[Reader-list] Jihadis abduct, rape young girls in Jammu -

[akmalik45 at yahoo.com]

Dear Mr Rakesh,
                First of all, I must admire that you are read over and have clarity in your expressions and views.I don't go beyond newpaper reports and TV news & discussions and I would also state that many of the views formed are based on sub-conscious happenings in life which I may have encountered in my life-span with wrongs having more impact than rights.Unfortunately my exposure to NET is minimal as I am unable to sit for longer durations in front of the computer/laptop.I will reply to points raised by you in some detail:
1.If someone is out to question & raise an issue, there is no dearth of reasons.People do it at home with parents,colleagues in office and almost anywhere and any place.I agree appeasement is a way of life, you may be doing it to your Professors,others do it in offices, parents/childern do it.Certain decisions are taken overtly with reasons while others are taken covertly where the real reason is different than what is shown to be.Some actions are blatant misuse of authority with no regards for law or institutions or morals or precedents.If you have seen today's papers, see the arguments put forth by lawyer of the Mayawati Govt on spending of public money on her own statutes and elections symbol of elephant.In institutions if a girl gets higher marks, there is an invariablly a charge of sexual favours by her to get good marks.So if you have to have a different view point, you can always find a reason to do so and even justify your wrong actions.
2.It has become a general practice for the Govt/Authorities not to heed to the issues raised unless and until violent means are resorted to and then the authorities oftenly succumb to the pressures and your points come into play not to divide the country But succumbing to such pressures is resulting into benefits to those who don't deserve but are in violent agitations and those who really deserve are still being left out. Resevations to Meenas &Gurjars, Jats are examples of these.We have come to such lows where our childern have started wishing we were SCs/STs/or other reserved categories so that their lives would have easier in getting admissions, jobs & other benefits.In fact we are only heading towards more divisions if not territorial but emotional and affecting day-to-day sentiments.
3.Regarding creation of Bangladesh, the Bengalis in Pakistan would have been crushed by the Pakistani army, had it not been our Govt's intervention for our motives which finally didn,t pay off. They would have been rotting even today.Things have still not improved for them even after creation of Bngladesh otherwise you would not have so much influx to India doing only menial jobs.
4.Per se you can't have any reservations based on religion as per provisions of Constitution so whatever be the recommndations of Sachar Committee there can't be any reservations whether they are downtrodden or not.SCs/STs are categorised into classes which are not based on religion.However since there were no such classes in Muslims/Sikhs/Christians, the benifits are only going to mostly Hindus and that too affluent ones because the political system is not ready to get it flow to the downtrodden. How many instances can you quote where a sweeper's child would have gone to higher services like IAS or even to engg or medicine because they don't go beyond 8th class at all The other day our sweeperress wanted some money for her son's fees, I told her why does she want because it is free for them.You know what she told, she told that for several years she has tries but couldn't get Jaati Praman Patra because she has not been able to give the requisite
 documents and the rishwat reqd for the Caste Certificate.So she has abandoned her effort.
Now there is clamour for Sikhs, Christians and even Muslims to be termed as SCs/STs but their religion says there can not be any castes.
5.The current status of Muslims is pathetic, it is because they themselves are to blame and partly the previous Govts are to be blamed. There has not been any good education to them,job opportunities have been only for artisians which most are very good at.You don't expect any private enterprenuer to hire a person who has studied in Madrasas and does not have any other qualification. Will you employ such a fellow.The same party who is professing Muslim reservation has been in power for more than 50 yrs out of 62 yrs since independence.What is the Solution now, in Districts where there is majority of downtrodden Muslims, the Govt instead of creating reservation for Muslims which in fact even if implemented will be cornered by affluent Muslims in the class, the Govt need to open more educational and employment opportunities for all citizens which will benifit majority of Muslims but miniority of other relion people as well.But this serve the ulterior
 motive of the political classven giving a dole to all would be permissible under the law. But you can/t create a class of only Muslims for benfits.
