Rajiv Malhotra - The Root of India-Pakistan Conflicts

4/7/13 The Root of India-Pakistan Conflicts | Sulekha Creative
Creative Chennai Sign In | Register
Creative Rivr Blog The Root Of India Pakistan Conflicts
Creative
My Dashboard Post Now
Enter member name here...
The Root Of India-Pakistan Conflicts

Rajiv Malhotra / Blog / 11 yrs ago / A A+ A++ 358
It is commonly accepted as an article of faith that Kashmir is the root cause of all problems between India
and Pakistan. I disagree with this premise, and wish to demonstrate that the 'Kashmir issue' is itself the
result of a deeper root cause, which is a clash of two worldviews: pluralism versus exclusivism.
(It must be clarified that neither pluralism nor exclusivism is the same as secularism, because secularism
denies the legitimacy of religion, seeing it at best as exotic culture, and at worst, as a scourge. On the other
hand, pluralism and exclusivism both recognize and celebrate religion, but in entirely different ways.)
Most people fail to recognize that this clash between pluralism and exclusivism does indeed exist. This
exposes an intellectual failing and lack of preparation in getting to the root cause of the India-Pakistan
conflict. This has repressed the real problem, pushing it into the intellectual basement of the global
subconscious, and turning it into the shadow side of humanity.
Any genuine attempt to address geopolitical problems must look deeper than examining merely the
symptoms of conflict. This essay calls for a paradigm shift in the understanding of the root cause, without
which attempts to resolve the 'Kashmir issue' shall fail, or at best bring temporary relief. It concludes by
defining the 'hard question' that must be tackled by the world community.
Religion and Conflict

All religions have two dimensions: theological beliefs that pertain to one's relationship with a Supreme Reality
of whatever kind; and sociological beliefs that pertain to dealings with human society. Often, people compare
only the theologies, finding common ground across many diverse religions, and declare them all be the 'same'
or 'equivalent'. Hence, they naively conclude that the present global problems are not about religion.
However, one must pay special attention to the second dimension of religions, namely, the social theories
mandated by different religions. It is here where the root of much conflict is to be located.
Christianity's onerous social demands became the subject of intense fighting after 1500 C.E., leading to the
Reformation of Christianity. Both sides -- orthodoxy and the reformers -- agreed that the social space should
allow critical thinking, independent inquiry, and separation of church and state. This clipped the wings of
Christianity from its control over the public space. Consequently, contemporary Western religion is largely a
private affair and focuses less on control over society.
While Christianity does remain very active socially today, and has strong positions on abortion, euthanasia,
creative.sulekha.com/the-root-of-india-pakistan-conflicts_103245_blog 1/18
and many other ethical matters, it is not the final legal authority to resolve sociological disputes. It has a
position on these, but this is only 'a' position and does not automatically become 'the' position in Western
society.
The situation in Islam is entirely different. A comparable Reformation has never been accomplished
successfully, and those who have tried such amendments have been killed as heretics. Hence, in many
ways, the sociological dictates of orthodox Islam today are comparable to those of pre-Reformation
Christianity. For instance, during the Middle Ages, Catholic bishops had fatwa-like powers to give death
sentences. They had police powers, and controlled the definition and enforcement of public law. (The greatest
gift that the West could give to Muslims is guidance in bringing about such a Reformation, as that watershed
event was the beginning of the rise of the West. The only losers would be the Islamic clergy.)
Furthermore, sociological mandates of a religion are also of two kinds: internal ones, such as the varna
system, marriage customs, gender relations, and so forth, that only impact the internal society within a
particular religion; and external ones, such as the requirement to proselytize or to kill or ill-treat outsiders, that
impact those who are outsiders to a given faith.
In my view the theological and internal, sociological, aspects of a religion are not the primary causes of global
conflict. Rather, the external, sociological, aspects of religion are the direct causes of global conflict.
It logically follows that it is the business of the world at large to interpret, question, and challenge those
aspects of a religion that take a position concerning outsiders. If I am the subject of some other religion's
doctrine, and such a doctrine states how I am to be treated, what is to be done to me, what I may or may not
do freely, then, even though I am not a member of that religion, it does become my business to probe these
doctrines and even to demand a change. On the other hand, if a religion minds its own business, and has
little to say pertaining to me as an outsider, then I should respect its right to be left alone.
In other words, a given religion's right to be left alone by outsiders should be reciprocal and contingent upon
its responsibility to leave outsiders alone.
Islam's socio-political strategies in dealing with the non-Muslim world are now at the crossroads and under
the world's microscope. The positions adopted by Islamic leaders will have long-term consequences for the
entire world, including both Muslims and non-Muslims.
Pakistan's Islamic Foundations

