Indian Perceptions of Arabs

Oh, what is this?

MarcoPolo as usual the master of S Asian topics.

Indian Hindu's, specially the ruling Brahmin class, as a rule, are pathological Muslim haters, because of a victim complex that developed over a thousand years, some show it, some keep it hidden for diplomacy and financial interest.

Arabs were duped with this myth that Indian Hindu's like Arabs, although lately they have found out how the Brahmin ruling class have joined forces with the Neocons and Zionists. It is the dream of fundamentalist BJP to eliminate all Muslims from India or to convert them back to Hinduism, this is no joke, some people from this party actually profess this as a goal.

All Muslim countries and population groups should tell the Indian government that Kashmir is also their issue, unless you solve it, we will treat you as you treat Kashmir Muslims. Lately OIC is being vocal, but its more of a talk shop and a half hearted effort at unity, just to show, something is being done.

1947 was the biggest mistake for Muslims of sub-continent, as Mughal Hindustan included Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and this area today has close to 500 million muslims as opposed to 800 million Hindus, a large number of which are Dalit Hindus who are more sympathetic to their Dalit Muslim blood brothers. A United India could be a Muslim-Hindu power and play large role in world stage, now it is a pathetic mess. Both Congress and Muslim leadership were short sighted. The result is an intractable problem in todays South Asia. A hostile Hindu India trying to dominate over much smaller Pakistan and Bangladesh and trying to seduce Karzai's Afghan govt. This is a global trouble spot all because of Brahmin's hatred of Muslims. But then how can we blame the Brahmins, the Turki Horsemen messed up their Bharat, which they now want to recreate. Only these pesky Musulmans are standing on their way, literally, as minorities in their own country creating nonsense embarrassment and as hostile neighbors blocking access to West towards Iran/Central Asia and to East towards South East Asia. This hatred will run its course for the next 100 years or more, in the meantime, the Muslims have no choice but band together for mutual support. Bravo to the stupidity of Muslim leaders like Iqbal and the stupidity of Congress leaders who did not want to share power with Muslim reps and to the ever smart British who probably foresaw this as a crippling blow to both Hindu's and Muslim's of their former ingrate colony.

Arabs lost their leadership qualities after subjugation from Turkic Seljuk, Mongols and later Ottoman. Now they have oil money, but no brains unfortunately, hence there is the rise of this futile violence that is counter to interest of Muslim people. Money and clueless-ness is a dangerous combination, they say.


Edited by eventhorizon - 28-Aug-2008 at 03:31

1947; was hardly a mistake. Its a good thing that it happened peaceably in the sense that it happened because of political agreement rather than because of war. It would have been much much much worse otherwise.

Originally posted by Sparten 1947; was hardly a mistake. Its a good thing that it happened peaceably in the sense that it happened because of political agreement rather than because of war. It would have been much much much worse otherwise.

No disrespect to your opinion. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion and express it. I have my own point of view and I present mine with relevant points and counter points. You can do the same or refute my points, which I will then address.

A civil war was possible if India stayed united but unlikely, the violent rioting and eventual loss of more than a million lives in 1947 partition started with the idea that their will be a separate homeland for Muslims, so now then there is an excuse to kick them out from Hindu majority Indian side and take their property and vice versa for unfortunate Hindu's living in Muslim majority areas soon to be part of Pakistan. If there was no partition, I am sure there would be violence, but it probably would subside over time and not result in so much death and carnage. More importantly it would not have permanently dismembered a living organic entity called Mughal Hindustan into 4 dysfunctional entities, which are still struggling to come to terms with each other.

It is actually not good to discuss what could have been or could have happened, it is never easy to tell and is a bit pointless, but we can always analyze what actually happened and why and how they happened.

Hello Sparten

Originally posted by HaloChanter Hmm, I canont believe the theory that the Muslim conquests shunned native religion. Yes, there has been many problems in modern times, but that is really a modern problem. In history, there has been a far more peaceful existence of religion in India. Hyderabad is a great example. This kingdom, in the Eighteenth century, was a Muslim one - but the population was predominantly Hindu. Persian immigrants from Delhi had created a highly islamicised elite culture, but there was a thick blend of Hindu tradition amalgamated in to ceremonies, rituals, festivals and even worship itself.   This was best seen in the symbolism of ritual, when the Nizam's would include certain Hindu gods in Muslim processions, though with Persian names and worshipped in an Islamicised manner. Temples of both religions flourished, to which the Nizam paid respect in all. In turn, Hindu's flocked to the Muslim ceremonies (a popular one was the ten day festivial of "Lord Mohammed" on a hill over the City where Muslims and Hindu's alike celebrated the old sighting in a dream of Allah's prophet by a sacred rock).   Indeed, the period was one in which Moslems took part in government and festivals of Hindu dynasties and Hindu's did such in Muslim states. With the entry of the English East India Company, this situation was even more evident, patronage and offices (such as Vakil or Munshi - diplomatic representative to/from the Durbar and Head Assistant respectively) were open equally to Moslems and Hindu's.   India has always been one of those unique blendings of religion that found its unique expression in the independent Mughal kingdoms of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

