[Reader-list] Guests in Vedavati's house

S.Fatima sadiafwahidi at yahoo.co.in
Mon Aug 20 14:19:44 IST 2007

Dear Vedavati
No, being tolerant doesn't mean being tolerant to the
criminals and wrong-doers. I am against the so-called
terrorists. But of course, it is the duty of our law
and judiciary to prove who is a wrong-doer and who is
not (which in the case of the names you mentioned, is
undecided). I am simply referring to being tolerant to
the ordianary citizens of the country whatever
religion they may belong to, and not judge all the
people of a certain community from the perspective of
what their ancestors did centuries ago.

If most Indian Muslims wanted Pakistan, then why
didn't all of them migrate there? Why did the best
talented muslims stay back here? The answer is simple
- they didn't want Pakistan. And Jinnah was not the
only one responsible for Pakistan. Nehru, Patel and
Mountbatten played very strong role in the creation of
Pakistan. And this fact is not a Congress history -
congress will never accept it. I will give you a few
more interesting facts which are proven/documented:

1. When large number of Muslim families in Delhi had
packed up to leave for Pakistan, Maulana Azad gave a
very emotional speech at Jama Masjid where he tried to
persuade Muslims not to leave as THIS IS their
homeland for centuries. And after his speech, many
families actually decided to go back to their homes.

2. It is assumed that Muslim league which demanded
Pakistan, was supported by all the Muslims of India,
but the fact is that in an election conducted just
before 1947, a very small percentage of Muslims voted
for Muslim league. So, how can the demand of only a
party (Muslim league) be considered a demand of all
the Muslims.

3. It is assumed that the poet Iqbal gave the idea of
Pakistan. Yes Iqbal did talk about a separate
geograpical region (not a country) dominated by
Muslims, but at a later stage Iqbal wrote a letter to
one of his British friends, clarifying that he never
meant a separate country for Muslims. 

4. I have many relatives in Karachi who migrated from
UP in 1947. Whenever I speak to them they cry for
India. All of them, especially the older people, say
that the creation of Pakistan was a futile excercise
to them - they repent for having left their homes. As
refugees they are second class citizens in that
country. (this is the same story with all migrants -
whether Hindus or Muslims, on either side of the
border. And the statistics which you quote - 20
million Hindus - is debateable. What is your source of
this statistics? If we start fighting over statistics,
we will never reach any conclusions - these are
subjective figures). Why do hide the fact that
thousands of Muslims were killed in India (especially
Punjab) before they could even migrate. 

The other issues that you raised, actually the answer
to most of them lies in what I call "cultural
diversity". That is most beautiful thing about our 
country - not to be found anywhere else. And cultural
diversity demands that not everyone is forced to live
the same way, with a uniform culture and laws. If I
stayed back in India, I did so because I wanted to
live in a multicutural country. Now if I am asked to
live under conditions of uniformity, then what's the
point of my not migrating to Pakistan. If my right to
live with my culture is denied, then I might as well
leave India. But where else can I go - there is no
other place in the world that I can call home.


(By the way, I want to know what is your definition of
patriotism? Is putting a tricolour on ones' house or
car patriotism? Is cheering for one's cricket team
patriotism? Is making nuclear weapons patriotism? What
is patriotism? What activities should I do to be
called patriotic).

