[Reader-list] The Epitaph of a Mind: Vir Sanghvi

[bipin]

well said Vedavati, your points are much valid.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vedavati Jogi" <vedavati_jogi at yahoo.com>
To: <reader-list at sarai.net>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] The Epitaph of a Mind: Vir Sanghvi


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Rakesh,
>
> I would like to discuss all these points with you.
>
> 1) Very first thing,
>
> There were 2 reasons why muslims decided to stay in India , firstly they 
> were assured security by nehru and Patel, secondly, their daily bread & 
> butter was here. If you read true History (and not the 'secular' one) that 
> too with open mind then you will come to know that more than 90% muslims 
> had supported 'pakistan' but most of them stayed back after partition.
>
> I was shocked to read that it was magnonimity of muslims which made them 
> to choose India as their homeland.
>
> 2) Muslims come out to vote in large numbers does not mean they are very 
> much in favour of democratic processes. Democarcy does not exist in muslim 
> countries- see the past & present of all middle east countries. Muslims 
> are quite aware of this fact that Hindus are divided in castes hence 
> muslim votes can decide the future of the candidate which gives them power 
> of bargaining.
>
> Thats why 'secular' parties cannot cancel article 370, they can not bring 
> 'uniform civil' code.
> they don't dare to hang Afzal guru. they don't show sympathy to kashmiri 
> pandits or godhra victioms, list is very big.
>
> 3) You have said that,
>
> 'secular folk' has never stated that they want Bangladeshis to vote in 
> elections. Neither have they made any statement in favor of Pakistan.
>
> seculars have created hue and cry whenever shivsena or BJP have talked of 
> sending back bangladeshis
>
> Shankarrao Chavan former minister had said that he would like to provide 
> permanent settlement to bangladeshis.
>
> After pokharan testing in 1998, Mulayam singh had advised Bajpeyi Govt. to 
> pay 2000 crores to pakistan.
>
> Manishankar Ayyar loves and trusts Pakistan and hates RSS. and whatever 
> happened in Swat valley was just a 'deal' and not something one should 
> worry about.
>
> Arundhati Roy openly supported Afzal Guru and advised govt. to give 
> Kashmir to pakistan
>
> I would prefer not to talk about 'Tista Settlewad'
>
> 4) For me, muslims are Indians moreover they are human beings and not 
> votebanks,
> Not Babar but Ram was their ancestor. They should mingle with their Hindu 
> brothers freely. They should send their children to English / Hindi or 
> Regional language medium schools and allow them to mix up with their Hindu 
> brothers and sisters. They should accept uniform civil code.
>
> Unfortunately that is not happening because you seculars continously give 
> them feeling that they are different than Hindus, they are suffering 
> because they are Muslims
>
> I would like to give you one example,
>
> I am a media professional working in the field of Education since last 23 
> years. Presently I am working for socio-economicall unprivileged children 
> 20% of them are Muslims. Among them my most obedient and favourite student 
> 'Rahil Tamboli' happens to be a Muslim .
> His mother is a victim of Talaque, who is now working as a peon. Rahil is 
> a very hardworking student who wants to be an IAS officer,
>
> Recently some congress workers visited his slum area mostly occupied by 
> muslims. These workers started talking about descrimination against 
> muslims and how congress gave them gift of Sacchar etc. Rahil stood up and 
> dared to ask those workers 'which descrimination you are talking about?' 
> Because he is quite aware of this fact that he is the most favourite 
> student of his Jogi madam. What he said was very very important. 'Talaque' 
> is the reason behind his sufferings. This 17 years old youth wants to be 
> an IAS officer but he can't achieve his goal because he can't join even 
> Junior college, he has to work because he has to look after his three 
> younger siblings. "I will throw your Sacchar report into waste paper 
> basket" believe me these are his words.
>
> There are thousands of Rahil Tambolis in India. Politicians and seculars 
> are constantly reminding them of their religion, trying to separate them 
> from Hindus, Politicians get votes and seculars can prove their secular 
> credentials. They are more worried about preserving their separate 
> identity and expect Hindus to forget their own identity,
> anything 'hindu' is communal anything 'muslim' is 'secular' 'liberal' . 
> Does this situation encourage Hindu-Muslim unity?
>
> Keep aside your 'secular tag' and think over it'
>
> Regards
>
> vedavati
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 28/3/09, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] The Epitaph of a Mind: Vir Sanghvi
> To: "Vedavati Jogi" <vedavati_jogi at yahoo.com>
> Date: Saturday, 28 March, 2009, 4:50 PM
>
>
> Dear Vedavati
>
> Since you have stated that you can't accept certain things, I would be 
> glad if you could answer the following questions in regard to these 
> itself. These are:
>
> 1) You state that Hindus had shown magnanimity to Muslims by allowing them 
> to stay back. As far as I remember, violence during Partition had occurred 
> in Bengal and Punjab, and may be in some other parts of North India. 
> Rajasthan and Gujarat, as well as the rest of India, was not involved in 
