Tuesday, November 21, 2017

"Hindus are wicked people living in India; they are our enemies"

Schoolchildren in Pakistan are fed a lot of propaganda and nonsense, especially under the subject 'Pakistan Studies', as this article in Urdu by Zunaira Saqib shows.

It was published on 19 Nov. 2017 in 'Humsub.com.pk.

I have provided here the Devanagari transcript of Saqib's article without any other change.

'Pakistan Studies' is called 'Mutaalia-e-Pakistan' ('मुतालिआ-ए-पाकिस्तान') in Urdu.

Saqib teaches management and HR at NUST Business School in Islamabad and also writes columns for newspapers and magazines.
------------

मुतालिआ-ए-पाकिस्तान की आख़िरी किताब
(ज़ुनैरा साक़िब, ‘हम सब’ मैगज़ीन, 19 नवम्बर 2017)

“हम सब कौन हैं?”
“मुसलमान”
“लेकिन टीचर मैं तो मुसलमान नहीं. मैं तो...”
“चुप! चूड़ा कहीं का!”
“चुप रह! यहाँ रहना है तो चुप रह.”
-------

“हिन्दू कौन हैं?”
“हिन्दू इंडिया में रहने वाले रज़ील लोग हैं. ये हमारे दुश्मन हैं.”
“लेकिन टीचर मैं तो हिन्दू हूँ. मैं तो पाकिस्तानी हूँ”
“हिन्दू हो तो हिन्दुस्तान जाओ ना!”
-------

“1965 में हिन्दुस्तान ने रात के अँधेरे में पाकिस्तान पर हमला कर दिया.”
“पाक फ़ौज ने जम कर मुक़ाबला किया और आख़िरकार 17 दिन बाद हिन्दुओं की फ़ौज ने हथियार डाल दिए.”
“लेकिन टीचर ‘ऑपरेशन जिब्राल्टर’ तो पाकिस्तान ने शुरू किया था”
“क्या कहा?”
“और ‘ताशकंद मुआहिदे’ में तो सीसफ़ायर का ज़िक्र है”
“कैसा ग़द्दार बच्चा है. पकिस्तान का नाम बदनाम करता है. चल मुर्गा बन मुर्गा.”
-------

‘जीम’ से जग, ‘चे’ से चिड़िया, ‘हे’ से हब्शी”
“हब्शी? हब्शी कहना तो कोई अच्छी बात नहीं”
“क्यूँ बे! तुझे बड़ी हमदर्दी है कालों से”
“चलो भई, आज से इस को भी ‘काली अंधी’ बोला करो.”
-------

“सब से अच्छा मज़हब कौन सा है?”
“सब से अच्छा मज़हब इस्लाम है.”
“क्यूँ बे तू नहीं बोल रहा?”
“जी मेरा मज़हब तो कुछ और है.”
“इस्लामी जम्हूरिया पाकिस्तान है ये. इस्लामी जम्हूरिया. समझा क्या? सब से अच्छा मज़हब इस्लाम, बाक़ी सब बकवास.”
-------

“दो क़ौमी नज़रिया ये है कि हिन्दू और मुसलमान दो अलग अलग कौमें हैं और ये मिल कर नहीं रह सकतीं. इसीलिए हम ने पाकिस्तान बनाया.”
“लेकिन अगर ये दोनों मिल कर नहीं सकतीं तो 1000 साल हिन्दुस्तान में जब मुसलमान हुक्मरान थे तो कैसे मिल कर रहती थीं?”
“चलो चलो बच्चों ब्रेक का टाइम हो गया.”
--------

“तो ये रही पाकिस्तान की तारीख़”
“टीचर इस में तो बांग्लादेश का कोई ज़िक्र ही नहीं”
“बांग्लादेश तो पुरानी ख़बर हुई. चलो आज बलोचिस्तान को पढ़ते हैं.”
-------

“जिहाद क्या होता है?”
“जिहाद अल्लाह की राह में काफ़िरों के ख़िलाफ़ जंग को कहते हैं.”
“काफ़िर कौन होता है?”
“जो मुसलमान न हो.”
“पाकिस्तानी हिन्दू, ईसाई, यहूदी, क़ादियानी, शिया, सब काफ़िर हैं? उन के ख़िलाफ़ जिहाद फ़र्ज़ है?”
“क्या बे बहुत सवाल करता है! चल निकल यहाँ से! जा जाकर उन्हीं काफ़िरों से पढ़. चल भाग!”
---------

The following Web link has been used in this post.

http://www.humsub.com.pk/17755/zunaira-saqib-14/

Partition of India: the purge that took place in 1947 completely unbalanced Pakistan

Muhammad Akram says he is still proud of having taken part in the lynching of Niranjan Das Bagga in Gujranwala in 1947, shows this very brief documentary published on 15 August 2017 on YouTube, one of the many that the BBC produced to mark the 70th anniversary of the Partition of India.

