Indians value religious freedom and tolerance but not great at integration, finds Pew survey

[hoshiarpurexpress]

South India more inclusive, says Pew Center report on religious attitudes in the country.

Most Indians, cutting across religions, feel they enjoy religious freedom, value religious tolerance, and regard respect for all religions as central to what India is as a nation. At the same time, in what might seem like a contradiction, the majority in each of the major religious groups show a marked preference for religious segregation and “want to live separately”, according to a nation-wide survey on religious attitudes, behaviours and beliefs conducted by Pew Research Center, a non-profit based in Washington DC.

For instance, the report found that 91% of Hindus felt they have religious freedom, while 85% of them believed that respecting all religions was very important ‘to being truly Indian’. Also, for most Hindus, religious tolerance was not just a civic virtue but also a religious value, with 80% of them stating that respecting other religions was an integral aspect of ‘being Hindu’. Other religions showed similar numbers for freedom of religion and religious tolerance. While 89% of Muslims and Christians said they felt free to practice their religion, the comparative figures for Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains were 82%, 93%, and 85% respectively.

On the question of religious tolerance, 78% of Muslims felt it was an essential aspect of being Indian, while 79% deemed it a part of their religious identity as Muslims. Other religious denominations scored similarly high on religious tolerance.

The survey also revealed a number of shared beliefs that cut across religious barriers. For example, while 77% of Hindus said they believed in karma, an identical percentage of Muslims said so as well. Also, 32% of Christians (along with 81% of Hindus) believed in the purifying power of the Ganga, while the majority in all the major faiths said respecting elders is very important to their religion.

Index of religious segregation
And yet, paradoxically, despite these shared values and a high regard for religious tolerance, the majority in all the faiths scored poorly on the metrics for religious segregation: composition of friends circle, views on stopping inter-religious marriage, and willingness to accept people of other religions as neighbours.

The report, observing that “in India, a person’s religion is typically also the religion of that person’s close friends”, states that relatively few Indians (13%) had a mixed friends circle. Nearly half (47%) of Hindus said that all their close friends shared their religious identity, while 39% said most of their friends were fellow Hindus. The comparative figures for other faiths were 45% and 44% for Muslims, 22% and 56% for Christians, 25% and 56% for Sikhs, and 22% and 52% for Buddhists. In other words, people belonging to smaller religious groups were less likely than Hindus and Muslims to say that all their friends were of the same religion.

On the question of inter-religious marriage, most Hindus (67%), Muslims (80%), Sikhs (59%), and Jains (66%) felt it was ‘very important’ to stop the women in their community from marrying outside their religion (similar rates of opposition to men marrying outside religion). But considerably fewer Christians (37%) and Buddhists (46%) felt this way.

As for the third metric, the majorities in all the religious groups were, hypothetically, willing to accept members of other religious groups as neighbours, but a significant number had reservations. Among Hindus, most were willing to live near a member of a religious minority, such as Muslim (57%), a Christian (59%), or a Jain (59%). But altogether 36% of Hindus said they would not be willing to live near a Muslim, with 31% saying the same for Christians. Jains were even more likely to express such views, with 54% saying they would not accept a Muslim neighbour, and 47% saying the same about Christians.

In contrast, Buddhists were most likely to voice acceptance of other religious groups as neighbours, with roughly 80% of them wiling to accept a Muslim, Christian, Sikh or Jain as a neighbour, and even more (89%) ready to accept a Hindu neighbour. About 78% of Muslims said they would be willing to have a Hindu as a neighbour.

Interestingly, the survey found that Hindus who voted for the BJP in the 2019 elections tended to be less accepting of religious minorities in their neighbourhood. Only about half of the Hindus who voted for the BJP said they would accept a Muslim (51%) or a Christian (53%) as neighbours, compared with higher shares of those who voted for other parties (64% and 67% respectively).

Geography was a key factor in determining attitudes, with people in the south of India more religiously integrated and less opposed to inter-religious marriages. People in the South “are less likely than those in other regions to say all their close friends share their religion (29%),” noted the report. Among Hindus in the South, 31% said that all their close friends were Hindu, compared to 47% of Hindus nationally. An even lower number of Muslims in the South (19%) said that all their friends were Muslim, while 45% of Muslims across the country said all their close friends were fellow Muslims.