The three important social demands that dominate the Islamic orthodoxy as adopted by Pak istan's
government and many other Islamic States (as opposed to alternative liberal interpretations that are
subverted) are: (1) the 2-nation theory, (2) global loyalty to Islam superceding sovereignty of man-made
countries, and (3) Islamic triumphalism. These are summarized below:
1. The 2-nation theory: Pakistan was carved out of India based on the theory that Muslims require their own
separate nation in order to live in compliance with Islamic Law. This theory is equivalent to: (a) segregation
(neo-apartheid) by demanding a separation of socio-political jurisdiction for Muslims; and (b) Islamic
exclusiveness and imposition of Islamic “Law” upon the public sphere. This is the exact opposite of both
pluralism and secularism. The traumatic event that resulted from this, in India, is commonly called “The
Partition.” Once the population of Muslims in a given region crosses a threshold in numbers and/or
assertiveness, such demands begin. Once this ball is set in motion, the euphoria builds up into a frenzy, and
galvanizes the Pan-Islamic “global loyalty” discussed in #2 below. The temperature is made to boil until
Muslims worldwide see the expansion of their territory as God's work. The US will have this experience at
some point during the next few decades.
2. Pan-Islamic loyalty superceding local sovereignty: Islamic doctrine divides humanity into two nations that
transcend all boundaries of man-made countries: All Muslims in the world are deemed to be part of one single
nation called dar-ul-islam (Nation-of-Islam). All non-Muslims are deemed to belong to dar-ul-harb (the enemy,
or Nation-of-War). This bi-polar definition cuts across all sovereignty, because sovereignty is man-made and
hence inferior and subservient to God's political and social bifurcation. Islamic doctrine demands loyalty only
to Islamic Law and not to the man-made laws of nations and states, such as USA, India, etc. Among the
consequences of this doctrine is that a Muslim is required to fight on the side of a Muslim brother against any
non-Muslim. This has often been invoked by Muslims to supercede the merits of a given dispute at hand.
Orthodox Islam calls for a worldwide “network” of economic, political, social, and other alliances amongst the
1.2 billion Muslims of the world. Pakistan invokes this doctrine to claim Indian Muslims as part of dar-ul-islam,
with Pakistan designated as caretaker of their interests. The Al Qaeda global network of terror is simply the
extreme case of such a “network” mentality turning violent against the dar-ul-harb.
3. Islamic Triumphalism: A central tenet of Islam is that God's “nation” -- i.e. the dar-ul-islam -- must sooner
or later take over the world. Others, especially those who are in the crosshairs, as prey at a given moment,
see this as religious imperialism. Pakistan's official account of history honors Aurungzeb because he
plundered and oppressed the infidels, i.e. Hindus and Buddhists. Likewise, many other conquerors, such as
Mohammed of Ghazni, are portrayed as great heroes of Islamic triumphalism. (Even Pakistan's missile is
named after an Islamic conqueror of India in the Medieval Period.) Given this divine mandate, the ethos of
aggressiveness and predatory behavior is promoted and celebrated in social life, which non-Muslims see as
Islamic chauvinism. September 11 was a misjudgment of timing and dar-ul-islam's ability to take over. But
any orthodox Mullah or Imam would confirm God's edict that eventually Islam absolutely must take over the
world.
Socio-Political Consequences
Once ingrained, these ideological essences become the contexts that define all thinking concerning society,
politics, ethics, and even militancy. A sort of closed universe develops and rigidifies, and assumes a life of its
own, with its internal logic and legitimacy.
An intense identity is often programmed from childhood. For instance, history gets rewritten to fit the
requirement that anything pre-Islamic is to be seen as inferior and false. In India, this legitimized the
destruction of Hindu-Buddhist institutions. The past is still a threat, because it is too obviously Hindu-
Buddhist. In Arabia, it caused the virtual erasure of rich pre-Islamic cultures. Indigenous art got re-branded as
'Islamic art', even though it was done by non-Muslims who were employed by the conquerors.
Indian contributions in math, science, medicine, art, literature, etc. were translated by Arab and Persian
scholars in the Middle Ages with explicit acknowledgment and great respect for the Indian sources, and were
later re-transmitted to Europe. However, since Islam now no longer has exclusive control over India, it now
claims these as “Islamic” sciences. This version of a triumphant Islamic history is promoted heavily by Arab
sponsored television shows, and even on public television in the US.
The education system of such societies brainwashes and hypnotizes young boys into dogma that either
includes hatred, or can easily be turned into hatred, by pushing a few buttons. It denies them job skills for the
modern era, thereby expanding the available pool of jihad mercenaries for hire.
When Islam is in a minority and brute force power is not advisable, the Al-taqiyah doctrine legitimizes
deception, if done for the larger cause of dar-ul-islam.
All this has built a neurosis and hatred for others. There is also hatred for modernity, seeing it as evil. When
the infidels start to win economically or politically, the orthodoxy preaches that Islamic people are not doing a
good enough job on behalf of Allah, and must get re-energized to fight the dar-ul-harb. Such a powder keg
blows up under the right conditions of stress.
This thinking led to the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
History of the Two-Nation Theory

Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1876-1938), the leading Muslim philosopher of his time, was an Indian nationalist in his
early writings. But by 1930, in his poem, The Millat, his thoughts had crystallized on Muslim separatism. He
explained the concept of partition in his presidential address to the Muslim League in Allahabad in 1930: that
a unitary form of government was inconceivable, and that religious community had to be the basis for
identification. His argument was that communalism in its highest sense brought harmony.
Iqbal demanded the establishment of a confederated India to include a Muslim state consisting of Punjab,
North-West Frontier Province, Sindh, and Baluchistan. In subsequent speeches and writings, Iqbal reiterated
the Muslim claim to nationhood “based on unity of language, race, history, religion, and identity of economic
interests.”
The name 'Pakistan' originated in 1933, when some Muslim students in Cambridge (UK) issued a pamphlet
titled Now or Never. The pamphlet denied that India was a single country, and demanded partition. It explained
the term 'Pakistan' as follows: “Pakistan… is… composed of letters taken from the names of our homelands:
that is, Punjab, Afghania [North-West Frontier Province], Kashmir, Iran, Sindh, Tukharistan, Afghanistan, and
Balochistan. It means the land of the Paks, the spiritually pure and clean.”
In the 1937 elections to the provincial legislative assemblies, the Indian Congress party gained majorities in
seven of the eleven provinces. Congress refused to form coalition governments with the Muslim League, even
in Uttar Pradesh, which had a substantial Muslim minority, and vigorously denied the Muslim League's claim
to be the only true representative of Indian Muslims. This permanently alienated the Muslim League from the
Congress.
By 1939, the Aligarh Muslim group's resolution reflected the hardening of the Muslim leadership's thinking:
“Neither the fear of the British bayonets nor the prospects of a bloody civil war can discourage (the Muslims)
in their will to achieve free Muslim states in those parts of India where they are in majority.”
To rally political support, Jinnah used 'Pakistan' as the unifying cause. His famous 1940 Presidential address
to the Muslim League's annual convention in Lahore was a watershed event to segregate dar-ul-islam in the
Indian subcontinent. He said:
“It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and
Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct
social orders. It is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this
misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits, and is the cause of most of our
troubles, and will lead India to destruction, if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and the
Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither
intermarry, nor inter-dine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based
mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear
that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different
epics, their heroes are different, and they have different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of
the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a
single State, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent
and the final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a State.”
(Americans should visualize a future American Jinnah substituting “Christianity” in place of “Hinduism” and
adopting similar positions.)
Jinnah's theory was partially rationalized by his understanding of history according to which segregation was
normal and natural across the world. In his above speech, Jinnah went on to say:
“History has also shown to us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the Subcontinent of India,
which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many states as
there are nations inhabiting them. The Balkan Peninsula comprises as many as seven or eight sovereign
States. Likewise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula.”
This was a false theory of history on Jinnah's part. Recent events demonstrate the trend towards European
unification as opposed to subdivision, because the common interests greatly outweigh what divides the
various diverse peoples of Europe.
However, having once made up his mind, Jinnah politicized his two-nation theory successfully, using fear
tactics with the British:
“The present artificial unity of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the
British bayonet; but the termination of the British regime, which is implicit in the recent declaration of His
Majesty's Government, will be the herald of an entire break up, with worse disaster than has ever taken
place during the last one thousand years under the Muslims. Surely that is not the legacy which Britain
would bequeath to India after 150 years of her rule, nor would the Hindu and Muslim India risk such a sure
catastrophe.”
At the 1940 Lahore convention, the Muslim League resolved that the areas of Muslim majority in northwestern
and eastern India should be grouped together to constitute independent states - autonomous and sovereign -
and that any independence plan without this provision was unacceptable to Muslims. The Lahore Resolution
was often referred to as the 'Pakistan Resolution'.
Without any concrete 'dispute' between Hindus and Muslims, the logic that prevailed was that Muslims
require segregation of political and social life in order to be in compliance with the demands of sharia. The
Two-Nation Theory was a manifestation of the doctrine of dar-ul-islam versus dar-ul-harb.
Divergent Post-Independence Directions