6.Regarding Muslims in Army: If I ask you why there is no muslim students in your IIT compared to the population, can you give me a reply and tell me the remedial measures.Traditionally there have been certain caste people who have clamoured more for the Army and you will find that caste portion more prominent. If you are questioning the recruitment process itself, the solution is to rectify that.Today you are doing it for Muslims, tomorrow I will ask the Govt to find out how many Maliks/Iyers are there in the Army and why it is less in population the Rajputs and Jats, should it be acceptable? WHY NOT DO IT FOR CHRISTIANS,SIKHSAND SO ON ,WHERE IS THE END.If we find the recruitment process to be faulty, rectify the same.Let the Govt prepare interested for entry to Army as coaching institutions are doing for entry to IITs/IIMs etc. Who bars them to do so and the see the results.There are Govt operated/sponsered coaching institutions for childern belonging
 to SC/ST for school exam/cometititive exam like IAS etc.
6. Lastly Law has to be enforced, it has no emotions/religion attached to it nd it ruthless.Those are managing the affairs feel if some law is not good, they can always change. Mind it they changed the law for the benefit of Madam Sonia Gandhi but it benefitted others as well who were similarly placed.Let the Govt give simlar benefits to others while Muslims in general are benefitted.But alas that is not to be!
I don't have the effort left to read what I havetyped out, so will be sending it without a second read.
Regards,
(A.K.MALIK)


--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Jihadis abduct, rape young girls in Jammu -
> To: akmalik45 at yahoo.com
> Cc: "Pawan Durani" <pawan.durani at gmail.com>, "Sarai List" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 9:31 AM
> Dear Mr. Malik jee
> 
> First of all, I am sorry if I hurt or offended you in any
> way through my views or while presenting them. At the same
> time, I agree with you that the purpose of any discussion is
> defeated when someone participating in the discussion has
> already formulated his/her view and is not going to budge
> from that. 
> 
> 
> However, the mail even then does not answer the arguments
> which I feel should have been answered. You are stating that
> Somnath Temple (and as Durani ji said about Jama Masjid too)
> is an archaeological site and hence it was refurbished by
> the Govt. of India. I have no objections with that and I
> stated that earlier too. And I do know it is a historical
> site. However, I can also construe it as an act of Hindu
> appeasement. Similarly, for Jama Masjid, the action can be
> construed as an act of Muslim appeasement. Is it not
> possible to do so?
> 
> 
> More importantly, I had already stated that in India,
> appeasement is a form of action which continues, for every
> person belongs to one minority section or the other. We have
> so many minorities, like the Jats, the Jatavs, the Muslims,
> the Ahirs, the Khatiks, the Sikhs, the Christians, the
> different kind of Dalits, the Yadavs, the Gurjars, the
> Meenas and so on. I know you may say that casteism is wrong
> and most of these communities are Hindus. But the fact of
> the matter is that they mostly assert their identity in
> terms of caste rather than religion, at least in political
> life. The Gurjars and Meenas in Rajasthan listen more to
> their maha-panchayats, which is why we had a clash in
> Rajasthan between the two communities on the issue of
> reservations. 
> 
> 
> My view point is that while appeasement is wrong, India is
> such that each community looks for itself to be appeased.
> Even now, when such views opposing Haj subsidies are put up,
> the point is that the govt. can't simply remove away the
> Haj subsidies simply because a few people representing the
> Muslims are going to put up a hue and cry. Therefore, the
> only way to sort this out would be to go for Hindu
> appeasement, like say an act by the Railway ministry to
> start trains from all capitals to the four dhams where
> people can travel for free. Or may be some action of other
> sorts. 
> 
> 
> Secondly, if this appeasement is not done, then forget vote
> bank, there will be more riots and partitions in India. We
> have practiced this appeasement policy in Nagaland and some
> of the north-eastern states which has ensured that they
> haven't gone away from the Indian Union. To ensure that
> Kashmir also doesn't go away, the Article 370 was put
> up. It's appeasement for Tamils which ensured that Tamil
> was declared as a classical language, and Hindi was not
> accepted as the national language in 1965. Similarly, it was
> appeasement for Telugus which led to the creation of the
> first state based on language in India, namely Andhra
> Pradesh. It was appeasement of the Gurjars which forced the
> Vasundhara Raje govt. to declare reservation for Gurjars
> even though it was against the SC ruling which directed
> reservation to be not more than for 50% of the total posts.
> 
> 
> 
> I state the case that reservation ensures national unity.