Religious identity and nationalism
The survey also found that Hindus tend to see their religious identity and Indian national identity as closely intertwined, with 64% saying that it was ‘very important’ to be Hindu to be “truly” Indian. Most Hindus (59%) also linked Indian identity with being able to speak Hindi. And among Hindus who believed it was very important to be Hindu in order to be truly Indian, a full 80% also believed it was very important to speak Hindi to be truly Indian. About 60% of Hindu voters who linked Indian identity to being Hindu and speaking in Hindi voted for the BJP, compared with only a third among Hindu voters for whom these aspects did not matter for national identity.

Southern deviation
The survey found that nationally, three-in-ten Hindus took both these positions: linking being Hindu and speaking Hindi to being Indian, and voting for BJP. But again, there was a clear geographical skew in their distribution: while roughly half of the Hindu voters in northern and central India fell into this category, only 5% of Hindu voters in the South did so.

Also, Hindu nationalist sentiments were less prevalent in the South. Among Hindus, those in the South (42%) were far less likely than those in Central states (83%) or the North (69%) to say that being Hindu was very important to being truly Indian. Also, people in the South were somewhat less religious than those in other regions: 69% said religion was very important to their lives, while 92% in Central India held the same view. Only 37% of Indians in the South said they prayed every day, compared to more than half of the Indians surveyed in the other regions.

The Pew Center’s survey of religion across India is based on nearly 30,000 face-to-face interviews of adults conducted in 17 languages from November 17, 2019 to March 23, 2020. The largest such survey in India till date, it covers the experiences and attitudes of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Sikhs and Jains.

The themes covered by the survey include religious identity, beliefs and practices, views on Indian national identity, caste, experiences with discrimination, religious conversion, and the connection between economic development and religious observance.

Source : https://www.thehindu.com/news/natio...egration-finds-pew-survey/article35045347.ece

 

[street cricketer]

I read the report yesterday.

The full report with all the graphics is a very interesting read.

https://www.pewforum.org/2021/06/29/religion-in-india-tolerance-and-segregation/

 

[MenInG]

Had to be South India! No surprise to me based on my dealings with them - most friendly and cooperative

 

[OMB]

Very hunky dory and feel good report overall. Yet I wouldn't start believing every part of it.

Some of the conclusions (the divisive ones) drawn by this report are very questionable considering the very miniscule sample base of 30,000. That's about a 0.0002% of population really.

Perhaps an apt sample base should be about 5% to 10% as we are not dealing with inspection of machine parts. They are people from a very diverse nation.
Everyone of those conclusions would differ based onso many factors such as Religion, Language, Resident State, Gender, Age, Career, Wealth, Political leanings, Rural or urban location, Timeline of survey - opinions change year to year. Probably many other factors which probably I am not qualified to understand when formulating a sample base.

In fact this report also becomes a factor in forming your opinion just as this forum does.
Perhaps best to take the positives out of it and ignore the divisive parts and overtime we will start seeing more positives in reality too

 

[street cricketer]

Some interesting results from the survey:

* Indian muslims view the partition as a negative event more than the Hindus while more hindus view the partition as a positive event for hindu-muslim relations.

* Hindus and muslims are more likely to say they find commonalities between their respective religions than say a Sikh or a Jain on Islam.

* Jains tend to don't want neighbours of other religions the most, particularly muslims, which I assume due to their meat eating habits.

* Not many Indian muslims claimed they were not free to follow their religion or they felt discriminated. In fact, equal amount of hindus said they felt discriminated as muslims who said the same (~20%), which is slightly funny.

* Most Indian muslims said while Indian people might not be perfect, Indian culture was better than other cultures in the world.

* While Indian muslims feel their religion is very important to them compared to most other religious groups, a higher percentage of Indian muslims said they were atheists than Hindus. Buddhists overall claimed to be the most atheistic among all religious groups.

* Indian muslims believed in the concept of karma almost equally as hindus did (~70%).

