Let me make one thing clear. It is something else to think good of a particular group and something else as regards their actions and something else when their actions are commented upon. Mixing and inter-relating, is happenning a lot in the threads of Shri KRS and Shmt HH ... but that is human nature and hence I clarify...
Dear Sri SS Ji, you seem to classify the entire Indian muslim community as a group responsible for the acts of a few. I totally reject this presumption. This goes against logic. A minority people are not going to declare war against the majority like this.
Me relating the incidents has nothing to do with me being rabid or hindutva groups being rabid...and nobody is creating a hysteria... if one takes the view that commenting on muslims is itself rabid then it is totally a skewed outlook without sufficient info...
I did not say you were rabid - I only pointed out the consequences if one made India as a Hindu state. The hysteria was not created by you - I was referring to the untenable statements by s007bala. I will not engage him anymore, because he talks with prolific abandon all sorts of nonsense,
We all have personal experiences - I too have met many good-hearted individuals from all communities... One among those was a muslim doctor who does not eat non-veg!!! So, please be informed that I am aware of good and bad among all sections of the society.
No issues. I have taken you as a good human being who is searching for a solution to the perceived bad state of our religion.
Now let us come to the culture of India. What does it mean? A mixed culture means accepting the invasions, barbarism, torture and conversions on us... but what is done cannot be undone. So I accept that. I do not hate people for the acts of their forefathers, and neither is it prudent to do so. It also brings with it the contradictions that a society needs and hence it is but natural for us to accept it.
Most of the current problems in the world exist because we can not accept what happened in the past. The past is littered with inhumane actions (by everyone). Ashoka killed first before regretting his actions. To apply today's moralistic norms to the behaviour of yester year peoples is wrong. That was yesterday and it is today.
You see Indian culture as the aftermath of the invasions; I too see it the same way, but with a difference - that of according the status of principal religion.
Even the principle religion has gone through big changes during this time. Bhakthi movement within Hinduism did not start by accident. Sufism within Islam came in to being to make Islam Indianised. Nothing happens in vacuum. Our religion too has changed because of the influence of Islam and Christianity. The problem is some of us still think of our religion as it existed during the vedic times. This can never happen again because we are in a modern industrialized world where the old notions of Varna system can not work anymore, because we as people do not accept them anymore.
Having acknowledged that, we need not go to the extreme of equating our religion with theirs just to be termed secular. Pray, how can this be seen as un-secular?
Our religion says that all paths are valid. The question herte is not that Hindu way of life is presrved, but rather are we willing to allow other minorities who have called India home to have pride in calling themselves Indians first. Secular means that the religious life has no bearing on how the government treats it's citizens.
Also, when the invaded culture does not remain benign, rather works as cancer cells within the society, action has to be taken to cleanse the cancerous sections... if one does a laser therapy, there cannot be a valid counter argument saying that the physician is also guilty of the same crime as he is killing the cancerous cells...
Again, please lose the notion of the 'invading' culture. I do not think most of our Muslim brethren think that way. After a couple of generations, we tend to adopt the native culture. This is my central problem with your statement: It reduces all our muslim brethren to the 'invading culture' and there are nearly 200 millions of them! Do you know that the muslims from India in a host of foreign countries are eager to differentiate themselves as Indian muslims as opposed to, let us say, Pakistani muslims?
Putting a finger on the percentage of extremist muslims is very tricky... on the day of the coimbatore blasts, the majority of the muslim community kept to their homes and were not found on the terror locations... this clearly shows that the entire community in coimbatore is in cahoots with the terrorist...
I wonder whether you can back up this assertion with proof! After 9/11 in NY, many muslims asserted that Jews caused the event, saying that all the jews stayed at home. This was false as it was proved that many many jews lost their lives during the attack. Statement like this should be made very carefully after ascertaining the facts. I do not believe this assertion.
Similarly, there are many such incidents - for one who just lives life on black and white, these things will ever remain a contented issue.
Like what?
Whom are we fooling in saying that the muslim majority does not favour an islamic India? Muslims are born-Indians, but their alleigance lies with their arabian masters... All muslims see things as Islamic or Un-Islamic only... it is us Hindus who blabber and chatter about all philosophies while getting nowhere...
Sir, you seem to be totally uneducated on the Indian muslims. This is just a wrong statement. Your statement "All muslims see things as Islamic or Un-Islamic only" is 100% wrong in it's content. By alienating the Indian muslims this way, we are only courting disaster as Indians.
Regards,
KRS
Regards,
Seshadri
P.S. Shmt, HH, please do not relate between specific examples and my generalized statements because there are bound to be exceptions to the norm...
When we discuss and speak about a group in the pluralistic sense, then it is accepted that it implies the majority... unless specific qualifications are given