Bagga was a local politician who was trying to calm tensions in a public place after a 'Muslim' was killed, says the 2:20 minute long documentary film.

While he did that someone egged the people gathered there to target Bagga for killing and succeeded in generating the lynching frenzy.

"(We) finished him in less than an hour," Akram tells the BBC reporter.

I had watched this documentary a day or two after it was published on YouTube in August and wrote something in the comments section. 

Nobody replied to my comments until a few days ago when an 'Ali Maksud' (presumably a Pakistani) posted something. 

He wrote that his grandfather's family had similarly been killed by a "mob of Hindus and Sikhs" in Jalandhar district. 

I made a rejoinder to him.

My comments, the response by 'Ali Maksud', and my rejoinder are pasted below, after which I have added some more of my thoughts.
-------

My comments

"Whoever does not hit him with a stone is not the son of his mother and father. Then everyone hit (him) -- some threw two stones, some one. Well within an hour, (we) finished him". 

Who was he: A "Hindu"

Who were they: "Muslims"

Muhammad Akram, who was a member of the lynch mob, refers to "Muslims" with Punjabi words "sadyan bandyan" (our people) and refers to "Hindus" with the word "unan" (their).

He says he wanted to kill more of "them" and he continues to be proud of contributing to the lynching of one of "them".

So the lynching had no reason other than that Niranjan Das Bagga was a "Hindu" -- especially as Akram says he had absolutely nothing against Bagga.

The old man (Muhammad Akram) comes across as bigoted, benighted and churlish. He cannot be an example to any young person anywhere.
---------

Ali Maksud

All the family members of my grandfather were killed by a mob of Hindus and Sikhs in Patti, Zila Jalandhar (adjecent to Zila Kasoor in Pakistan), only he survived. A sikh woman saved him and later sent him to Pakistan. 

Those who would've killed my grandfather's wouldn't probably have had no guilt about it, just like that old man from Gujranwala.

More muslims were killed in the partition becausw More people migrated to Pakistan than India. So India has more such killers than Pakistan. 

The sad thing is nobody took judicial action against such people across both sides of the border.
---------

My rejoinder

I sympathize with your grandfather for the terrible loss he suffered on account of a terrible crime that was committed.

However, your comment doesn't show you have tried sincerely to see beyond the Hindu-Sikh versus Muslim narrative -- which is why you make assertions like "India has more such killers than Pakistan".

That assertion does not convince me.

India currently has more than 20 crore people who call themselves 'Muslims' (with birth rate that has always been more than the national average). 

Pakistan has no more than 2-3 million people who are labelled 'Hindu'.

(The population of 'Hindus' in what was united Pakistan has been declining since 1947 -- from about 23 per cent to less than 10 per cent in what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh.)

One can see clearly that in the provinces that were turned into West Pakistan in 1947, there had been an ethnic cleansing of people labelled 'Hindus' and 'Sikhs'.

(Given the population mix in India since 1947, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for any sensible person to assert that there had been a reciprocal ethnic cleansing of 'Muslims' in partitioned India.)

My father -- who was born in Haripur Hazara in 1939 and lived there until his family was uprooted by the Partition -- tells me he remembers the day Pakistan Day was celebrated, implying his family never wanted to leave.

But the ongoing violence forced his family within a day or two to flee their home to save their lives, and to eventually cross the border.

(In Hazara district, mobs had started killing 'Hindus' and 'Sikhs' and looting and burning their property as early as December 1946.)

The oral histories that I have gone through so far show that a huge number of people labelled 'Hindu' and 'Sikh' would never have left what became Pakistan, had they not been forced to leave their homes and hearth through rape, violence and loot.

And so the current population of Pakistan would have had a more balanced ethnic mix today, had all those people been allowed to stay.

A more balanced society would also have helped Pakistan to save itself from sliding into Islamic radicalism.

The uprooting and exchange of populations was obviously a disastrous idea, but it's impossible to ignore the ultimate cause -- namely that some people who called themselves 'Muslims' wanted a separate country for themselves.  

And they wanted separation on the false ground of being a "separate quam"!

I think many Pakistanis have come to realise the falsity of the ultimate cause (which was especially driven home through Bengali separation), but a lot of Pakistanis continue to be vulnerable to the propaganda that continues to promote the fraudulent concept of "quam" and reinforces the 'Muslim' identity at the cost of more syncretistic and accommodating cultural identity.

I believe 'Muslim' identity will neither allow Pakistanis to live in peace with non-Muslims, nor with themselves; it will continue to cause turbulence and strife in Pakistan.
-------------

I have heard at least one Pakistani admitting that what happened in 1947 (and since then) in the areas that went to Pakistan was ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims. 