--- Vedavati Jogi <vrjogi at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry fatima, I could not get back to you earlier as
> I was not in town. I read your mail very carefully,
> I too would love to discuss certain issues with you
> as  I am also interested in solutions.
> I fully agree with you when you say that one must be
> tolerant & compassionate towards one’s countrymen.
> An Indian irrespective of his race, religion & creed
> who loves India and who has national interest
> foremost in his mind is my brother/sister. I worship
> war martyres like Abdul Hamid.  I love Rafi, Lata,
> Amitabh, Shahrukh, Sachin, Irfan, Sania etc. in
> equal measure. But when you say ‘being patriotic is
> not the only solution’ it surprises me, do you
> expect me to be tolerant towards person like Yasin
> malik?
> To prove one’s secular credentials do you think it
> is necessary to sypathise with Afzal Guru only
> because he is a Muslim?
> Secondly you have said that majority of Muslims did
> not want to join Pakistan but they had to migrate to
> pakistan to escape violence. Here I beg to differ .
> This may be a ‘secular’ History written by Congress
> or Left parties. But real History tells something
> else. When Jinnah was a follower of Lokmanya Tilak
> and wanted to be known as ‘Gokhale’ of Muslim
> community, Muslims did not look upon him as their
> leader moreover he was sidelined even humiliated by
> Mahatma Gandhi who preffered to join hands with Ali
> brothers. 
> ( This policy  prevails even today – A truly secular
> Muslim leader Arif Mohammad Khan is not acceptable
> to Muslims as well as Seculars )
> Its an unfortunate fact that when Jinnah became
> religious fanatic and demanded Pakistan Muslims
> wholeheartedly supported him without which Pakistan
> would not have been a reality. Jinnah alone could
> not have achieved it. But majority of Muslims stayed
> back in India because their daily bread & butter was
> here. You have mentioned the plight of many muslims
> who had to migrate to Pak only to suffer. But what
> about those 20 million Hindoos who were killed,
> wounded, raped & thrown out of Pakistan? 
> One major difference was while in Pakistan even head
> of the state the then PM Liyakat Ali was encouraging
> & supporting his countrymen in wiping out Hindoos
> from Pak;  here in India Mahatma stood between
> Muslims & Hindoos and protected the former with the
> help of his ultimate weapon ‘Upwas’ (which he had
> never dared to use against Muslims.)
> Fatima I don’t have anything against Muslims who
> stayed back in India. Plight of poor muslims and
> that of poor Hindoos is same. But if muslims have
> chosen to stay in India it is their resposibility to
> accept ‘Uniform civil code’ or ‘Family planning’. 
> It appears they can understand only their rights
> like reservations & implementation of Sacchar
> committee report. But with rights comes
> responsibility too. 
> What is practised in India is not secularism, it is
> minoritism which is the mother of secessionism.
> Instead of sending their children to Madarrasa
> muslims should send their children to regional
> language or english medium schools. Secondly nobody
> has stopped them from giving equal rights to their
> female folks. To preserve their separate identity
> they don’t do that. And unfortunately this
> separatism gets political nourishment. Wherever 
> muslims are in minority they are very demanding, and
> when they become majority community then ‘pakistan’
> happens, ‘kashmir’ happens’. You may or may not
> accept it, but it is hightime muslims changed their
> ways. 
>  > Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 08:26:03 +0100> From:
> sadiafwahidi at yahoo.co.in> Subject: RE: Guests in
> Vedavati's house> To: vrjogi at hotmail.com;
> reader-list at sarai.net> > Dear Vedavati> I don't want
> to indulge in any sweet goody-goody> principles nor
> ridicule your thoughts. I am honestly> interested in
> a dialogue for resolving issues. And I> would love
> to engage in a debate with you if we both> are
> interested in solutions. I feel that being>
> patriotic or nationalistic towards your homeland is>
> not the only solution. Being tolerant and>
> compassionate towards your fellow countrymen would
> be> more preferable.> > I said in my previous mail
> that I understand the pain> of all those who have
> been affected by the violence,> hatred and
> displacement, whether Hindus or Muslims.> Partition
> did not affect only the Hindus. Majority of> Muslims
> did not want Pakistan (this has been proven>
> historically), and had to migrate to escape the>
> violence. You may go and see the plight of many>
> migrated Muslims who left their home in India to go
> to> Pakistan - they still suffer. Both communities
> have> equally suffered, especially in Kashmir - do
> you agree> with me on that? If you tell me whether
> you agree or> disagree on this, we'll discuss it
> further. Let us use> this forum for a healthy debate
> rather than a> stone-pelting excercise. (And I take
> back any words> that may have hurt you.)> > S.F.> >
> --- Vedavati Jogi <vrjogi at hotmail.com> wrote:> > > >
> > it may appear childish but i can't help it.> > > >