* Indian muslims were reported to be less dogmatic about their beliefs compared to Pakistani and Bangladeshi muslims, but more Indian muslims reported to visit the mosque at least once weekly as compared to their Pakistani and Bangladeshi counterparts and the difference was attributed to more muslim women attending mosques in India.

* A very funny thing that all religious groups reported was that they are more averse to people in their religion disobeying food habits as said in their religion even more than people denouncing god. For example, Indian muslims were much more likely to say that a person is not muslim if he ate pork than if he said he didn't believe in god. It's the same with hindus, sikhs and jains with eating beef.

* South India tends to be the least religious among all other regions in India and this even shows among the muslims, i.e., muslims in south India were relatively less religious than muslims elsewhere. But caste discrimination is reported the most in south India and north east India. I wonder if Dalits are more conscious of caste discrimination as they get more empowered in the south, a bit like more females reporting sexual offences as they get more empowered.

* Central India (which included UP, Bihar and Jharkhand, etc.) reported less caste and religious discrimination than the south which was surprising. But at the same time, north and central India were more likely to say it is important to be hindu, hindi speaking to be Indian and were least open to inter caste marriages while south being the most open to inter caste marriages and least likely to say that you have to be hindu or hindi speaking to be an Indian.

 

[MenInG]

Some interesting results from the survey:


* Jains tend to don't want neighbours of other religions the most, particularly muslims, which I assume due to their meat eating habits.

Are you sure that's the only reason?

 

[street cricketer]

Are you sure that's the only reason?

Tbh I do not know much about Jains as they're a very small community but well known for having very orthodox food preferences. I mean, there's often a "Jain option" in vegetarian restaurant menus which are not only pure vegetarian, but also cooked devoid of any onion and garlic. For them, eating even onions and garlic is prohibited for the strict jains.

Obviously this is no excuse for saying no to a neighbour from a particular community but I'm just giving some background behind the prejudice and negative sentiments.

 

[King_Kohli]

* South India tends to be the least religious among all other regions in India and this even shows among the muslims, i.e., muslims in south India were relatively less religious than muslims elsewhere. But caste discrimination is reported the most in south India and north east India.

This is true.
Most of the rural people are least religious in South India.

 

[King_Kohli]

In my opinion Jainism is the most peaceful and loving religion based on my interaction with them.

 

[OMB]

Are you sure that's the only reason?

Mostly the reason. Non violence is in their belief.
Almost all Jains are very sensitive about life in general, not only animals but also micro organisms.
It really hurts their sensibilities so they prefer to avoid this situation totally by often paying exorbitantly to live in societies where meat is not consumed.
Some christians and muslims find it impractical and mistake it as offensive.

 

[street cricketer]

Mostly the reason. Non violence is in their belief.
Almost all Jains are very sensitive about life in general, not only animals but also micro organisms.
It really hurts their sensibilities so they prefer to avoid this situation totally by often paying exorbitantly to live in societies where meat is not consumed.
Some christians and muslims find it impractical and mistake it as offensive.

Why do they avoid though..

Meat smell from cooking in the neighbouring house?

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Why do they avoid though..

Meat smell from cooking in the neighbouring house?

Smell of meat. I have a close Jain friend. Whenever we go out with him we need to make adjustment to not eat meat in front of him. Which we do.

Also, Surprisingly when I moved to Bangalore, our Tamil landlord took from us in writing that we will not drink alcohol and eat meat in the rented house. and no cooking of meat as well. We obliged and signed the contract.

Needless to say, every Saturday we ate meat and drank alcohol, but took care of the smell. Lived there for 3 years bless that Landlords soul.

 

[Kroll]

* While Indian muslims feel their religion is very important to them compared to most other religious groups, a higher percentage of Indian muslims said they were atheists than Hindus.

How does that work?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Some interesting results from the survey:

* Indian muslims view the partition as a negative event more than the Hindus while more hindus view the partition as a positive event for hindu-muslim relations.

Indian Muslims will have felt that their influence was massively decreased in remaining India. Hindus may have positive feelings about partition for ostensibly the same reason.