wow! this is by far the biggest joke i have ever heard in my life. this must have happened in an alternate reality in an alternate world. i am sure you people are not talking about Hyderabad in India (my home town). people called Nizams as "Razakars" (or rakshas or demons). Razakar movement bought Naxalites to my state. Nizam rulers were so far out of reality with the common folks if Sardar Vallabhai Patel did not send Indian soldiers when Nizam refused to join India common people would have massacered the Nizams family. Oppression also has a limit. No sane person in my state praises Nizams and present generation of youngsters do not even remember them as rulers, they are ignored to a large extent except salarjung who collected awesome items for his collection and they named a big museum for that guy. i am trying to remember a few of nizams names over the top of my head but unable to. that is the legacy of these people to a common person in my state. Hyderabad has been a dreaded place for communal rights till 1980's and due to sincere effort by the Chief Ministers of Andhra they were able to control it to a good extent.
Regarding that Lord mohammed stone. i do not know anything with that name, i have never heard of it where muslims and hindus flock to see a stone.

Kohistan is in Pakistan, and it dose not have an insurgency (not yet anyway). India has Kashmir, Nagaland, Assam, Orissa, Mirozam, Punjab, Central India, Tamil Nadu.

@ EVENTHORIZON I must kindly disagree with your viewpoint that somehow if the British established colony remained intact it would have served the interests of the Muslims better as I think for Pakistan to have remained with India would have been ''unnatural'' and unprecedented in history..As someone pointed out, it would have led to increased de-stability, violence and communal problems that would be on a greater scale than what is happening now. Unlike countries like China, there was no precedent, an no common culture, history or interchange. Even Kashmir's current occupation by india is unnatural, as they have historically, culturally and economically looked west towards Pakistan, Afghanistan and central Asia.  Contrary to popular misconceptions, Pakistan was never  ''part'' of india /south asia which for some reason many people seem hell bent on claiming without any factual backing, but rather various dynasties(such as the short lived Mughal-200yrs, Afghan etc..) may have had empires that spanned over several South Asian countries(Afghanistan, Pakistan, india) but these empires were exclusively ''foreign'' in nature(Turk, central asian).

The only way we could find out if it was better or not is if something different happened in 1947 and if we could turn back time. Since that is not possible, all this is hypothetical "could have" and "should have" musings and does not have much relevance for today and future. About Pakistan's having no cultural link with India, if I may remind you that 40% of Punjab is in India and Punjabi's are 60% of Pakistan's population, dominating all spheres of life. Now lets look at what actually happened.

The following is from wiki:

"Partition was accompanied by the largest and most rapid population transfer in history, with 17.9 million people leaving their homes. Of these, only 14.5 million arrived, suggesting that 3.4 million went "missing"[4]."

"Once the lines were established, about 14.5 million people crossed the borders to what they hoped was the relative safety of religious majority. Based on 1951 Census of displaced persons, 7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan immediately after partition. About 11.2 million or 78% of the population transfer took place in the west, with Punjab accounting for most of it; 5.3 million Muslims moved from India to West Punjab in Pakistan, 3.4 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from Pakistan to East Punjab in India; elsewhere in the west 1.2 million moved in each direction to and from Sind."

"Hindu Sindhis expected to stay in Sindh following Partition, as there was good relations between Hindu and Sindhi Muslims. At the time of Partition there were 1,400,000 Hindu Sindhis though most were concentrated in the cities such as Hyderabad, Karachi, Shikarpur and Sukhur; in a space of less than a year approximately 1,200,000 of them were forced to leave for India due to violence as more Muslims started to pour into Sindh and looting the homes of Hindus. Thus Hindus were forced to leave their homes and businesses behind. Of all the Partion victims, the Hindu Sindhis were the worst effected as they not only lost homes, but also a homeland. Unlike the Punjabi, there was part of Punjab both in India and Pakistan, but all of Sindh was alloted to Pakistan."