> it is very easy to show liberalism, secularism( not>
> > with its true essence, i am talking about typical>
> > indian secularism), tolerance towards terrorists>
> > when you are not at the receiving end. my husband>
> > being a kashmiri pundit, lost his ancestral
> property> > in shrinagar, many of his relatives are
> still> > staying in refugee camps, (and our secular
> leaders,> > filmwalas have not got time in last 18
> years to> > visit those camps), two of his best
> friends were> > gunned down by yasin malik, they
> were 'punished' by> > the latter for being members
> of rss. (please don't> > say that he worshipped
> mahatma hence he killed the> > rss members.)> > and
> if we decide to apply same logic then hindus> >
> should also start killing members of muslim league>
> > because they partitioned our country. > > > > all
> you seculars who keep ridiculing my thoughts on> >
> nationalism imagine yourself in the group of> >
> kashmiri migrants or 1947 sindhi-punjabi migrants> >
> who were advised by mahatma to go back to their> >
> motherland and get abused/killed by muslims in> >
> pakistan.> > and then talk about these
> sweet/goody-goody> > principles> > > > vedavati> > >
> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 14:54:02 +0100> From:> >
> sadiafwahidi at yahoo.co.in> Subject: Guests in> >
> Vedavati's house> To: vrjogi at hotmail.com;> >
> reader-list at sarai.net> > Dear Vedavati> I don't
> want> > to offend you, but your analogy sounds> too
> childish> > to be taken seriously (although I don't>
> mean to> > demean children by saying that!). The
> complex>> > history of south Asia cannot be
> trivialized like> > that.> Even if we could use this
> analogy, then, I> > think our> house has been so
> huge and so resourceful> > that it> didn't mind
> having a few guests from> > outside taking> refuge
> in it. And they didn't come> > as guests - they>
> came to do trade and business,> > just as your (and
> my)> brethren and sistren go to> > America to
> becomes NRIs.> Now, once these> > "outsiders"
> decided to call it their> home, they are> > no
> longer outsiders (whether they are> born here or> >
> came from outside). As a matter of fact,> how can> >
> even you prove that you are an "insider". Just>> >
> because you are a Hindu? > > Having said that, now>
> > let's talk about the guests> taking over the
> house> > and asking the owners to leave.> Yes, if
> they do so,> > it is wrong. (But remember, no one>
> can claim to be> > the "original" resident of this
> house> - its been> > too damn long to argue on
> that). So, you> have no> > authority to ask Shuddha
> or me to leave the> country> > if we do not
> subscribe to the hollow words> called> > Patriotism
> and Nationalism.> > I am not commenting> > on any
> specific case (such Sanjay> Kak's film, which> > I
> haven't seen). But in general, I> believe that the>
> > exodus of the pundits from Kashmir is> a sorry> >
> affair, and if one has to find a long-term>
> solution> > to the Kashmir problem, it must involve
> the>> > re-location of Kashmiri pundits safely in
> their>> > original homes. But at the same time, the
> brutality>> > suffered by the innocent Kashmiri
> Muslims at the> > hands> of Indian forces cannot be
> wished away. And> > if Kak's> film (or anyone else)
> does take sides,> > then it is> bound to lead to
> this kind of situation.> > Let us stop> taking sides
> and come to the middle> > ground if need to> resolve
> any of our conficts.> >> > S.Fatima> > > ---
> Vedavati Jogi <vrjogi at hotmail.com>> > wrote:> > > I
> will try to answer this question, > >> > > > Imagine
> a situation, 10 people, say your friends> > or> >
> distant relatives come to your house & start> >
> staying> > with you, they expect you to accomodate>
> > them> > permanently, they expect you to do> >
> everything for> > them, they try to do away with> >
> your wife's/mother's> > authority & establish their>
> > supremacy in the> > kitchen. > > And ultimately
> they> > ask you to leave your house &> > take
> refuge> > elsewhere.......... Can you afford to be>
> > liberal> > in this case? Will you not try to
> protect> > the> > rights of your wife/mother?> > Be
> honest & give me> > the reply!> > > > These guests
> are outsiders and you> > will definitely> > try to
> throw them out. In a way> > you are showing> >
> narrowmindedness but you can't do> > without that.>
> > Because that is not in your> > family's interest.>
> > > > Same thing is applicable> > to your nation. >
> > 'Nationalism means doing> > everything which is in
> the> > interest of your> > country' (e.g killing
> terrorists in> > Kashmir or> > flushing out
> Bangladeshi Muslims from> > Bengal or> > Assam.)> >
> > > Still if you say that 'you are> > neither a
> nationalist> > nor a patriot' then I am> > sorry to
> say so, but you> > have no right to stay in> > my
> country! 
=== message truncated ===

      Do you get hundreds of mails everyday? Delete none. Go to http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_mail_9/*https://edit.india.yahoo.com/config/eval_register

More information about the reader-list mailing list