same withn Qatar and Oman.So there is a mutual benefit for both of us. Indians never claimed that they have built the gulf states or gulf states never proclaimed that they are helping Indians by proving jobs. Because we all know its in mutual interest. If one see the free zones in UAE 50% of the companies are owned by Indians. Most of the Gulf royal families invested in India whether its Dubai, Qatar or Oman etc.
Only Pakistanis cry because they cannot even come close to competing with Indians in Gulf and they keep on crying that we are Muslim country AND Indians are dominating etc…But local Arabs don’t care. they care for only their self interests! I live in Dubai and this is my experience. I found most of the Pakistanis work as laborers or as cab drivers (more than 80% of them).
Another bitter fact:
Three Pakistani drug offenders were executed in Saudi Arabia last Friday..Saudi Arabia regularly hangs Pakistani people. almost 5 to 10 so called Pakistani Muslims each month for various offenses.
My Indian Muslim friend in Saudi told me that they check Pakistani passport holders in a separate line at Saudi Arabia and they don’t bother Indians…Hindus or Muslims!! That tells the story for you.
So don’t talk trash as if Pakistan owned gulf states just because you are a Muslim country or what ever. In gulf states there are 4 times more Indians (all religions) than Pakistanis…and once Mushraff has called Gulf states to expel Indians… they just laughed and moved on!!
a corretion..
Bilateral annual trade between India and the UAE(Dubai)is more than 19 Billion USD and with saudi arabia 18 billion USD.
Ponniyin, I have never denied that some Mughal rulers (ex. Aurungzeb) used “Islam” as a justification for their actions, such as temple destruction, but I think it’s unfair and inaccurate to argue that everything Aurangzeb did was because he was a Hindu-hating Muslim. He did a lot of things to consolidate his power (he was an emperor after all) including having his own father imprisioned and his own brother killed. That’s what emperors all over the world did (read about the Romans or the English kings if you don’t believe me).
Mandir Madam, Mughal Begum– Again, I’m not denying that temples were destroyed. That would be intellectually dishonest. I just think that one can’t generalize from that and form a blanket condemnation of the Mughals and treat them as a foreign occupying force. The Mughals were reponsible for some of the most beautiful parts of India’s heritage, for example the Taj Mahal. If you guys hate the Mughals so much, why not give the Taj to Pakistan? I’ve read people argue that the Taj was not a mausoleam for a Muslim king’s wife, but a Hindu temple. That’s rewriting history, wouldn’t you say? We South-Asians have a complicated history, which includes both good and bad. Up to 60 years ago, we were all Indians. I think reinterpreting history based on our modern political circumstances does history and us a great disservice.
Kabir, while touring large swaths of India as a child, there was one thing that struck me: almost ALL temples were damaged by various Muslim rulers. It is incorrect to blanket blame all the Mughal rulers, only because of one exception: Akbar, but none of the others can be thought that way. That large temples like Kashi Vishwanath (Benaras) and Jagannath (in Bhuvneswar, Orissa) were destroyed several times are a common knowledge (they were akin to St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome for Hindus), but finding the nose of every deities broken or their head blown off all over India is still an interesting sight that still stands.
But bringing up the past will only bring up more bitterness, but one must be aware of the truth; otherwise rabid hatemongers like Nilufar would have field day spreading lies.
Going by the records it does seem like Aurangazeb is driven by the anti polytheist / idolatory zeal. Just because the Roman/English kings did similar things (is it because of Catholic / Puritanical reasons) does not absolve Mughals / Muslim rulers’ hatred of polytheists/idolators for religious reasons.
It is unfair and inaccurate to absolve the “religion” when all evidence (in the form of sacred verses in Quran and various hadiths and personal records of various rulers) points to that being an important cause in the anti idolatory / temple breaking zeal of the Muslim rulers.