India was built on an entirely different worldview, inspired by the same ideals as the United States, as is
evident from the Preamble to its Constitution:
“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST
SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
* JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
* LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
* EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
* and to promote among them all
* FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the [unity and integrity of the Nation]; …”
In sharp contrast, the Constitution of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has the following Preamble:
“Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be
exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust; …”
After Jinnah, Pakistan became increasingly radicalized and Islamicized, in many ways more extreme than the
founder's vision. For instance, the Ninth Amendment in 1985 caused Article 227 to read:
“All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy
Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, …”
The Ninth Amendment explains that the “objects and reasons” for this Islamicization are “so as to provide that
the Injunctions of Islam shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation and policy making and
to empower the Federal Shariat Court to make recommendations for bringing the fiscal laws and laws relating
to the levy and collection of taxes in conformity with the said injunctions.”
Once there is a State religion that has a strong orthodoxy, the State must also interpret the religion. For
example, the Ahmadiyya sect of Muslims is considered heretical, because it recognizes a 19th century man
born in India to be the new Prophet of Islam. In order to preserve the purity of the interpretation of Islam, the
Pakistan Federal Government has constitutionally prohibited the group from calling themselves Muslim, even
in the use of everyday Islamic greetings. This was implemented in the Second Amendment of Pakistan's
Constitution in 1974, which reads:
“A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophethood of
MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of
the word or of any description whatsoever , after MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such
a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.”
This Constitutional provision is now enforced in various application forms of the Pakistani government, such as
the following passport form on the home page of its embassy in Washington, DC. In item 14, the form asks
for the following Declaration:
a. “I am a Muslim and believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad
(peace be upon him) the last of the prophets.
b. 'I do not recognize any person who claims to he prophet in any sense of the word or of any
description whatsoever after Muhammad (peace be upon him) or recognize such a claimant as prophet or
a religious reformer as a Muslim.
c. “I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani to be an impostor nabi and also consider his followers
whether belonging to the Lahori or Quadiani group, to be NON-MUSLIM.”
As further examples of Islamization, the Law of Pakistan calls for amputation of hands or feet for many
property crimes. Consumption of alcohol by Muslims in any quantity whatsoever is punishable by flogging.
Under Pakistan's Islamic laws, adultery and fornication are punishable by stoning to death. The law on rape
(zina-bil-jabr) has a very chilling effect on women who are raped because: The crime is rarely proven because
it requires that four adult Muslim males of 'good reputation' must appear as witnesses to the act. (One is left
wondering why four men 'of good reputation' would be watching a rape.) If the charge fails, then the woman
who has brought it can be punished for false accusation (qazf) or, more commonly, for adultery (zina) herself
because through her charge she has admitted her own involvement in an illicit sexual act. For instance, in
1991, around two-thirds of the 3,000 women imprisoned in Pakistan were being held on such charges -- the
victims of rape prosecuted for illicit sex!
Islamic texts are being introduced into Pakistani military training. Middle ranking officers must take courses
and examinations on Islam. There are even serious attempts under way to define an Islamic military doctrine,
as distinct from the international military doctrines, so as to fight in accordance with the Koran.
An eminent Pakistani writer, Mubarak Ali, explains the chronology of Islamization:
“The tragedy of 1971 [when Bangladesh separated] brought a shock to the people and also a heavy blow
to the ideology of Pakistan… More or less convinced of their Islamic heritage and identity, Pakistan's
government and intelligentsia consciously attempted to Islamize the country… The history of Islamization
can be traced to the Bhutto era…”
“General Zia-ul-Haq [another great friend and ally of the US] furthered the process to buy legitimacy for
his military regime. The element of communal and sectarian hatred in today's society are a direct
consequence of the laws that the dictator had put in place… He made all secular and liberal-minded
people enemies of the country. They were warned again and again of severe consequences in case of
any violation of the [Islamic] Ideology of Pakistan.”
“Nawaz Sharif added his own bit, like mandating death penalty to the Blasphemy Law… With the failure
of the ruling classes to deliver the goods to the people, religion was exploited to cover up corruption and
bad governance… The process of Islamization not only supports but protects the fundamentalists in their
attempts to terrorize and harass society in the name of religion. There are published accounts of the kind
of menace that is spread by religious schools run by these fundamentalists…”
Khaled Ahmed describes how this radicalization of Pakistan is continuing even today:
“In Pakistan… every time it is felt that the ideology is not delivering there are prescriptions for further
strengthening of the shariah… Needless to say, anyone recommending that the ideological state be
undone is committing heresy and could be punished under law… The Council for Islamic Ideology (CII) is
busy on a daily basis to put forth its proposals for the conversion of the Pakistani state into a utopia of
Islamic dreams. The Ministry for Religious Affairs has already sent to the cabinet of General Musharraf a
full-fledged programme for converting Pakistan into an ideal state… We have reached this stage in a
gradual fashion, where these state institutions have become directly responsible for encouraging
extremism…”
This hole is so deep that General Musharraf, while promising to de-radicalize Pakistan, must reassure his
people not to fear the 'threat' of secularism. He recently clarified it as follows:
"No-one should even think this is a secular state. It was founded as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan…”
While America still has enormous racial inequality 150 years after the abolishing of slavery, the important
point is that it is committed to racial equality. Similarly, despite many flaws in India's pluralism, the State is
committed to it. What counts is a commitment to steady improvement. India has had one of the most
aggressive and ambitious affirmative action programs in the world. The results, while far from perfect, have
produced many top level Muslim leaders in various capacities in India, and a growth of Muslims as a
percentage of total population. But in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Hindu population has decreased
from 11% in 1947 to around 1% today, as a result of ethnic cleansing.
Pakistan's Identity Crisis