(It's also clear that a similar ethnic cleansing took place in 1947 in parts of Punjab that went to India in which 'Muslims' were looted, killed, raped and driven away from their homes. So violence took place on both sides.)

Pakistani politician and lawyer Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan says in this video (relevant part 58:50 min. to 1:00:55 min.) that Pakistanis like to criticize India for riots in which Muslims suffer violence. 

"However, Muslims live in huge numbers there. We (in contrast) have carried out ethnic cleansing (here)... sparing no Hindus, Christians. The few who are left here want to leave this country and we can give them no reason as to why they should stay," said Ahsan in a discussion on 'Sindh Sagar and creation of Pakistan' at Karachi Literature Festive-2015.

In my rejoinder above, I have also mentioned Hazara district. 

Both my parents were born in Hazara in North West Frontier Province (NWFP). 

(NWFP is now called Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.) 

My father was born in Haripur town in 1939 and my mother in a village called 'Bagra' somewhere around 1944.

My father has quite vivid and chronological, but understandably sketchy, memories of his life there.

The first time I heard someone narrate an account of Partition violence in Hazara which was not personal-anecdotal was when I chanced earlier this year upon Amrit Pal Singh's YouTube channel.

His channel describes Amrit Pal Singh as a hermit, an independent researcher, and a seeker of truth.

He has narrated the violence perpetrated on 'Hindus' and 'Sikhs' during Partition in Hazara, Lahore and Pothohar region very coherently, chronologically and in great detail.

Amrit Pal Singh's own family belonged to Hazara and was uprooted in the Partition violence.

He has described the violence in Hazara during Partition in a series of five videos of which this is the first part.

I hope to write more on Partition, especially my own family's experience of that cataclysmic event, in future posts.
-------------

This post has used the following Web links in the order of occurrence. 

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FJdEXTazoQ&t=

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOJ3lXXlMvg 

3. https://www.youtube.com/user/amritworldnetwork/videos

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f107BeFW6M8

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Christianity is the most advanced science and practice of ethnocide ever devised

Continuing with the subject of the previous post about the fraud and criminality that Christianity and Christian Church embody, I have the following to say.

I feel that none of the words that people tend to use about Christianity clearly nail its actual nature and purpose.

Christianity, in my view, is the most advanced science and practice of ethnocide ever devised in human history.

Its ultimate purpose is to undermine all human cultures found on Earth through its ever more refined ethnocidal weapons, such as inculturation.

This undermining works to gradually supplant the autonomy and inherent syncretism of the targeted culture with the heteronomy and unnatural homogenization that the church administration represents.

Christianity was the original instigator -- the gene and the meme -- of European colonialism and imperialism that continues to destroy cultural diversity and syncretism across the world at such a rapid pace that human survival has become threatened.

So ethnocide, heteronomy (or undermining of cultural autonomy) and homogenization make up the quintessence of Christianity.

Ethnocide, heteronomy (or undermining of cultural autonomy) and homogenization are also the defining characteristics of what European (or Western) colonialism has done to the world in the last 500 years.

I like to connect these dots in order to get the fuller picture.

In my view, Christianity -- indeed the whole Judeo-Christian-Islamic imperialism -- needs to be seen without the red herrings of fraudulent concepts/categories like religion, secular domain, political domain, economic domain, etc.

Behind these fraudulent concepts/categories lies unvarnished colonialism/imperialism.

So whether it's Judeo-Christianity, or the West, or Islam -- it's all colonialism/imperialism which seeks continuously to expand its domain by enslaving ever larger chunks of humanity.

So please try to see through a conceptual fraud like 'religion' and understand that this fraudulent category is applicable only and only to Judeo-Christianity and Islam -- and not to other human cultures, Indic or non-Indic.

In other words, please stop mislabelling human 'cultures' as 'religions'.

India, for instance, never produced anything that remotely resembles 'religion'.

Why do we denigrate our own autonomous and syncretistic cultures by labelling them as 'religion' -- thus putting them in the same fraudulent category that consists of Judeo-Christianity and Islam?

While the soul of Bharatiyata -- indeed of all human cultures -- is 'syncretism', the fraudulent concept of 'religion' rejects and execrates 'syncretism'.

Judeo-Christianity and Islam are dangerous and pernicious for all human cultures precisely because they reject -- even anathematize -- 'syncretism'.

Check the Vatican website, for instance, to understand how it views 'syncretism'.

Islam rejects 'syncretism' by branding it as 'Shirk', an Arabic word whose more specific meaning is 'to include others in the unique status of Allah'.
--------

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

The world's oldest and most dangerous criminal syndicate!

Here are some thoughts on the so called 'Roman Catholic Church' that crossed my mind while skimming through this article by Jaideep Mazumdar in which he underlines the monstrous fraud that the church has committed by portraying some stray incidents of burglary and vandalism in 2014 and 2015 as "Hindutva" attack on "Christians".