( Off Topic Kabir: This is only for you. These are Kabir’s poem and Kabir’s songs in India. I thought I would share with you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im3SdoVUnj8&feature=related folk songs (Kabir Gayan): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPLbOL7OakU&feature=related )
Hmm.. Are you sure that there is no caste in Pakistan / Bangladesh. I checked a Pakistani matrimonial site.
http://www.pakrishta.com/
Other than the castes mentioned in the first page (Syed, Arain, Rajput, Yousufzai) there is a bunch of castes mentioned under other castes
Abbasi Abidi Afridi Agha Arain Awan Bajwa Baloch Bhatti Bihari Burra Butt Chattah Chaudhary Chishti Christian Chugtai Deoband Durrani Farooqui Goraya Gujjar Hashmi Hindko Hyderabadi Jaat Jafri Janjua Jatt Junjua Jutt Kakay Zai Kamboh Kashmiri Khan Khatri Khattak Khokhar Kiani Lodhi Mahajir Malik Memon Mirza Mughal Niazi pathan Qazi Qureshi Raja Rana Rehmani Sardar Saroya Sayal Shaikh Sheikh Siddique Syed Tannoli Tunio Yousaf Zai Zaidi Zubairi
Of course I think some entries like Christian are not castes. But with your first hand knowledge you have to let us know if they are really castes or not and explain to us even though people mention their caste when searching for brides or grooms in Pakistan they are not really caste driven like in India and I’ll believe you. 🙂
BTW which of the above is considered low caste??
I don’t “hate” Mughals. I don’t know any Mughals in fact. But there are patterns of behaviour gleaned from that period. The Taj Mahal is nice, but I’d rather that it not have been built if it means so many hundreds (thousands?) of ancient temples could have remained standing as is, in tact.
It’s not as if that part of the world known as India at the time was bereft of any art, architecture or culture. Quite the contrary. I don’t think it needed anything to be added. Certainly not at the expense of taking some away.
Zee, Again I’m not denying that temples were destroyed. But I think it’s unfair to use that as the only criteria by which to judge Mughal (or “Muslim”, though I don’t agree with the conflation of the two concepts). As William Dalrymple points out in his book “The Last Mughal” even in 1857, when Indian sepoys, both Muslim and Hindu, rose against the British, they went straight to Bahudar Shah Zafar and asked him to lead their rebellion. If there had been so much anti-Muslim feeling at the time, I doubt they would have done so. Incidently, Zafar’s mother was a Hindu, which in itself tells us something about the Mughal assimilation. Aurangzeb was the exception rather than the rule.
By the way, thanks for sharing the poems of Bhagat Kabir. I’m actually named after him and have studied several of his bhajans. I particularly like “Mo ko kahan dhunday banday, main to teray pas hoon” 🙂
Kabir @ 81:
The Mughals were responsible for some of the most expensive projects in India. This bankrupted the Mughals. Compare Taj Mahal with Bibi’s maqbara. constructed a few decades later. And that was the beginning of the end. The Taj Mahal and etc… may be beautiful but it was beauty that came at great expense to the Muslim world.
We want the Taj in India to pay for it–3 million tourists annually at Rs 100 a tourist. Btw, I visited Dilwara in Mt. Abu last week. The main temple is sublime. Probably better than the Taj.(I haven’t visited the Taj since my childhood so can’t make a direct comparison). And yes, the muslims made their way there too, but the chopped noses and all have mostly been repaired.
All ancient to medieval Indian temples that I’ve been to surpass the Taj in architecture. The beauty of the Taj lies mainly in its size, not its style of architecture. It is very minimalist and stark. I also appreciate minimalist design, but generally prefer the intricate carvings of traditional Indian temples.
Anyway, whats done is done. We just have to make sure it doesn’t happen again, thats all.
Any governmental institution is going to have multiple streams of thought flowing through it, so it is never quite accurate to assume that Mughal rule would be of one mind any moreso than any other type of rule.
Mughal rule was characterized multiple separate goals. A few include wanting to govern over the subcontinent, to Islamify the subcontinent, and to draw as much money as they could. When these goals conflicted they’d prioritize one or another. So where the “Islamify” goal would have met with too much resistance that would compromise the “govern” and “make money” goals they’d be inclined to back down on it. So you will find yourself with your Akbars who were more prone to ruling and governing and looking out for the people. At other times the power of the Ulemma waxes and you wind up with Aurunguzebs who pick up the bloody work of razing temples again.
Generally I don’t think of kings, emperors, or dictators as individuals either. What a king can do is constrained by the political powers at play in his court. He’s going to want to maintain the viability of his dynasty so he won’t compromise his standing if, say, a powerful Ulemma is pressuring him to stop coddling the idolaters. Even if he would otherwise be an okay guy what are you going to do when your cousin is chomping at the bit to have you sidelined? Raze a temple and continue to live large or respect the rights of your subjects?