The problem for an educated Pakistani is to figure out when and where his history started. If it is to be 1947 in
the geographical area that is now Pakistan, then there is very little past for him to build an identity. If it is to
be from the time of Mohammed, then his history is outside his land. If it is prior to that, then his history is
largely a Hindu-Buddhist history, a past he wants to deny.
He must invent history to answer the question: Why was Pakistan created? Mubarak Ali, a prominent
Pakistani scholar, explains the predicament:
“Since its inception Pakistan has faced the monumental task of formulating its national identity separate
from India. Partitioned from the ancient civilization of India, Pakistan has struggled to construct its own
culture; a culture not just different and unique from India, but one appreciable by the rest of the world. The
overshadowing image of the Indian civilization also haunted the founders of Pakistan, who channeled their
efforts in making the differences between India and Pakistan more tangible and obvious.
“The fundamental difference between India and Pakistan was based on the Two Nation theory,
strengthening Pakistan's Islamic identity.
“…The University Grants Commission of Pakistan made Islamic Studies and Pakistan Study compulsory
subjects at all levels of the education system, even for the professional students. … This gave the
government an opportunity to teach the students its own version of history, especially the Pakistan
ideology, which is described as something like this: "The struggle was for the establishment of a new
Islamic state and for the attainment of independence. It was the outcome of the sincere desire of the
Muslims of the subcontinent who wanted Islam to be accepted as the ideal pattern for an individual's life,
and also as the law to bind the Muslims into a single community.
“In asserting this identity, Pakistan is in a state of dilemma…”
If Pakistanis were seen merely as Indians who converted to Islam, then they would seem no different than the
Indian Muslims, who are equal in number to Pakistan's total population, who are better educated and
economically placed, and who enjoy greater social freedom than their counterparts in Pakistan. Hence, the
very existence of Pak istan as a separate nation rests upon constructing an identity for itself that is radically
different from India's. But you cannot build a nation on a negative identity.
One might say that a birth defect of Pakistan was its lack of a self-sufficient positive identity. Such a positive
identity would neither be a negation of India, nor be an imperialistic claim of authority over all dar-ul-islam of
the subcontinent. Kamal Azfar, a Pakistani writer, explains the dilemma:
“There are two concepts of Pakistan: the first empirical and the second utopian. The empirical concept is
based on solid foundations of history and geography while the utopian concept is based on shifting
sands. Utopia is not an oasis but a mirage… Samarqand and Bukhara and the splendors of the Arab
world are closely related to us but we do not possess them. Our possessions are Moenjodaro and
Sehwan Sharif, Taxila and Lahore, Multan and the Khyber. We should own up to all that is present here
in the Indus Valley and cease to long for realities not our own for that is false-consciousness.”
This obsession to be seen as neo-Arabs has reached ridiculous extremes, such as Pakistani scholars'
attempts to show that Sanskrit was derived from Arabic. Even Persian influence on Indian culture is
considered impure as compared to Arabic.
Pakistan's un-Indian identity easily gets turned into anti-Indian rhetoric. In short, hatred for India has been
required to keep Pakistan together, because Allah has not done so. Pakistan is largely a garrison state,
created and sustained using the Hindu-Muslim divide.
A secure Hindu seems to be incompatible with what the Pakistani thinks a Hindu should be. Especially any
'Hindu' success feeds its Hindu-phobia.
Pakistan's positive identity building projects are using multiple strategies. The following are three of the major
historical myths being spun by Pakistan, to secure legitimacy for its separate existence.
Myth 1: Pakistanis = Descendents of the Indus Valley Civilization

The most aggressive identity engineering project is the theory of Pakistanis depicted as the 8,000-year-old
people of the Indus Valley. This civilization is presented as different from the Ganges Valley civilization. The
Indus and Ganges are depicted as the ancestral homelands of Pakistanis and Indians, respectively. Hence,
they have always been separate people. Given this model, Pakistan's Indus Valley researchers are
encouraged to show the links to the Middle East civilizations of Mesopotamia, so as to bring Pakistan and
the Arab-Persian worlds into a single continuous historical-geographical identity since the beginnings of
recorded history.
The following article titled, Separating Urdu from Sansk rit, published in the Urdu newspaper Jang, explains
the construction of this theory of an 8,000-year-old Pakistan:
“Pakistani intellectuals have been looking for the roots of their separate identity in the remote past for the
last two decades. They are not satisfied with the two-nation theory propounded by Iqbal, according to
which religion was the basis of nationhood… They want to show that… the Indus and the Gangetic
valleys have always been home to separate civilizations. Being the heir to the Indus valley civilization,
Pakistan is a geographic entity whose roots go back to time immemorial…
“Hitherto, the generally held belief has been that Urdu came into being as a result of social contacts
between the Muslims who came to India during the middle ages and the native population. So the
language was taken to be a crossbreed of Turko-Persian-Arabic vocables with the local dialects. This is,
in a nutshell, the view held by such eminent linguists as G.A. Griesson and Sir Charles Lyall, to mention
only two. This theory presupposed that these dialects themselves were based upon, or rather were a by-
product of Sanskrit.
“Khalid Hasan Qadiri [a new identity developer]… reaches the conclusion that Urdu has its roots in the
languages of the Munda tribes who were the inhabitants of the Indus Valley in pre-Dravidian periods…. In
this way we are led to believe that the Urdu language has a very well-defined and clear-cut grammar,
absolutely different from Sanskrit in every respect. The very basic philosophy governing the grammatical
structure of these two languages is totally different. And by any stretch of imagination one cannot state
Urdu to have emanated from the sacred language of the Hindus. Grammatically speaking Urdu owes
nothing to Sanskrit. Hence it cannot be grouped with the Aryan language either. It clearly belongs to
some non-Aryan group of languages. And this view is supposed to give us some solace.”
Myth 2: Pakistanis = West Asian Races