> If there's one reason why the north-Eastern states
> haven't drifted away from the Indian union, it's
> because of this appeasement. If Kashmir has still not gone
> completely away, it's because of this appeasement. If
> Hindi would have been imposed on Tamil Nadu in 1965, a
> separate 'Dravida Nadu' would have been formed. If
> Telugu-speaking people had not been given a state based on
> their language, they would have gone for violence. If Mumbai
> had not been made a part of Maharashtra, then the
> Gujarati-Marathi violence would have been intensified. And
> if Gurjars would have been dealt with by the army rather
> than by the politics of reservation, the Gurjars would have
> been portrayed as an anti-national community in the minds of
> others, and their people would have been killed. And if
> tomorrow, Gurjars would have also involved themselves in
> violence or turned to some kind of organized violence like
> Naxalism or terrorism, who would have been responsible for
> that?
> 
> 
> I can understand Shuddha jee or Anupam jee stating that
> appeasement should never be done, and if some regions of
> India are to go away because of that, or India has to break
> as a result of that, so be it. But I can't understand
> how nationalists like you can argue for the same. This kind
> of nationalism is only going to lead to a break up of India,
> and not even into states based on languages, but also based
> on castes, creeds and so on. We already have areas like
> 'Hindu Rashtra', 'Brahmin areas', 'Dalit
> areas', etc . in different villages and cities of the
> country. Do you want all of them to become into independent
> states? And if you don't believe me, then remember that
> it was the Pakistani state's inability to appease the
> Bengalis in East Pakistan by accepting Bengali as the other
> national language, which resulted in the creation of
> Bangladesh (and not necessarily only the Indira Gandhi
> declared war as has been portrayed in India for so long). 
> 
> 
> As for the Sachar Committee Report, I think one needs to
> read the report before arriving at conclusions. I
> haven't read it, and would be very glad if you can point
> out from the report itself recommendations proposed by the
> Committee, which are against the Constitution of India.
> After all, if Dalits and tribals can be provided funds even
> today and have separate ministries created for them, simply
> because they still lack in development parameters and HDI
> (human development index) even after 60 years of
> independence, what's wrong if the same findings are
> found for Muslims and a minority-affairs ministry is created
> for them? And equally what's wrong if funds are kept to
> bring them to the average level of development experienced
> by the nation as a whole? 
> 
> 
> The Committee has noted that the educational, health and
> employment status of Muslims in India in different organs of
> the state and in private sectors too is not good. It equally
> has accepted the view that institutions like say banks
> don't open many branches in Muslim dominated areas,
> Muslims are not given loans easily, and that many areas
> which have more Muslim population are declared 'reserved
> for SC/ST' whereas those having more SC or ST population
> are not reserved, with a mindset to ensure that Muslim
> candidates are not able to stand in elections. 
> 
> 
> What is wrong in putting across that view? What's more,
> what's wrong if a count of Muslims is organized in the
> Army to find out whether Muslims are able to enter the Army
> or not? Of course, we need to find the reasons also as to
> whether it's the Army discriminating against the Muslims
> and not allowing them to enter, or is it so that Muslims
> themselves dont' want to enter the Army. But does that
> mean the action is wrong. 
> 
> 
> I am not saying that the army necessarily should require
> more Muslims. The army is an institution which is based on
> competitive excellence and as such only best personnel are
> chosen. And unlike other romantics here, I do understand
> that at least in the short term the army is something we
> have to live with. The world is not as romantic as some
> great academics here would like us to believe, though all of
> us would like it to turn into one, even the terrorists (all
> kinds) who are fighting thinking that the world will be a
> romantic one (in their views at least). 
> 
> 
> But what is the harm in finding out reasons as to why
> Muslims do or don't join the Army in relation to the
> percentage of the population they constitute for the nation?
> 
> 
> Therefore, my issue is that unless you make a comprehensive
> based argument, talking about such 'appeasements'
> and the Constitution of India is useless. And since you gave
> the meaning of secularism, let me point out the obvious
> here: India is a country where you have appeasment practiced
> in day in and day out, and what's more, true secularism
> can never be followed in this country, because as I said
> earlier, this will only lead to break up of the Indian
> Union. And if you are ready for that, then ok, go ahead with
> that. 
> 
> 
> By the way, my own view on this is that while I am ready
> for any break up of the Indian Union (and infact not only
> India, I would want the entire world to break down into
> small principalities with no armies), the statist structure
> of the Union would be replicated into the small
> principalities and the same oppression would be borne by the
> people, which I am totally against. Therefore, if any such
> kind of break up ensures that a different kind of state
> structure is established, then I am totally fine with it.
> And as I said, this should be done worldwide, and not only
> in India alone.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rakesh
> 
> 
>