 

[street cricketer]

Smell of meat. I have a close Jain friend. Whenever we go out with him we need to make adjustment to not eat meat in front of him. Which we do.

Also, Surprisingly when I moved to Bangalore, our Tamil landlord took from us in writing that we will not drink alcohol and eat meat in the rented house. and no cooking of meat as well. We obliged and signed the contract.

Needless to say, every Saturday we ate meat and drank alcohol, but took care of the smell. Lived there for 3 years bless that Landlords soul.

You probably had a tambrahm landlord who are notorious for having orthodox rules in renting their houses.

 

[street cricketer]

How does that work?

The question was the percentage of people in each community who said they didn't believe in god.

And it was I think 6% among the muslims and 2% among the hindus. Now I know the absence of belief in god takes one out of the fold of Islam and doesn't count as a muslim, but you get the drift of the question..

 

[street cricketer]

Indian Muslims will have felt that their influence was massively decreased in remaining India. Hindus may have positive feelings about partition for ostensibly the same reason.

Agreed.

Interestingly, Sikhs had the highest percentage among those who viewed partition as ultimately a negative event for hindu-muslim relations.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Agreed.

Interestingly, Sikhs had the highest percentage among those who viewed partition as ultimately a negative event for hindu-muslim relations.

I don't know why Sikhs are concerned about Muslim-Hindu relations, I would think their concern would have been primarily their own loss of territory with half of Punjab going to Pakistan. But aside from that they aren't wrong. partition has been a negative event for Musim- Hindu relationships. Difficult to argue otherwise. Previously any disputes over any issues would be in-house. Now you will get the answer if you don't like it, Pakistan is that-a-way.

 

[Itachi]

too small sample size to give it importance. I liked the outcome but due to small sample size, I won't give these stats much importance.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Agreed.

Interestingly, Sikhs had the highest percentage among those who viewed partition as ultimately a negative event for hindu-muslim relations.

Because the Land of Punjab had the most vociferous freedom fighters, from Bhagat Singh to Lala Rajpat Rai, along with Bengal and partition took away half of our beloved Punjab, including our cultural and political capital of Lahore to another country.

Because when the border crossings happened post partition, most of the Sikh population suffered as overnight your country changed.

Because, Punjab, land of Five Rivers was divided into Land of 3 rivers in Pakistan and land of 2 rivers in India.

 

[gani999]

too small sample size to give it importance. I liked the outcome but due to small sample size, I won't give these stats much importance.

Small sample sizes can be highly reflective of reality if the said sample is selected properly.

I believe this survey is quite accurate overall.

 

[street cricketer]

I don't know why Sikhs are concerned about Muslim-Hindu relations, I would think their concern would have been primarily their own loss of territory with half of Punjab going to Pakistan. But aside from that they aren't wrong. partition has been a negative event for Musim- Hindu relationships. Difficult to argue otherwise. Previously any disputes over any issues would be in-house. Now you will get the answer if you don't like it, Pakistan is that-a-way.

I disagree. I see both hindus and muslims as two heavily polarised communities that have been prejudiced against each other for centuries. And no it was not the British who divided the two communities as is the common trope, the British merely used the preexisting wedge between both communities to their advantage. As such, having two polarised communities together in a single country would've been ripe for disaster for both communities.

A peaceful union between both communities would be only possible if both communities are less conscious of their respective identities. But then again, both communities actually become more conscious of their own identities when they're together than away from each other. So it's a bit of a catch 22 situation. I personally think without partition, the subcontinent would've been rife with riots and civil war and ripe for foreign intervention like Syria or Libya.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I disagree. I see both hindus and muslims as two heavily polarised communities that have been prejudiced against each other for centuries. And no it was not the British who divided the two communities as is the common trope, the British merely used the preexisting wedge between both communities to their advantage. As such, having two polarised communities together in a single country would've been ripe for disaster for both communities.

A peaceful union between both communities would be only possible if both communities are less conscious of their respective identities. But then again, both communities actually become more conscious of their own identities when they're together than away from each other. So it's a bit of a catch 22 situation. I personally think without partition, the subcontinent would've been rife with riots and civil war and ripe for foreign intervention like Syria or Libya.