The church frequently engages in fraud and falsehood such as claiming in March 2015 that an incident of alleged rape of a 72-year-old nun at a 'convent' in Nadia district of West Bengal was an act of 'communalism' against Christians.

The church also portrayed a number of other stray incidents of burglary and vandalism at places of Christian worship in the country as instances of hatred and intolerance directed at Christians and other "minorities".

"... the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI) president cardinal Baselios Cleemis told the media before visiting the nun and the convent in Bengal that 'not only cows, but human beings too need to be protected'... alluding to the BJP’s proposed cow protection measures," writes Mazumdar.

The investigation of the Nadia 'rape' case did not yield any Hindutva foot soldier, but some Bangladeshi men who, according to the police, just wanted to commit robbery (and did commit it).

"On Tuesday (07 Nov. 2017), a Kolkata court held only the prime accused, Nazrul Islam, guilty of rape. Four other members of the gang – all of them Bangladeshis – have been held guilty of only committing a dacoity."

Have the church and others crying wolf apologized?

Of course not!

Does one expect inveterate fraudsters and criminals to own up to their crimes?

I read Mazumdar's article on Bharatabharati.wordpress.com - even though it was originally published on 08 Nov. 2017 on Swarajya magazine's website.

The following is my brief comment.
----

Having read a lot about the Catholic Church I have come to believe that it is the world’s oldest and most dangerous criminal syndicate.

In 2013-14, I had done some probing of an incident of “theft” reported by the Catholic Church in Jharkhand and found that it was a staged theft.

The church reported in January 2008 that a statue of “Dhori Mata” (Mary) had been stolen from Dhori Mata Tirthalaya at Jarangdih in Bokaro district.

The incident was well reported by the media and the church made a lot of song and dance about it.

Within just a few days the statue was reported to have been found abandoned somewhere.

I did a careful reading of these media reports and found that the theft had been faked with the help of a police officer (Assistant Superintendent of Police A.V. Minz).

This discovery was part of a wider probe I was doing of this business of fabricating “Mata” cults (of Mary) across India that the Catholic Church has been engaged in for a long time, which I found to be another huge fraud and ethnocidal tactic aimed at conversions.

This fraud has already resulted in setting up 'Velankanni Mata' in Tamil Nadu, 'Niramalagiri Mata' and 'Gunadala Mata' in Andhra Pradesh, and other such 'Mary Mata' shrines.

My probe then had also led me to discover an effort made by Catholic 'Archbishop' of Ranchi Telesphore Toppo (an Indian 'Cardinal', also one of the electors who participated in the 2013 papal conclave that selected Pope Francis) to get the Vatican to proclaim Mary as "the spiritual mother of all humanity".

That proclamation -- in the eyes of Toppo and other Catholic fraudsters -- would allow the church to better exploit the existing culture in India of veneration for Durga and other Mata avatars in order to convert more 'Hindus' to Christianity.

This proposal is also known in Vatican jargon as the 'fifth Marian Dogma'.

The 'Roman Catholic Church' never fails to surprise me with its enormous capacity for committing fraud and other crimes; it's indeed the world's oldest criminal syndicate.
-----

The following Web links have been used in this post in their order of occurrence.

1. https://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2017/11/09/catholic-church-must-apologise-for-falsely-accusing-nda-government-of-hate-crime-jaideep-mazumdar/

2. https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/mother-marys-statue-mising-from-shrine-in-bokaro/539485

3. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-otherstates/Mother-Maryrsquos-lost-statue-found/article15153091.ece

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Our_Lady_of_Good_Health

5. http://www.nirmalagiri.org/history.htm

6. http://www.gunadalashrine.org/contact.html

7. https://zenit.org/articles/cardinal-toppo-on-a-proposed-marian-dogma/

8. http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/about-mother-of-all-peoples/
------

Saturday, November 4, 2017

Indian and Pakistani Muslims live in denial of their origins, says Pakistani journalist

The majority of Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent live in denial of their origins, says Pakistani journalist Wusatullah Khan.

It’s a sort of ‘Extra Subcontinental Ethnic Syndrome,’ a condition that neither allows them to respect themselves nor be respected by others, he writes in an Urdu column posted on Humsub.com on 29 Oct. 2017.

Their cure lies in making a collective effort to rid themselves of this Syndrome by learning to take pride in their real identities, writes the Karachi-based journalist.

The following is my English translation of Wusatullah Khan’s column, a very insightful piece.

The parenthesized-italicized glosses are mine.
-------

http://www.humsub.com.pk/81786/wusatullah-khan-199/

Who are we?

By Wusatullah Khan

Fifteen hundred years before Christ, when the Aryans of Central Asia began to spread into Europe and western and southern Asia, they became people of the places they settled in.