Using a more recent beginning point, there is a popular construction of Pakistanis as Arab-Persian-Turk
'immigrants' (with a few occasional 'jihads' against the infidels). Here, Pakistanis get racially differentiated
from the 'native' Indian Muslims. (A different version of this scenario says that Pakistanis are Aryans originally
from lands around Turkey.)
These theories encourage rampant Arabization of Pakistani culture. Arabization is to Pakistanis what
Macaulayism is to many Indians. The difference is that Macaulayism has afflicted only the top tier of Indian
elitists, whereas Arabization of Pakistan pervades all strata of Pakistani identity. For instance:
* Girls are discouraged from wearing mehndi, because it is seen as a Hindu tradition, even though it has
nothing to do with one's religion per se.
* The kite flying tradition during the festival of Baisakhi, celebrated for centuries in Punjab as the harvest
season, is now under the microscope of Pakistan's identity engineers for being too Sikh and Hindu in
character, and not Arab enough.
* Emphasis is placed on being un-Indian so as to assert this new identity wherever possible.
Pakistan has these internal conflicts between its Middle Eastern religious values on the one hand, and its
Indian cultural values on the other. In this internal struggle, the Islamic values based on Middle East culture
are conquering the indigenous values of the people. Much of the neurosis is about this destruction of one's
past identity.
Myth 3: Pakistan = Successor to Mughal Empire

This is the most ominous model of all from Indians' perspective: Pakistan is depicted as the successor to the
Mughal Empire. The post-Mughal two-century British rule is seen as a dark period of interruption that is now
to be reversed by returning to the glory of the Mughals. Under this return of the Mughals, Hindus would be
second-class citizens, in the same manner as they were under the Mughals.
Many Pakistanis would like Mughal Emperor Akbar's model, under which Hindus were tolerated and even
respected, although Muslims enjoyed higher status.
But most Pakistanis are said to prefer Emperor Aurungzeb's model, under which Hindus were oppressed and
forced to convert, and Islam was asserted in ways that were not different from the Taliban's policies. This
glorifies aggressiveness and Islamic chauvinism. Such an imperialistic identity has also led to a leadership
claim over India's Muslims, even though they outnumber Pakistan's entire population and enjoy greater
prosperity, freedom and culture.
Neurosis
This schizophrenia makes Pakistanis very insecure. To avoid this quandary, they quickly slip into talk of a
pan-Islamic identity, hoping to escape the irrational construct with which they find themselves burdened.
It is relevant to point out that Muslims are required to point towards Mecca five times daily in prayer.
Psychologists would call this “creative visualization,” a form of subconscious programming. Are loyalties
taking shape deep within one's psyche, towards the Arabs, the owners of Mecca?
What is the effect of being told since childhood, in chauvinistic and triumphant terms, of Islam's heroic plunder
of infidels, and its inevitable conquest of the entire world? What is the consequence of glorifying Ghazni and
Aurungzeb as is done in Pakistan's public school textbooks?
Khaled Ahmed explains the neurosis resulting from such dogma:
“The difficulty lies in the inability of the Muslims to mould their original revealed message to modern times
by applying logic and rationality to the ancient case law. There was a time when this was done but the
era of taqleed (imitation) has been upon us since the medieval period. Under colonial rule, many Muslims
thought of introducing reason in the science of understanding the Holy Writ, but today no one in the
Islamic world tolerates any deviation from taqleed even when this taqleed varies in practice from state to
state. All Muslim states are unstable either because they have enforced the shariah and are unhappy
with it, like Pakistan, or have not enforced it and are unhappy that it has not been enforced. For Muslims
the question, 'What kind of state do we want?' is a rhetorical one, because for them it has already been
answered.”
Most shocking is the prevalent Hindu-bashing on Pakistani state television and in state school textbooks. A
common theme is to depict Brahmins as cunning and wicked, and to mock at Hindu beliefs. By contrast, the
state run media in India is extra careful to be sensitive. Private Bollywood has many Muslims in dominant
positions and a pluralistic ethos is very much projected.
One of the most popular songs sung by Hindus is Ishvar, Allah tere nam, meaning Ishvar and Allah are God's
names. I have not come across Hindus being concerned or even conscious that they are giving Allah
recognition as equal to Ishvar. But most Muslim friends refuse to participate in any such song, as it would
violate the injunction against respecting other deities.
A friend recently told me that in her corporate office on Wall Street, she has been a close friend of a Pakistani
woman executive for many years. They bring lunch from home, and have shared each other's food regularly.
But one day, my friend casually remarked that the lunch she brings is after doing puja and offering some as
prasadam. The Pakistani woman refused to accept her food ever since. She had no qualms about saying that
eating such a meal would be a violation of her Islamic faith.
Pakistan, assuming the leadership of dar-ul-islam, is trying to expand the territory of Islam. Militancy is a
relatively recent export of Pakistan, a sort of last resort out of desperation. The 'Kashmir issue' is Pakistan's
identity crisis externalized towards an outside enemy, so as to find a meaning for itself. The citizens of
Pakistan have been galvanized into a neurosis to Islamize Kashmir on behalf of Allah.
The Need to Decouple