I am assuming that both communities managed to find a way to co-exist before the arrival of the British. And in fact during the rule of the British as well, since Brits would surely have found it much more difficult to manage a country that size if it was in a constant state of civil war. Ironically, my impression is that Libya and Syria were ripe for foreign intervention because there was foreign intervention in the first place. Small countries with rich resources are always going to be targeted by other countries.

I am living in a multi-ethnic country though, my view of different communities working is that not everyone has to be the same as long as there is enough common interest in the prosperity and values of a country.

 

[guna]

How does that work?

Ex-Muslim atheists are scared to come out in open for the fear of shunning from their family and friends. A secret poll will reveal the actual truth.
Even Hindus do not come out in open. They just mask themselves as progressive and liberal Hindus. But in their heart, they do not believe in any supernatural power.

 

[gani999]

.

Because, Punjab, land of Five Rivers was divided into Land of 3 rivers in Pakistan and land of 2 rivers in India.

Indian Punjab has three rivers - Sutlej, Ravi and Beas.

 

[Bi_Jamalo]

Pakistani punjab has all 5 (and abt 70% of the land area of total punjab). Though southern parts of Pak punjab are siraiki and Riyasti speaking, which are related to rajhistani.

Punjab itself is an interesting and diverse place.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Based on personal observations, I feel those numbers are pretty accurate, Christian girls are given more freedom in general than any other religious group and Muslim girls the least.
Another interesting datapoint the survey points out is that almost half of all Hindus in central and northern India think Hindi is a vital part of national identity. Obviously, in western, eastern and specifically in southern India it is much lesser.
But I'm surprised its only 50 percent in those regions. I'd have thought it would be higher but perhaps its changing fir the better.

Also punctures the myth that southern India is more religiously and socially conservative than other parts of India . Clearly more liberal than some like to project. Even South Indian muslims ate more liberal than their compatriots.

 

[Lego20]

Good research - one of the few which does not try to paint/generalize India as a monolithic entity viewed through unipolar western lens. The findings are practically relatable.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

So essentially they’re good at all talk (valuing freedom and tolerance) but no walk (integration)

 

[street cricketer]

I am assuming that both communities managed to find a way to co-exist before the arrival of the British. And in fact during the rule of the British as well, since Brits would surely have found it much more difficult to manage a country that size if it was in a constant state of civil war. Ironically, my impression is that Libya and Syria were ripe for foreign intervention because there was foreign intervention in the first place. Small countries with rich resources are always going to be targeted by other countries.

I am living in a multi-ethnic country though, my view of different communities working is that not everyone has to be the same as long as there is enough common interest in the prosperity and values of a country.

Well, let's say both communities "existed", not sure if they co-existed. Riots were always common in India even during the British rule and let's not talk about what happened immediately after the British left. The main driver of polarisation is fear or insecurity to be more precise. In India, the hindus have an insecurity that their significant muslim minority might end up increasing to the point that India becomes a muslim majority nation and another islamic republic. In Pakistan, there's not as much hindu-muslim polarisation because there simply isn't enough hindus to bring about an insecurity. It's why Pakistanis are more likely to be polarised against their shia population, which is significant enough compared to the hindus and christians who are negligible.

Now imagine if partition had not happened. The muslim percentage in that united country would be very high and therefore the battle lines would be drawn between both communities. The one country which comes to my mind with such demographics is Lebanon which has around 60% muslims and 35% christians. Now Christians and muslims are more likely to get along with each other than say hindus and muslims because the former two communities have a lot in common and Jesus is revered as one of the prophets in Islam, unlike hinduism and islam which have diametrically opposite belief systems. Yet Lebanon went through a long and bloody civil sectarian war between the many communities in their country that led to power sharing and sort of segregation of communities. I have no doubt that a united India and Pakistan would be filled with chaos and violence, and partition might have ended up happening anyway.