The Aryans became Slavic and German in Europe, Irani in Asia, and Hindu in southern Asia.

As against the Aryans, the Jews of the Semitic race, being God’s pampered people, don’t care much about anybody even today despite three and a half millennia of unsettledness.

Over this time period, they have, however, been able to develop a constituency that believes that a Jew is first and foremost a Jew and then something else, no matter what country he lives in.

So a Jew hailing from anywhere in the world can settle in Israel – as well as move out at will and, having moved out, return at will.

The Arabs, another Semitic kind, have shown a similar state of mind. They were affected by Arab hubris before the advent of Islam and failed to rid themselves of that discriminatory state of mind after the birth of Islam.

Keep in mind that Arab identity is as much Syrian and Egyptian as it is Saudi; an Arab is as much a Palestinian and Lebanese Christian as he is a Muslim.

And an Arab is as much an Iraqi Shia as he is a Kuwaiti Sunni.

The Chaush, who first came to India from Yemen to work as military men for Deccan’s Osmania sultanate, may engage in a lot of ‘batan’ (talk), but their eighth generation continues to see Yemen in their dreams 250 years after the original migration.

Fourteen hundred years after Khutbah Hajjatul Wida (the farewell sermon of prophet of Islam), the Arabs continue to view the world as divided between the ‘Arabi’ (meaning ‘articulate’ and ‘eloquent’) and the ‘Ajmi’ (meaning ‘alien’ and ‘inarticulate’).

And the Arabs who deny having such a mentality take no more than 10 minutes of prodding to show you who they think they are (and who they think you are).

It’s not just about Arabs. A Berber of the Sahara or the Bilali Muslim of Nigeria, or the baptized son of a South Sudanese Christian, for instance, will rather sell himself but not his African identity.

As for southern Asia, the Bengalis, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, trace their roots only in Bengal; they take as much pride in being son of the soil as they do in being Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist.

The same can be said about the Malays and Indonesians. Whatever be their faith, they are certain that their life and death is closely linked to their own ‘bhoomi’; that their ancestors might have come from somewhere centuries ago is of no consequence to them.

But who are the Muslims of southern Asia (excluding Bengal)?

If they belong to this land, why do they look outside?

And if they belong elsewhere, why don’t the people of those lands acknowledge them as their own?

For how long are the Muslims of southern Asia going to be lost in the wilderness of identity? When will their spirits find repose?

When will their hearts and minds understand as to what soil they originally belong to?

Some people find answer to this quandary in Allama Iqbal’s works, but tend to forget that pan-Islamism of the writer of Tarana-e-Hindi was born of possible political unity and not racial pride.

When I look around, I find very few Muslims who say they belong here and who are not proud of looking for their identity outside.

Consider this: How many, at the most, of Turk, Pathan, Persian, Kurd, and Caucasian soldiers, noblemen, dervishes or people of skill would have migrated from Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia to settle in the Subcontinent, right from the time of Muhammad bin Qasim to that of Bahadur Shah Zafar?

(Muhammad bin Qasim was the Umayyad general who is said to have started the Muslim conquest of India by conquering in the early 8th century the Sindh and Multan regions along the Indus River. Bahadur Shah Zafar was the last Mughal emperor who died in 1862.)

Ten lakh? 20 lakh, 30 lakh, 50 lakh? A crore?

The total number of Muslims in today’s India and Pakistan is said to be between 38 crore and 40 crore. (This number is greater than the Muslim population of the entire Middle East and North Africa put together.)

The fact of the matter is the ancestors of 90 per cent of these 40 crore people became Muslim through Sufi influence.

And yet, excluding the Jat, Rajput and Bengalis Muslims, all of these people continue to look for their origins outside the Subcontinent.

So southern Asia has the most ‘Syeds’ of the world and family trees of all of them start and end in Iran, Bukhara, and Hejaz.

(Syed is an honorific title denoting people accepted as descendants of the Islamic prophet Muhammad through his grandsons.)

Following the Mongol invasions, people, especially from Bukahra and Samarkand, Iran and Arabistan, did indeed come to settle in the Subcontinent, but were all of them scholars, Sufis and the noblemen?

There must have been at least some carpenters, weavers, blacksmiths, labourers and farmers among them, mustn’t there?

Where are they today?

Muslims are said to have ruled India for a thousand years. From Slave Dynasty to the Mughals, they all came to settle here, accepting the influence of local customs and traditions and in turn influencing the natives with their ways.

They were also buried here, but until the last breath they continued to call themselves -- and (their descendants) still call themselves – a Turk, Mughal and Afghan child instead of an Indian.

Also curious is the fact that since the fall of the Mughal Sultanate most Mughals are found in Punjab. Why?

Why are they not found in significant numbers in other provinces of Pakistan? And why all of the surviving ‘Mughaliyat’ doesn’t go beyond the Mughlai cuisine?