The economic directions of India and Pakistan are entirely different: the technology education emphasis in
India, as compared to the madrassas in Pakistan where Islamic identity is the primary curriculum.
India is one-sixth of all humanity. It deserves its own space in the world's mind, and should not be reduced to
one of eight countries lumped into a single 'South Asian region' just for simplicity and convenience. Pakistan
should be let loose to discover who it wants to be, without being bothered about India.
The Garland Making Worldview
“Be lik e a garland mak er, O k ing; not lik e a charcoal burner.” --Mahabharata, XII.72.20
This famous statement from the Mahabharata contrasts two worldviews. It asks the king to preserve and
protect diversity, in a coherent way. The metaphor used is that of a garland, in which flowers of many colors
and forms are strung together for a pleasing effect. The contrast is given against charcoal, which is the result
of burning all kinds of wood and reducing diversity to homogeneous dead matter. The charcoal burner is
reductionist and destroys diversity, whereas the garland maker celebrates diversity.
Garland making and charcoal burning represent two divergent worldviews in terms of socio-political ideology.
The former leads to pluralism and diversity of thought, whereas the latter strives for a homogenized and
fossilized society in which dogma runs supreme.
India represents a long and continuous history of experimentation with garland making. A central tenet of
dharma is that one's social duty is individualistic and dependent upon the context:
* To illustrate the context-sensitive nature of dharma, a text by Baudhayana lists practices that would be
normal in one region of India but not appropriate in another, and advises that learned men of the traditions
should follow the customs of their respective districts.
* Furthermore, the ethical views applicable also depend upon one's stage in life (asramadharma).
* One's particular position in society determines one's personal dharma (svadharma).
* The dharma has to be based upon one's personal inner nature (svabhava).
* There is even special dharma that is appropriate in times of distress or emergency (apaddharma).
Hence, anything resembling a universal or absolute social law (sadharama) is characterized as a last resort
and not as a first resort - a fallback if no context can be found applicable.
Combine this with the fact that social theories (called Smritis) were not divine revelations as was the case in
the Abrahamic religions, but were constructed by human lawmakers who were analogous to today's public
officials. Hence, all Smritis are amendable, and indeed are intended to be modified for each era and by each
society. This is a very progressive social mandate, and to freeze Indian social norms is, in fact, a travesty
based on ignorance.
This pluralistic social theory is deeply rooted in indigenous religions. In the Bhagavadagita (IX. 23-25), Krishna
proclaims that the devotees who worship other deities are in fact worshipping Him; and that those who offer
worship to various other deities or natural powers also reach the goals they desire.
Dr. P. V. Kane has researched ancient India's pluralism, and concluded emphatically that there was no state
sponsored religious exclusivism. In particular, Kashmir's history of garland making spans several millennia. Its
identity was not based on any religion. Kashmiris of all religions lived in harmony, and Kashmir was the
incubator of Kashmir Shaivism, much of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, and Sufism. Kashmir's survival as a garland
mak ing culture is a crucial challenge to the future of pluralism in the world.
The 'Kashmir Issue'

No fruitful discussion can begin with 'the Kashmir issue' as though it were a stand-alone real estate dispute.
The root problem between India and Pak istan is not 'Kashmir'. Neither is it about Islam's theology nor its
internal social practices. Rather, it is the clash between worldviews resulting from the external projection of
Islam -- dar-ul-islam versus dar-ul-harb. This manifests as Pakistan's two-nation worldview versus India's
pluralistic worldview.
The validity and success of either worldview necessitates the defeat of the other:
* For, if Pakistan's worldview were right, then Muslims everywhere require their own country in order to live as
good Muslims. This would mean that Indian pluralism would have to fail, and Indian Muslims would need their
own separate nation as well.
* On the other hand, if India's worldview were right, and Indian Muslims lived happily in a pluralistic society,
then the very foundation of Pakistan's existence would become unglued and there would be a call for re-
unification.
If both India and Pakistan were to adopt a common worldview, there could be a stable peace, regardless of
which worldview it was:
* If both adopted the two-nation theory, there would be exclusive and separate nations for Muslims and
Hindus, respectively. The practicalities of implementation would be horrendous, given the massive and
dispersed Indian Muslim population. But each would eventually become homogeneous internally.
* If both adopted the one-nation theory, they would re-unify.
I disfavor the first choice, because it would set a horrible precedence for humanity at large: If India were to fail
as the world's oldest surviving garland making civilization, it would mean that any geographical region of the
world with a significant Muslim minority, even with a small population (such as Kashmir's), would eventually
demand separation from the dar-ul-harb. Given the empirical fact of a faster birth rate than the rest of the
population, Muslims everywhere would sooner or later have the same kinds of fights with dar-ul-harb as in
Bosnia, pre-partition India, Philippines, Kashmir, and so forth.
Partitions into Muslim nations could never be complete until there were no others left. Such a theocracy
would be the ultimate charcoal burning social structure.
This would eventually become the biggest nightmare for the United States, China and other countries, given
their own demographic trends.
The second scenario may not be politically acceptable to Pakistan. This leads us to the hard question of
reformation.
The Hard Question

Rather than pretending that these problems have “nothing to do with religion,” or fearing that it would be
politically incorrect to address this issue, non-Muslim thinkers and liberal Islamic leaders should brainstorm
the following question:
Under what socio-political mutual understandings could it become attractive for Muslims to live in integrated
harmony with non-Muslims, even where the Muslims are a majority or a significant minority?
In other words, let's negotiate a framework for Islamic pluralism, separation of mosque and state, and
democracy.
The West's failure to understand this clash of worldviews, and its continued approach to Kashmir as the
problem in isolation, could end up creating another Palestine-lik e unsolvable crisis. This crisis would be
worse, and involve massive populations and nukes.
There needs to be a paradigm shift in defining the problem. India should take the moral, intellectual and
diplomatic high ground to debate: one nation (pluralism) versus two nation (exclusivism) theories. In other
words, the real issue is garland making versus charcoal burning.
References:
1. See http://alfa.nic.in/const/preamble.html Also, note that Article 15 explicitly prohibits “discrimination on

grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.”
2. See http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part9.html
3. Jinnah did have a vision as a moderate, although in an overall Islamic context. In his presidential address to
the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, August 11, 1947, Jinnah said: “Now I think we should keep that in
front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims
would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual,
but in the political sense as citizens of the State.” Contemporary Pakistanis are often trying to deny this
secularist call by Jinnah.
4. See http://www.pakistan-embassy.com/pages/formA.htm This url is to Pak Embassy in DC, giving the