You can't compare it to the west where most immigrants are the elites in their respective countries and are not likely to engage in rioting anyway. And both hindus and muslims are under a third party rule and therefore they don't have to compete for power and privilege as they do in their respective countries. Besides, the situation in the west can't be compared to the subcontinent because the west has already experienced a century or two ago whatever issues that are plaguing the third world right now and has underwent the process of secularisation which has made their community less conscious of their religious identity. This is not the same situation in the third world countries and will probably take a century and half maybe to occur. If hindus and muslims were mature enough to stay together at peace without getting polarised against each other, then yeah that hypothetical country would likely have been very powerful and dictating world affairs like China does now. But unfortunately, that's not the case and therefore we have to contend with the next best option that's best for both communities, that is to separated from each other. In this way, at least we can attribute the reason for our failures to ourselves rather than each other which would've been the case if the partition didn't happen.

 

[street cricketer]

Based on personal observations, I feel those numbers are pretty accurate, Christian girls are given more freedom in general than any other religious group and Muslim girls the least.
Another interesting datapoint the survey points out is that almost half of all Hindus in central and northern India think Hindi is a vital part of national identity. Obviously, in western, eastern and specifically in southern India it is much lesser.
But I'm surprised its only 50 percent in those regions. I'd have thought it would be higher but perhaps its changing fir the better.

Also punctures the myth that southern India is more religiously and socially conservative than other parts of India . Clearly more liberal than some like to project. Even South Indian muslims ate more liberal than their compatriots.

Not that I'm contending the opinion, but was there a question in the survey based on the bolded part?

 

[Itachi]

So essentially they’re good at all talk (valuing freedom and tolerance) but no walk (integration)

Its a normal human tendency. The religious scholars, do you believe they walk the walk same as they do the talking?

 

[Technics 1210]

India is lead by the only ever human to be banned by USA/UK on the grounds of religious terrorism - Modi - yet here we are lead to believe India values religious freedom.

Don't fall for the gutter tripe.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Not that I'm contending the opinion, but was there a question in the survey based on the bolded part?

There was a question of about allowing women to marry out of their religion I think.

 

[Itachi]

You can all for LGBTQ movement but when you are the father and your son/daughter chooses to be gay/lesbian, you'll feel a different feeling.

We human are hypocrite by nature.

 

[guna]

You can all for LGBTQ movement but when you are the father and your son/daughter chooses to be gay/lesbian, you'll feel a different feeling.

We human are hypocrite by nature.

I agree that it will not be funny when it happens in our own homes. People must still learn to live with it. Acceptance needs to happen.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So essentially they’re good at all talk (valuing freedom and tolerance) but no walk (integration)

Essentially most people said they have religious freedom and that they respect others religious freedom.

 

[OMB]

Essentially most people said they have religious freedom and that they respect others religious freedom.

Good observation and we should hold on to that positive thought as it is real.

 

[guna]

One good thing going for India is that no matter which religion a person follows, they all look the same. So without the religious head gear and dressing, nobody can tell which religion someone follows.

However, once if you know the religion of a person, if you are a believer in Abrahamic religions, it is easy to draw a line separating yourself from the other. In the past 2 or 3 decades, even Hindus have also become Abrahamized. They too mentally draw boundaries between themselves and people of other faiths.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

In Pakistan, there's not as much hindu-muslim polarisation because there simply isn't enough hindus to bring about an insecurity.

This is true, their is no insecurity about Pakistani Hindus who live mostly in interior Sindh. However I would say their is some insecurity about Indian Hindus as they are the majority in the subcontinent. Especially the Hindutva types.

It's why Pakistanis are more likely to be polarized against their shia population, which is significant enough compared to the hindus and christians who are negligible.

The polarization is not along sectarian lines, but ethnic lines. In Pakistan the ethnic identity is far more important than your sectarian ones. Especially as the majority of Pakistanis are Barelvi's, who have pretty good relations with Shia's. Now if the day came that Deobandi's were the majority then maybe it would be different.

 

[street cricketer]

This is true, their is no insecurity about Pakistani Hindus who live mostly in interior Sindh. However I would say their is some insecurity about Indian Hindus as they are the majority in the subcontinent. Especially the Hindutva types.

Why..

The polarization is not along sectarian lines, but ethnic lines. In Pakistan the ethnic identity is far more important than your sectarian ones. Especially as the majority of Pakistanis are Barelvi's, who have pretty good relations with Shia's. Now if the day came that Deobandi's were the majority then maybe it would be different.