Since this is wiki, its probably not reliable, maybe you can provide more authentic figures. Regardless of the number, all those that had to give up their ancestral homes and all those that perished in the process would probably disagree with you. Its easy to put subjective label like Central Asia and South Asia. The fact is Pashtuns look down upon Punjabi's and Sindhi's as Indians, whereas Tajik's who consider themselves true Aryan's and ancient Iranians look down on Pashtun's as Indian and mongrel race. The Turkic Uyghur, Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Kazakh and Turkmen do not consider any Afghan's as true Central Asians, whether they are Tajiki or Pashtun, yes it is a strange world. Try visiting Soviet central Asia if you get a chance or talk to someone who has been there.

Ancient Arab maps from the early 8th century refer to Pakistan as ''Al-Sindh'' and india as Al-Hind.. even earlier Persian maps refer to the region of Pakistan as distinct and named after its river Sindhus while east was refered to as Ganges. Also, from a historical context, even the current establishment of india in its current form and size is a relatively new invention, Artificial in many aspects, some would even say colonially established as such a union of a vast and dispering ethnic groups has practically never existed or been done in south asia before, the credit for this should go to the British.  And as Sparten rightly commented, there an estimated more than 12-15 seperatist/agitating movements in india which they(india) have done a remarkable job of suppressing, but lets be honest, you cant suppress the truth forever before it comes back to bite you with a vengeance!  The more prominent of these disputes are the Kashmir, Sikh-Khalistan-Panjab, Nagaland ones of course, but other possibly more dangerous ones are the ones in Tamil Nadu who if they follow the path of their ethnic kinsmen in Sri Lanka, would be quite successful in establishing their ancient Tamil kingdom.  Also, you have to remeber that several states were forcibly or coerced into joining the indian union such as Hyderabad(which wanted to remain independant) but was occupied by india, Junagadh&Munabher(which acceded to Pakistan) but again invaded by india, the protectorate of SIkkhim, Kashmir(coerced with document falsifications, and the presence of an estimated 700,000 indian troops), and the list goes on..

As Indian economy gets stronger all these insurgencies will diminish, its only a matter of time. It will help if Pakistan doesn't feed fuel to the fire with China's instigation, as alleged by some people.

Even in Pakistan, the original ideals of an egalitarian society have routinely been put to the test as you have mentioned.  But the fact of the matter is that cultural, ethnic, linguistic and historical ties do pervade all aspects of life and have an effect on social integration.   For example, there are many ''Muslim'' migrants from india(they are called ''Mohajir''-arab for refugee or simply Urdu-speaker..) that live in Pakistan, notably in Karachi, and speaking from experience, I have a cousin(Pashtun) who married a mohajir girl, and the cultural and social differences do come out and are a source of friction while other relatives who have married into Baloch, Kashmiri's and Panjabi's have not had such difficult transition in their marriage life.  There are differences even between native Pakistani ethnic groups, but the differences are not as pronounced as with people who have arrived from farther afield.  The point of me telling this is that I think to group all the Muslims of South Asia under one common brush is also unnatural, as religion is just one factor in many that orient a person to a place.  In an idealistic world it would be nice, practically it wouldnt work.  In fact, many in Pakistan feel that some of the non-Muslim Pakistani refugees(Sindhi's, Pakistani SIkhs) who left should come back to Pakistan as they would ''fit in'' and better integrate into Pakistan's social dynamics much better than say a refugee, who happens to Muslim but all the way from india and share's no similarity with say a Sindhi, Pashtun or Panjabi from Pakistan.  Infact, during the annual Sikh pilgrimmage where many of the SIkh faith came to Pakistan, we met many who were complaining of the difficulties adjusting to life in india and struggling to maintain their dialect and culture from being absorped by that prevalent in india and how important it was for them to come to pakistan to keep their culture, language alive.

I understand what you are saying, neighboring people will always be more similar in culture, ethnicity and language. Just because a person is Muslim in Darfur does not mean that he will have much in common with someone in Albania or Bosnia. But isn't Islam supposed to forbid nationalism, aren't Muslims supposed to value Muslims as brothers and sisters above all else? Like you said, "ideally", in reality people always prefer and feel close to their own kind. Here you mentioned a local non-Muslim to fit in better, of course he will - but then this is the fallacy of partition, Allama Iqbal claimed that Muslims and Hindus are two nations, you are actually negating Iqbal's claim with your personal experience. Here is the funny part, if partition did not happen, these poor Muslim Mohajirs from the other side of India would not come and try to fit-in in your society and all those non-Muslims who fit-in would have no reason to leave. Ironic, isn't it. So you are actually pointing out the problems partition has caused.