Likewise, some Pashtuns believe that they are not the local Aryan race but are the twelfth ‘lost tribe’ of Bani Israel.

Fair enough, but why don’t the descendants of the other 11 ‘lost tribes’ acknowledge them as their brothers?

You might respond: Since this ‘lost tribe’ of Bani Israel became Muslims, why would Jews acknowledge them as their brothers?

If you do, you need to be reminded that the State of Israel has two official languages, Hebrew and Arabic, and Arab Muslims account for 20 per cent of Israel’s population (excluding the Palestinians of the occupied territories).

As I said earlier, the basis of Israeli citizenship is Jewish race. You may continue to hate Israel, but why don’t you get your DNA checked to satisfy yourself as to your origins?

Sindhis are nationalist enough to ‘Marson, marson, Sindh na deson’ (will die and die, but will not give up Sindh), but when it comes to the question of origins the Kalhoras and Daudpotas lose no time in linking themselves to the Abbasid Caliphate.

(Abbasid Caliphate was the third of the Islamic caliphates to succeed the Islamic prophet Muhammad).

Talpur, Chandio, Jatoi, Zardari, etc, are Baloch and Baloch consider themselves to be a Kurdish tribe.

Only Brahui say they belong here.

Soomras have been Sindhis for ages but talk to them and they never forget to tell you about their arrival from Arabistan. ‘Syed Association’ is also found only in Sindh.

The Samat tribes of Sindh say they belong here, but don’t like to say or hear that their forebears would have been the subjects or co-religionists of Raja Dahir.

(Raja Dahir is said to have ruled Sindh in a period between the 7th and 8th centuries and his kingdom was conquered by Muhammad bin Qasim, an Arab general of Umayyad Caliphate).

I have quite a few Sindhi friends who take pride in calling themselves Samat, and also claim in the next breath that their ancestors’ settlement here accompanied Mohammad bin Qasim or occurred immediately thereafter.

So we are finally left with Kohlis, Bheels, Meghwars, and Thakars who neither came to Sindh from anywhere nor went anywhere from here.

There was a time before Zia-ul-Haq’s term (1978-88) when Mohenjo-daro, Harappa, and Taxila would at least be considered a part of Pakistan’s cultural and racial heritage in the educational curriculum.

And now?

About five years ago when I asked a curator of the Mohenjo-daro Museum about the sorry state of the relics exhibited there, he said, “This is the heritage of the Hindus who have moved out. We are maintaining it as much as we can. What more can we do Saain…”

Whilst most of the Muslims of the Subcontinent believe that the blood in their veins belong to places ranging from Central Asia to Hejaz and Yemen, (which is also the reason why their reverence for these places is double than that of other Muslims of the world), an Irani, Turk or Arab, upon meeting the same Muslims, doesn’t consider them anything other than Indians or Pakistanis.

And far from granting citizenship to the people from the Subcontinent who are settled in their countries for as long as three generations, the Irani, Turk or Arab is not even ready to view them as anyone other than those who can help or need help, and to at least regard them as his brothers.

Despite all that, the Muslim of the Subcontinent continues to cherish and gloat over his foreign lineage rather than to look for his real identity and learn to be proud of that.

As long as people continue to look outside rather than inside, they can neither respect themselves nor be respected by others.

A stone is heavy in its own place, they say.

However, this dictum realizes its truth only if people make a collective effort to rid themselves of Extra-Subcontinental Ethnic Syndrome, learning a lesson from those Muslim communities who take pride in their identities and yet their Islam doesn’t become imperiled.

You belong here and will continue to belong here.

Whether you admit that or not, others acknowledge you as such.

(End of Matter)

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Pakistani academic deems Sanskrit dead; Indian lawyer deems Hindi non-existent!

Arfa Sayeda Zehra, a Pakistani professor of history and a lover of Urdu language, likes to illustrate the idea of death of a language with Sanskrit.

She deems Sanskrit a dead language and believes that this death occurred because the language lost its ability to adapt to the changing times.

I heard her on YouTube expressing this view at more than one forum, including the one that I have discussed in this post.

On this particular occasion, Zehra makes only a cursory comment on Sanskrit (relevant part: 13:21 min), but there is another YouTube video I have watched in which she makes a fuller statement turning Sanskrit into a metaphor for linguistic extinction.

(In that video, she also suggests that Sanskrit became extinct because its use was restricted to “religion”.

I haven’t had time to locate that particular video and link it here, but reader can easily look for Zehra’s videos on YouTube. She has repeatedly expressed the opinion described above.)

Zehra made the remarks in question at Karachi Literature Festival that took place over three days in February 2017.

In this post I have commented on Zehra's remarks.