I don't know, I've read about sectarian violence far more than ethnic violence in Pakistan. I guess MQM is involved in ethnic violence (I keep reading about it here), but sectarianism is probably a nationwide problem.

 

[OMB]

One good thing going for India is that no matter which religion a person follows, they all look the same. So without the religious head gear and dressing, nobody can tell which religion someone follows.

However, once if you know the religion of a person, if you are a believer in Abrahamic religions, it is easy to draw a line separating yourself from the other. In the past 2 or 3 decades, even Hindus have also become Abrahamized. They too mentally draw boundaries between themselves and people of other faiths.

this might be a pre-assumption (evils of social media).

People are still the same and saying same things that they always were. The continuous bombardment of the channeled rhetoric is twisting our perception but the truth is, on the ground, people are the same.

I am talking from my experience in dealing with people of multiple faiths in India and in the UAE. I see no change in their behaviour or thought process. In fact everyone understands what social media is doing to impressive minds.
I sometimes suspect that social media algorithms are tweaked to increase circulation of negative news than the positive ones.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I don't know, I've read about sectarian violence far more than ethnic violence in Pakistan. I guess MQM is involved in ethnic violence (I keep reading about it here), but sectarianism is probably a nationwide problem.

Yea their have been more attacks on a sectarian basis, but by polarization i meant in terms of how society is divided. Those attacks were done by fringe groups and they had no mainstream support.

An example of polarization would be in elections. A much larger people will vote based on ethnicity than on sect. Even though some of these parties did not necessarily run on an ethnic campaign, people did not want to vote for a party they perceived as belonging to another ethnic group.

The divide is especially big in Sindh. In Sindh until 2018 election, the urban areas with an Urdu Speaking majority voted for MQM, while interior Sindh voted for PPP.

I would say Pashtun, and Punjabi's historically have been more willing to vote for pan federation parties but even among their is a segment that votes on ethnic lines. This is why Nawaz Sharif started his career with the Jaag Punjabi Jaag (Wake up Punjabi) slogan. And Pashtuns were willing to vote for ANP, a party that is based on Pashtun nationalism.

Right now the two non Mullah parties who have pan federation support are PTI and PPP. PPP has lost most of their support outside of Sindh but they have historically been able to win seats everywhere. In Sindh PML N is still perceived as a Punjabi party, which is why they cant win in Sindh (unless its a Punjabi area), but they can win elsewhere, so thats the third big party with support across the country.

Why..

Their a feeling that India never accepted the existence of Pakistan, and if given a chance would finish Pakistan off. Not saying this is true, but that is the feeling that some people have.

And a belief that the Hindutva types are trying to erase, villainize, or severely minimize Muslim history of the subcontinent. They view Islam as a foreign religion, and while ideally they would prefer we discard it, at minimum that they want to culturally assimilate Muslims. On this very forum, i have had some of these types say that Muslim history was only a 1,000 years, and that we should not identify with it. It sounds very obnoxious to us.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

How does that work?

Per the survey it was stated about 40% of Muslims stated that you can be a Muslim without believing in God. And 6% stated that do not believe in God. And another 3% stated that their can be many gods.

While this doesn't comply with Islam, the way this works is in the subcontinent Muslim, Hindu, etc are not just a set of beliefs. They are a form of identity, and many cultural attributes which having nothing to do with Islam are seen as Muslim. And this developed as the culture of the Muslim elite mixed the local subcontinent culture with the Persian/Central Asian culture. While the Hindu elite retained more of the indigenous culture.

So even if we all became atheist, or agnostic their are some customs that most likely wont change. One is the names we give our children. In the subcontinent Muslim culture names we give come from Arabic & Persian, while for Hindus they come from Sanskrit. It would be hard to find even a liberal Muslim who would name their son Deepak, or Vikram, or Gaurav, etc.

If you are from a Muslim background even if you are not religious it would be hard to eat pork, but you wont have a problem with beef, or other non veg food. You would most likely want to be buried and not cremated. Their are wedding customs that are different. You would still celebrate Eid, like how non religious Christians celebrate Christmas. Etc,.