Interestingly, while the independence movement did evolve with M.A. Jinah taking on the mantle for the rights of all Muslims, the original idea established by Allama Iqbal(national poet, and first person to conceive and demand Pakistan) was interesting, as it spoke of maintaining the cultural identity of the Muslims of the ''North West'' of South Asia in the provinces that now make up Pakistan with no mention of people(s) elsewhere.  On several occasions he mentioned that he felt the Muslims of Central and Eastern South Asia were different and felt the destiny of the people of Pakistan was different and orientated towards the west towards the middle east, Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia.  Many believe that Iqbal was acutely aware of the uniqueness and importance of preserving the identity of the peoples inhabiting the North West (i.e. modern day Pakistani's) from where he himself belonged and he, along with Jinnah,  never envisioned that soo many refugees(mohajir-indian muslim refugees) would enter into Pakistan from areas outside of it to disturb its delicate social/ethnic dimension.  It is this uniqueness that is even now under constant threat.  To further substantiate this, the original map that Chaudry Rehmat presented of Pakistan, shows 2 other countries in South Asia called Bangistan, and Osmanistan with several smaller princely states that were seperate from Pakistan.  They were meant for indian muslims.  As can be seen, Many of the early pioneers plans for Pakistan were altered, possibly due to British/indian/hindu reluctance, or of changes in the constant negotiations that were going on then.

From Wiki:

Sir Muhammad Iqbal was elected president of the Muslim League in 1930 at its session in Allahabad, in the United Provinces as well as for the session in Lahore in 1932. In his presidential address on December 29, 1930, Iqbal outlined a vision of an independent state for Muslim-majority provinces in northwestern India:

    "I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated Northwest Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of Northwest India."[2]

Iqbal's close correspondence with Jinnah is speculated by some historians as having been responsible for Jinnah's embrace of the idea of Pakistan.[14] Iqbal elucidated to Jinnah his vision of a separate Muslim state in a letter sent on June 21, 1937:

    "A separate federation of Muslim Provinces, reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of Non-Muslims. Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nations entitled to self-determination just as other nations in India and outside India are."[9]

While partition was being discussed the idea of Pakistan was for a Muslim homeland, there was no provision for keeping it exclusively for Muslims of Northwest India. But of course in reality what happened was that Mohajir's became the biggest loosers, they are outsiders in Pakistan or Bangladesh. Only Punjabi Muslims who moved to Punjab in Pakistan are ok and Bengali Muslims who moved to Bangladesh are ok. Also, the Indian Muslims, around 200 million of them are huge loosers, as all the Hindu's and Sikhs that moved from then Pakistan to India and their descendants, try their best in every way to make life difficult for them, they can never forget what the Muslims did to them at the time of partition and how they had to leave with just their life, leaving their ancestral home and their world behind. I have a feeling these are the same people that are active in BJP and the fundamentalist Hindu movement.

I think the establishment of Pakistan was a remarkable achievement for the people(s) inhabiting its land.  And despite all these differences, particularly in Pakistan with such a diverse range of people(s), an attempt is being made to accomodate all these dispering ethnic/cultural groups despite limited resources available, regional instability and political turmoil.  For a country which started off with a literacy rate of about 6%, that now even if the lowest markers are used (say 45-60%) literacy rate, is a remarkable achievement in 60 years.  The irony is, with better management it could have been much higher! A country that has maintained a growth rate of >5-7% despite continuously absorbing millions of refugees(indian, kashmiri, Afghan, burmese, Tajikistani, iranian, goan, somali, iraqi etc....) speaks much for it.  Furthermore, Pakistani's have thronged to the MIddle East to offer their skills, labour and helped built up many of the Arab powerhouses of today (eg. Dubai, Saudi Arabia etc..)  Its very easy to disregard what many of the forefathers sacrificed and achieved.

While I do not mean any disrespect, please look at the situation in Pakistan today, Taleban is resurgent within Pakistan, there is suicide bombings every few days, there is political instability, the US is thinking about attacking the Taleban in NWFP crossing the border from Afghanistan, the situation is getting from bad to worse. We hope the best for you, but right this point, it does not look very good. Please follow my thread here for some interesting and related discussions:

http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=25297&PID=477621#477621



Edited by eventhorizon - 02-Sep-2008 at 08:27

Edited by MarcoPolo - 04-Sep-2008 at 23:56