> any time of strife or violence, so there the Muslims stayed back. And even 
> in Punjab and Bengal, many Muslims did stay back.
>
> Hence, your understanding that Hindus were magnanimous enough to let 
> Muslims stay back, is in my minds contentious. This may be true only upto 
> an extent in Bengal and Punjab. Infact, to my mind, the Muslims were 
> magnanimous enough by staying back in India rather than going back to 
> Pakistan, thereby strengthening the idea that they believe in surviving in 
> a secular republic rather than in an Islamic state.
>
> This idea is further strengthened by the fact that Muslims come out to 
> vote in large numbers (forget for the moment the parties they vote for), 
> which means they are very much in favor of democratic processes. And they 
> do believe in the rights of the state. Infact, while the Muslims of India 
> oppose US for its' foreign policy, they don't oppose the Indo-US Nuclear 
> Deal or any deal. And all talk of Left fell flat when they said Muslims 
> are against the deal.
>
> 2) What makes you say that 100% Indianisation of Muslims has not taken 
> place? And first of all, can you define what Indianisation is? I can 
> understand Talibanization, but I don't understand what Indianisation is. 
> Do you have personal experiences of Muslims not being Indianized, or are 
> these just statements which keep on circulating as usual through media 
> folk and the like.
>
> I would be very glad if people who post these statements actually come 
> out, put their names, and show photos and visuals of these happening.
>
> 3) You say dividing the country. I agree that Congress and the other 
> 'secular' parties are more interested in getting the Muslim vote, and if 
> they can get that through communal riots, so be it. The fact is that the 
> same Sachar committee which you deride, has proven that in the last 60 
> years, Muslims have actually become worser, so much so, that their 
> position today is comparable to that of Dalits (which is not great, 
> irrespective of Mayawati becoming CM of UP).
>
> And even the Muslims know that they have been taken for granted as a vote 
> bank, but they can't help it. If the second most important party in India 
> had not been the BJP, but say the Left or some other party which was not 
> based on any religion-based agenda (even if it were say casteist), Muslims 
> could have voted tactically to ensure their progress. Instead, today they 
> have to waste their votes (like in my state MP), towards ensuring their 
> own security. All thanks to BJP and their activities.
>
> 4) You are stating there is so-called discrimination against Muslims. If 
> you want, you can go to Gujarat, in the city of Ahmedabad. My relatives 
> live there, and so do a couple of my friends. You would be sad to know 
> that on one hand, we have the Hindu-dominated areas, where there are 
> banks, schools (both public and private functioning properly by and 
> large), municipal offices, and other facilities expected of a modern city. 
> Go to the Muslim ghettoes, and there are none. You may say people are 
> poor, so they don't go to schools or other areas.
>
> Then let me remind you that in 2007, India finally accepted the duty of 
> educating children from 5 to 14 years of age, with primary education free 
> of cost. What is happening to this particular idea in these areas? Here, 
> teachers don't attend schools, and students come back after some time as 
> no teachers are there. No banks are established even to give micro-credit, 
> something for which none other than Mohammed Yunus, won the Nobel Prize 
> for Peace.
>
> These Muslims, even if rich, are not allowed to buy houses in certain 
> areas of Ahmedabad where Hindus live. People are threatened if they give 
> houses in rent to Muslims. Is this the way to go? I can understand the 
> criteria of vegetarian and non-vegetarian, but this alone is not what 
> makes people go against Muslims.
>
> Let me go ahead and say this. If we are so insecure about our own 
> daughters and wives that we feel that they would run away with Muslims, we 
> should stop marrying and live alone. That way would still be better. And 
> is it better to marry off our daughters to people who are bad but Hindu, 
> rather than someone they love but is a Muslim?
>
> 5) Finally, who shows sympathies towards Bangladeshis or Pakistanis? Never 
> has any of this 'secular folk' has stated that they want Bangladeshis to 
> vote in elections. Neither have they made any statement in favor of 
> Pakistan. Instead, you interpret any statement made by them for Muslims, 
> as one supporting Pakistan.
>
> Because for you, Indian Muslim = Pakistan.
>
> And it's this which I say is wrong, simply because it has been unproven. 
> For actions of a few Muslims, they can't be branded anti-nationals. And 
> all those who actually feel for Pakistan, need not be necessarily 
> anti-India. They may be simply pro human, who would want both India and 
> Pakistan to prosper side by side.
>
> Finally, for the fact you can't forgive. Then what should we do? Cut 
> Muslims to pieces? Would that give you some satisfaction? And if you get 
> killed then? Should we continue with this blood bath till one community 
> gets vanquished?
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname at rocketmail.com. Sign up 
> now!
>
>
>      Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Go to 
> http://in.webmessenger.yahoo.com/
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with 
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>