I have also commented on the utterances of another guy - Saif Mahmood - who I learnt is a Delhi-based lawyer. He talked about Urdu and Hindi (relevant part: 16:50 min) at the 2016 edition of the same festival.
-----

Arfa Sayeda Zehra is a glib speaker, but her portrayal of Sanskrit as an example of unavoidable death of a language through ossification of expression betrays the misconceptions that her milieu has knowingly harboured within itself.

She seems to call out the Islamism that has undermined cultural diversity and expression in Pakistan, but hardly realises that her own milieu is not unaffected by the same Islamism resulting in her holding pretty ignorant views about Sanskrit's relationship with cultures and consciousness of the people of India.

Associating Sanskrit -- which has continued to the present times to animate almost all Indic languages and cultural memes -- with "death" shows that she has pretty crude appreciation of that relationship and she herself has not been immune from the phantasmagoria that Islam's ethnocidal and epistemicidal system builds for itself everywhere.
-----

Saif Mahmood says that a misconception has taken root in India that "Urdu is the language of the Muslims and Hindi is the language of the Hindus".

He says "everyone in northern and central India" speaks what he would term "Urdu" and yet there is this perverse "insistence" on calling it "Hindi"!

"Ninety to 95 per cent of the words being used are Urdu words, such as kursi, maiz, etc," contends Mahmood.

(Really? Doesn't that imply that thousands of non-Farsi and non-Arabic words like aana, jaana, uthna, baithna, dekhna, soonghna, ped, paudha, kapde, lakdi, betaa, beti, doodh, cheeni, kutta -- not to mention the entire syntactical structure of the language -- are Hindi? Of course not. It's "Urdu speakers" like Saif Mahmood the genius who invented the entire vocabulary and the syntactical structure of the language spoken for centuries by millions of native-born Indians!)

Dialogues of Bollywood movie Mughal-e-Azam were in "Urdu" but "wrongly branded" as "Hindi" on the censor certificate, Mahmood says, translating one in "Hindi" to show how bizarre that would sound, eliciting much laughter from his Pakistani audience.

(That must have been an act of great injustice that the producer of the film somehow forgot to contest in public or in a court of law!! That's why Indians need a genius like Saif Mahmood.)

So, going by Mahmood's argument, a phrase like Taleem par sab ka haq hai (my example) is "Urdu" and that's how an overwhelming majority of Indians would express that idea.

(Presumably, no one will phrase it as Shiksha par sab ka adhikar hai.)

But of course this overwhelming majority of Indians, according to Mahmood, are such idiots -- or secret conspirators -- that they would perversely call that expression "Hindi" rather than "Urdu"!

As for "Hindi"  -- hardly anyone (perhaps no one) speaks it, according to Mahmood.

It takes an unsung and courageous linguist like him to call out this great dishonesty or perfidy (or both) of the millions of Indians!!

I think Mahmood, who is also a lawyer, should take the next logical step.

He should file a lawsuit demanding that all Bollywood films that have ever been made should be re-categorized as Urdu language productions!

He should file another lawsuit against the millions of his fellow Indians to make them correctly describe the language they speak in their everyday lives!

I have known very few people as honest and intelligent as Saif Mahmood.

I think he should be recognized as a great linguist and honoured with a Padma award as well as a Pakistani Sitara-e-Khidmat.
-------

The following Web links have been used in this post in the order of occurrence.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkg8km5MYOM&t=2244s
(Karachi Literature Festival-2017 discussion on "Urdu Nu Kia Hua?". Discussants: Arfa Sayeda Zehra, Ali Akbar Natiq, and Afzal Ahmed Syed. Moderator: Saif Mahmood

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbzAwHBKo2g
(Idhar Urdu, Udhar Urdu, Kidher Urdu?: Urdu in India and Pakistan
Saif Mahmood and Arfa Sayeda Zehra
Moderator: Bari Mian


Friday, September 22, 2017

Using Urdu as a tool of Islamic imperialism and India's role as number one Islamist country in the world

BBC presenter Aliya Nazki mispronounces 'Brahmaputra' as 'Bhramaputra' at 10:02 min. in this BBC Urdu newscast called ‘Sairbeen’.

This woman had part of her education in Delhi and has lived elsewhere in India!!

The mispronunciation may be inadvertent, but it seems that the controllers of Urdu language in the Indian subcontinent not only continue their chauvinistic eschewal of Hindi teaching and learning (i.e. in Pakistan), but continue with the practice of colloquializing the pronunciation of almost all Sanskrit-origin Hindi words that are used in Urdu.

That is despite the fact the majority of 'Urdu speakers' in the region, especially in India, are now better socialized and educated in Hindi than in Urdu.

For example, they continue, like silly poseurs, to pronounce 'prachaar' as 'parchaar', 'bhram' as 'bharam', 'var' as 'bar', 'graahak' as 'gaahak', 'vyaapaari' as byopaari', and 'grahasti' as 'garhasti'.