official government form to get a passport.
5. In search of identity by Mubarak Ali. Dawn, Karachi. May 7, 2000.
6. What k ind of state do we want? by Khaled Ahmed. The Friday Times. January 25, 2002.
7. Pak istan not meant to be secular. BBC., 30 January, 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1792000/1792252.stm
8. In search of identity by Mubarak Ali. Dawn, Karachi. May 7, 2000.
9. The concept of Pak istan by Kamal Azfar. The Friday Times.
10. See the article titled, Separating Urdu from Sansk rit at: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2001-
weekly/nos-23-12-2001/lit.htm#4
11. This term is named after Lord Macaulay, who pioneered the British program to replace Indian languages
with English, to remove respect for indigenous ideas and values, so as to create intellectual dependence and
reverence for the colonizers. This was a very essential part of the colonizing process, and its crushing impact
is still being felt.
12. What k ind of state do we want? by Khaled Ahmed. The Friday Times. January 25, 2002.
13. Dr. P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra. Volume III, second edition, 1973, Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, Poona. p.883.
Creative
Post a Comment
Enter your response here
Submit
All Comments
Sainiput / 6 yrs ago
only if the indians who are worth their salt.

drink from this stream of thought by 'default'.
india can fully overcome the onslaught.
and face the ugly storm like a rock.
Comment
Ashok Menon / 7 yrs ago
a well researched article. it unfortunately only tells half the story i.e. that pakistanis are drenched in their
belief systems whatever its merits or demerits, through state sponsor, from the day they come into this world.
identifying ‘root causes’ to anomalies in competing belief systems, will not lead to voluntary self corrections of
offensive and combative dogmas, on the basis of enlightened ethical censure. that happens most often (if at
all) at the personal level. therefore while it is good to know what the ‘root causes’ are, there needs be the
‘power of might’ to confront what is inimical to the interests of a state. it is this ‘power of might’ that is
missing in the indian context owing to some grievious self inflicted constitutional foolishness.
hindus in india (unlike their pakistani counterparts) remain hindus in the wider chaotic and polyglot sense --
from atheist, to nominal believers, to a very very few who have any understanding of the real dharma -- with the
active abbetment of the indian constitution that, actively thwarts imparting the cultural dimensions of
hinduism’s character through any state sponsored educational channel.
secularism of the indian kind turns out to be a very uncultural thing – there is no life in it, no passion and no
conviction – a rather moribund, life sapping graft that has drained hindu vitality of common identity. it operates
much like a traffic light with some hardwired logic (provided the electricity is there) and ethics plays no role.
it should be no surprise therefore that hindus are unable to rally against ethical-cultural issues that confront
the nation and at best are left to fend only at the economic levels. bereft of the ethics and culture, the popular
consciousness is inexhorably led into the spiral of deceipt, corruption and such self serving concerns of
survival of the fittest. the elephant hindu can only trumpet piteously when confronted by a tiny foe. witness the
hydra of religious fundamentalism, minoritysm, casteism …
the only way out is to educate hindus on their hindu cultural identity. this is what is missing from the article.
Comment
Ponniyin Selvan / 7 yrs ago
black beak,
you think i will fall for "taqiyah..".. :-)
i try to goto roots to find out the truth.. "sayameva jayate"
i think "taqiyah" is mostly a "shia" term and using it generally for all muslims is not
advisable..
read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/taqiyah
..in shi'a islamic tradition, taqiyya (?????? - 'fear, guard against')[1] is the dispensation allowing muslims to
conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. it is based on qur'an 3:28 and 16:106 as
well as hadith, tafsir literature, and juridical commentaries.[2]..
Comment
Black Beak / 7 yrs ago
i see your point and i agree with you partially.
ponniyn - beware of taqiyyah. the art of lying by jihadis.
Comment
Salil / 7 yrs ago
ponniyin,
i see your point and i agree with you partially. while it's true that there always have been conflicts between
hindus and muslims, muslims are not exactly renowed for being open-minded and tolerant towards other
religions which is quite evident from the happenings worldwide.
while the pakistani blogger maintained that hyderabad massacre was a result of hindus taking advantage of
their majority, he was oblivious of the facts that razakars did to the hindu population during their rule, which i
found on the web. razakaars routinely persecuted the hindu people not only in the hyderabad state, but the
surrounding bombay and madras states also. no wonder frustration and desire for renenge was bottling up in
hindus.
Comment
salil,
just tells me that you completely misunderstood the issue.

this massacre had nothing to do with nizam and the actual war between nizam's razak ars and indian army.
after the hyderabad state was annexed to india (i.e. the indian forces completed the operation polo), majority
hindu community k illed/raped, etc the minority muslim community.
that period during independence/partition was a bloody one. read this resignation letter from jogendra nath
mandal, the first law minister of pakistan (a dalit who believed in the secular bs of jinnah). he later migrated (or
rather pushed/hounded) back to india
http://www.bengalvoice.com/uproot_appendix1.htm
....
women for military

13. the atrocities perpetrated by the police and the military on the innocent hindus,
especially the scheduled castes of habibgarh in the district of sylhet deserve description.
innocent men and women were brutally tortured, some women ravished, their houses
raided and properties looted by the police and the local muslims. military pick ets were posted
in the area. the military not only oppressed these people and took away stuff forcibly from hindu houses, but
also forced hindus to send their women-folk at night to the camp to satisfy the carnal desires of the military.
this fact also i brought to your notice. you assured me of a report on the matter, but unfortunately no report
was forthcoming.
.....
it explains how hindus (esp dalits) were treated in east pakistan by the majority muslims.. all the atrocities
you claim appears true, just that "majority" and "minority" differs and this is not a wikipedia entry that can be
edited by anonymous users..
it is pretty much a standard in those "communally" charged times. so what's new?.
Comment
Salil / 7 yrs ago
ponniyin selvan,
"about hyderabad, i think the action taken was quite right.. you had this nawab/sultan who
was the richest person of the world around that time while all his people are in beggar like
conditions and i'd have supported any action. i just could not imagine why they waited till sep
1948 when they could have done this in august 47.."
just tells me that you completely misunderstood the issue.