So looking through the period of Mughal rule you can assess whether it was “good” by what kinds of impulses and what sort of culture pervaded its institutions. I’d argue that there was some good there from the trade, culture, and unity they provided. There was also some very bad there from the kleptocratic levels of taxation and a level disrespect for Hinduism that at various times would range from tolerable to repugnant.
Kabir
But was it Mughal assimilation or Hindu assimilation? You mentioned Dalrymple. I think he describes the court of this one and that one–he wrote a few books–as being all Persian/Turkic and in one case they even had a prominent Moroccan courtier. Akbar was the exception, not Aurangzeb.
I too like Kabir’s bhajans–I think it is Kabir.
Ok, Madam Begum, I get that you have an asthetic preference for medieval Hindu temples vs. the Taj Mahal. That’s fine. However, I don’t think we have to make either-or judgements. Also, I never claimed that India before the Mughals did not have beautiful art and architecture. I am aware of Ajanta Ellora. South Asia and India have been blessed (in my view) to have a beautiful, syncretic heritage. The Taj, and the monuments in Delhi and Lahore are evidence of this. My whole point is just that we shouldn’t let ideology blind us to the beauty and complexity of our composite heritage.
my_dog_jagat, you’re absolutely right that the Taj is a tourist attraction, but so is the Mughal Empire in general. I don’t see why we need to entrench ourselves in fundamentalist positions of any sort. The Mughals were neither completely benign or wonderful nor were they an “occupying force”. Anyway, I think that’s enough on this topic.
Yoga Fire, I agree with you. I think you’ve put it very sensibly. Dynasties have competing interests and priorities and can’t be judged to be wholly good or bad based on some narrow criteria.
my_dog-jagat, Dalrymple describes (if I recall correctly) that Zafar’s court celebrated Holi. I think there was both Mughal assimilation and Hindu assimilation. I don’t think we can use our current Hindu vs. Muslim framework to accurately assess the Mughal era.
On a related note, it’s interesting how many of India’s UNESCO World Heritage sites date from the Mughal period. Among them: Fathepur Sikri, Humayun’s Tomb, Qutub Minar, the Red Fort, and of course the Taj. I was lucky enough to visit Delhi and Agra some years back and see many of these monuments in person. Of course, on my trips to Pakistan, I have also been to the Badshahi Masjid and the Shai Kila, which are beautiful as well. We have lots to be proud of and celebrate, rather than get bogged down in accusations and counter-accusations.
And yet the amazing temples of the Braj region are not UNESCO World Heritage sites and many of them could use a facelift.
If it had not been the Qutub Minar, it would have been what was there before the Qutub Minar. The Qutub Minar itself has all these very un-Islamic reminders. Naked women and all–chee chee. I have a picture of me and those lovely damsels. Another of me and the Iron pillar–doesn’t rust–imagine that..
We are not disputing that Mughal architecture, the combination of Hindu craftsmanship and Islamic aesthetics, was beautiful. But as someone else said, India already had a rich and highly developed culture. But both the Muslims and later the British showed a lot of contempt and disregard towards it. In that sense, we can lump the British and the Muslims together as one hell of a “bad experience”..
Ok, it’s your right to think of the Muslims and the British together as a “bad experience.” I personally don’t think that’s the most helpful or useful way to view South Asian or Indian history, but if that’s your viewpoint, so be it.
i do hope hindus fight against other hindus too to restore the demolition of temples and plundering of idols that has always occurred as a feature of conquests. if you are going to turn back the clock to prehistory, do it right, i say!
We are find with acknowledging all of that. Why not? What’s annoying is the denial of any of it, from any quarter. But anyway, the days of destroying temples and idols are over. No use arguing over it and I certainly don’t think any Hindu alive today is planning to physically fight/invade anyone over it. Have you ever heard of any Hindus chasing down Muslims or other Hindus over because they destroyed temples in the HERE AND NOW?
you are right. there is no hindu movement that vilifies muslims. but all i am requesting is to please, please restore my wounded hindu pride by demolishing these hindu temples which were built out of plunder. it hurts me so, so much.
i agree. it’s mosque destroyin time now! only because we want to do the right thing, of course.