This cultivated avoidance of Hindi has pushed the institutionalized use of Urdu on to the path of hopeless Arabization and Persianization.

This institutionalized usage is already alienated from the soul of a language born in India.

Mispronunciation of Sanskrit-origin words is just one aspect of a larger picture; there is also deliberate misunderstanding of the meanings of those words.

The controllers of Urdu language thus knowingly continue with a pretense -- of misrepresentation and misunderstanding of an entire culture.

It's a cultivated misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

The fact is that Urdu has long come to be the tool of Islamic correctitude and imperialism in the Indian subcontinent.

It's the subtle and unsubtle means of acculturation to 'ideal Muslimhood' in the subcontinent, which is why a huge number of Muslims from not just northern parts of India but also eastern, western and southern parts tend to claim, quite counterfactually and unreasonably, that they are Urdu speakers, even if they can't manage even a smattering of idiomatic Hindustani.

For example, I have long heard the so called "Bihari Muslims" -- a number of whom continue to be stuck in Bangladesh and allegedly being discriminated against -- being described as "Urdu speakers", which is a laughable claim.

These so called "Bihari Muslims" hardly speak any Urdu that will satisfy even a primary teacher in a Madrasa.

The fact is that they speak the languages of the cultural areas (or anchals) they hail from, such as Bhojpuri, Maithili, etc.

Only a very small fraction of the "educated" Bihari Muslims can be said to have some knowledge of Urdu.

And the Bihari Muslims stuck in Bangladesh seem to have long forgotten whatever little Urdu they allegedly possessed once.

In a BBC report I checked on YouTube, even a young Muslim in Bangladesh whose family hailed from Odisha described himself as a "Urdu speaker" while he could hardly manage a sentence.

Why on earth?

The answer lies in Urdu's role as a language of Islamic imperialism and ethnocide, which resulted -- in the first place -- in the suppression of Banglahood, perceived by Islamic imperialists of the subcontinent as hardly 'Islamic' because of being too deeply rooted in Sanskritic culture.

The same mentality of Islamic imperialism works elsewhere in the subcontinent, especially in Pakistan (i.e. Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan) which was never an Urdu-speaking area beyond the limited sphere of some 'educated' people in Lahore and a few other places.

The use of Urdu as an imperialist tool is a manifestation of an Islamism that India has bred and nurtured for a very long time.

The story of this Islamism in all its lurid detail has never been allowed to be told in India in a language that people will understand.

I believe India had become the number one Islamist country in the world in the 19th century, thanks to Deoband, Barelvi, and a host of other Islamic madrasas in the area that's part of present-day Uttar Pradesh.

India-bred Islamism later influenced - and continues to influence - the foreign lands through organizations like the Tablighi Jamaat.

Taliban, for instance, who established the most medieval form of Islamic state in recent memory, were brought up as jihadis by Deobandi mullahs in Pakistan.

Needless to say home-grown Islamism created the conditions that culminated in the demand for a separate state for Muslims in India.

Based on whatever little I know about Islam, I don't understand what merit people find in attributing Islamic "radicalisation" to one form of Islam or another, such as Wahhabi, Deobandi and Barelvi.

Such hairsplitting is unneeded. Islam by the book – i.e. Islam by Quran and Sunnah (Mohammad’s utterances and deeds as borne out by collections of oral reports or Hadith) -- is lethal and ethnocidal, whatever label is given to it.

It's as simple as that.

I have not so far been able to gather anything that will explain to me as to how Deobandi is different from Wahhabi and how that difference, if any, affects Islam's baleful impact on human societies.

Mumtaz Qadri, who murdered Punjab governor Salman Taseer in January 2011 for an idiotic reason, was a Barelvi, which is supposedly a milder form of Islam.

So Islam is Islam. Its fundamentals are guaranteed to unbalance those who delve into them.

It's also a lie to claim that the so called 'Sufism' (whatever wishy-washy things it means to various people) flows from Islam.

I don't think Islam by the book allows any freethinking, free seeking and syncretism.

Whatever freethinking, free seeking and syncretism happens, it happens as a cultural phenomenon; it happens despite Islam, not because of Islam.

Syncretism, by the way, is a crucial concept.

Islam - like Christianity - rejects and execrates syncretism by rejecting and execrating 'Shirk' which means including others in the unique status of one and only Allah who is comprehensible only and only through a long dead person called Muhammad.
--------

The following Web-links have been used in this post in the order of occurrence.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g96KkpwV7h8

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0MGSZQlKhA&pbjreload=10

3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/29/pakistan-hangs-mumtaz-qadri-who-killed-blasphemy-law-governor

"Hindus are wicked people living in India; they are our enemies"

Schoolchildren in Pakistan are fed a lot of propaganda and nonsense, especially under the subject 'Pakistan Studies', as this articl...