this massacre had nothing to do with nizam and the actual war between nizam's razakars
and indian army. after the hyderabad state was annexed to india (i.e. the indian forces
completed the operation polo), majority hindu community killed/raped, etc the minority
muslim community.
Comment
salil,
you can evade the facts by concentrating on one mistak e in that person't article or you can choose to do your
own finding and embrace the facts of hyderabad massacre.
my point was: however we try to claim how communal the idea behind formation of pak istan was, the truth is
the two communities indeed had problems between each other. the hate is quite palpable from the comments
on this article and in general the comments any article gets that talk s about religion, etc.
facts... yeah right.. the problem is i do know quite a lot of facts.. i try to learn from reading
through all perspectives, cutting the bs and getting the facts.. yeah it is true that the
communities have a lot of problems.. but muslims have problems wherever they are.. when
vajpayee said this, i thought what a communalist he was.. but alas he is quite right.. muslims
have trouble with hindus/christians/jews/buddists/atheists..etc..etc.. is that new??.
about hyderabad, i think the action taken was quite right.. you had this nawab/sultan who
was the richest person of the world around that time while all his people are in beggar like
conditions and i'd have supported any action. i just could not imagine why they waited till sep
1948 when they could have done this in august 47..
Comment
Salil / 7 yrs ago
to ponniyin selvan,
you can evade the facts by concentrating on one mistake in that person't article or you can choose to do your
own finding and embrace the facts of hyderabad massacre.
my point was: however we try to claim how communal the idea behind formation of pakistan was, the truth is
the two communities indeed had problems between each other. the hate is quite palpable from the comments
on this article and in general the comments any article gets that talks about religion, etc.
to black beak,
grow up.
Comment
from salil's paktribune reference, i get the following pearl of wisdom
it's an un-deniable historical reality that in hyderabad alone upwards of 100,000 muslims were slaughtered in
one day on the order of sardar patel, who eventually became the interior minister in the first cabinet of peace
loving jawahar lal nehroo. all this was done on the watch of mr. gandhi, the epitome and symbol of non-
violence.
the writer does not even know that gandhi died in jan 1948, and the supposed operation took place in sep.
1948. don't know if he meant gandhi watched it from heaven.. :-)
i find www.faithfreedom.org to be a reliable site. they just quote from the supposed "holy documents".. i find
their arguments reasonable and rational..
Comment
View More
More Articles
'Giri Stores Of Mumbai, Got A Face Lift ! by kariyanna
Should Science Shake Hands With Religion? by Anand Nair
HANSNA MANA HAI! by anjujain
Death Of Sanjay Bhargav: May Be Any Body's Story. by namjoshi
Learning From TV Ad by anjujain
View More
Corporate
About Us Contact Us Sulekha Rivr Rewards FAQ Media Coverage Ads / Commercials
Careers / Jobs Advertise on Sulekha Terms / Conditions Privacy Policy
Top Cities
India Agra Ahmedabad Amritsar Bangalore Chandigarh Chennai Cochin Coimbatore Delhi
Goa Hyderabad Indore Jaipur Jalandhar Kanpur Kolkata Lucknow Ludhiana Madurai
Mangalore Mumbai Nagpur Pune Surat Trichy Trivandrum Vadodara Vijayawada
Visakhapatnam Sulekha.com US Austin Atlanta Bay Area Boston Chicago Los Angeles
New Jersey New York Toronto
Follow Us
© 2013 Copyright Sulekha.com | All Rights Reserved.

Rajiv Malhotra - The Root of India-Pakistan Conflicts

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Rajiv Malhotra - The Root of India-Pakistan Conflicts

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

4/7/13 The Root of India-Pakistan Conflicts | Sulekha Creative

Creative Chennai Sign In | Register

Creative Rivr Blog The Root Of India Pakistan Conflicts

My Dashboard Post Now

Enter member name here...

The Root Of India-Pakistan Conflicts

Religion and Conflict

Pakistan's Islamic Foundations

This thinking led to the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

History of the Two-Nation Theory

Divergent Post-Independence Directions

An eminent Pakistani writer, Mubarak Ali, explains the chronology of Islamization:

Pakistan's Identity Crisis

“In asserting this identity, Pakistan is in a state of dilemma…”

Myth 1: Pakistanis = Descendents of the Indus Valley Civilization

Myth 2: Pakistanis = West Asian Races

Myth 3: Pakistan = Successor to Mughal Empire

Khaled Ahmed explains the neurosis resulting from such dogma:

The Need to Decouple

The Garland Making Worldview

The 'Kashmir Issue'

* If both adopted the one-nation theory, they would re-unify.

The Hard Question

1. See http://alfa.nic.in/const/preamble.html Also, note that Article 15 explicitly prohibits “discrimination on

4. See http://www.pakistan-embassy.com/pages/formA.htm This url is to Pak Embassy in DC, giving the

Enter your response here

Sainiput / 6 yrs ago

only if the indians who are worth their salt.

Ashok Menon / 7 yrs ago

Ponniyin Selvan / 7 yrs ago

you think i will fall for "taqiyah..".. :-)

i try to goto roots to find out the truth.. "sayameva jayate"

Black Beak / 7 yrs ago

i see your point and i agree with you partially.

ponniyn - beware of taqiyyah. the art of lying by jihadis.

Salil / 7 yrs ago

Ponniyin Selvan / 7 yrs ago

just tells me that you completely misunderstood the issue.

women for military

edited by anonymous users..

it is pretty much a standard in those "communally" charged times. so what's new?.

Salil / 7 yrs ago

just tells me that you completely misunderstood the issue.

Ponniyin Selvan / 7 yrs ago

1948 when they could have done this in august 47..

Salil / 7 yrs ago

Ponniyin Selvan / 7 yrs ago

from salil's paktribune reference, i get the following pearl of wisdom

'Giri Stores Of Mumbai, Got A Face Lift ! by kariyanna

Should Science Shake Hands With Religion? by Anand Nair

HANSNA MANA HAI! by anjujain

Death Of Sanjay Bhargav: May Be Any Body's Story. by namjoshi

Learning From TV Ad by anjujain

© 2013 Copyright Sulekha.com | All Rights Reserved.

S-ar putea să vă placă și