 

[street cricketer]

Yea their have been more attacks on a sectarian basis, but by polarization i meant in terms of how society is divided. Those attacks were done by fringe groups and they had no mainstream support.

You'll find regional parties even in India and a sense of rivalry or competition between different states in India. People identifying on their ethnicities is nothing new in India or Pakistan, but you'll find that that ethnic rivalry rarely breaks out into full blown violence, at least in India. Religious or caste violence is far more common than ethnic violence in India.

Similarly you'll find that violence happens far more on a sectarian basis than ethnic basis even in Pakistan. People are far more emotional about religion and caste in the subcontinent than ethnicity. And sectarian attacks, even by fringe groups, don't happen without some sort of ground support. I mean, we saw streets full of anti shia rallies in Karachi last year didn't we..

Their a feeling that India never accepted the existence of Pakistan, and if given a chance would finish Pakistan off. Not saying this is true, but that is the feeling that some people have.

That's paranoia. India, even with the most right wing party, won't invade or "finish off" Pakistan like many Pakistanis think. They would give talks in election rallies of course, to get some political mileage from their simple minded followers, but it would never happen in a million years. Let's imagine India "invades" Pakistan (however silly it sounds) - what then? Why would a muslim hating right wing party willingly add more muslims to the population of the country when it's trying to get muslims out of the country through CAA, NRC, etc. That would be counterproductive.

And a belief that the Hindutva types are trying to erase, villainize, or severely minimize Muslim history of the subcontinent. They view Islam as a foreign religion, and while ideally they would prefer we discard it, at minimum that they want to culturally assimilate Muslims. On this very forum, i have had some of these types say that Muslim history was only a 1,000 years, and that we should not identify with it. It sounds very obnoxious to us.

India acknowledges its islamic history far more than Pakistan ever acknowledging its hindu or buddhist history. We study about the Delhi Sultanate, Mughal kings, Deccan Sultanate, Tipu Sultan more than we study about hindu kings actually. Most Indians wouldn't know a great deal about the south Indian or north east Indian kingdoms but I can trot out the entire Mughal family lineage from Babur to Aurangzeb. Mughal monuments are historic landmarks and well maintained, even old dargahs are well maintained and attended even by many hindus (I myself have visited a dargah once, though I didn't know the difference between a mosque and a dargah then during my childhood).

This is in contrast to Pakistan which views its non muslim past as the dark periods or when the region was in the wrong ignorant path till Bin Qasim came to the subcontinent (these aren't my views but things I've read here). At best, there's a passive feeling towards the non muslim history of Pakistan and negative sentiments at worst. The hindutvadis want to erase the muslim history of India obviously, but is it any different to the official stance of Pakistan with regards to its non muslim past. I've said this a lot of times here, but the hindutvadis don't hate Pakistan as much, they only want India to be their own version of Pakistan. They hate liberals and seculars much more because they're an impediment to achieving that objective.

 

[Kroll]

Per the survey it was stated about 40% of Muslims stated that you can be a Muslim without believing in God. And 6% stated that do not believe in God. And another 3% stated that their can be many gods.

While this doesn't comply with Islam, the way this works is in the subcontinent Muslim, Hindu, etc are not just a set of beliefs. They are a form of identity, and many cultural attributes which having nothing to do with Islam are seen as Muslim. And this developed as the culture of the Muslim elite mixed the local subcontinent culture with the Persian/Central Asian culture. While the Hindu elite retained more of the indigenous culture.

So even if we all became atheist, or agnostic their are some customs that most likely wont change. One is the names we give our children. In the subcontinent Muslim culture names we give come from Arabic & Persian, while for Hindus they come from Sanskrit. It would be hard to find even a liberal Muslim who would name their son Deepak, or Vikram, or Gaurav, etc.

If you are from a Muslim background even if you are not religious it would be hard to eat pork, but you wont have a problem with beef, or other non veg food. You would most likely want to be buried and not cremated. Their are wedding customs that are different. You would still celebrate Eid, like how non religious Christians celebrate Christmas. Etc,.

I think there's a difference between a non-practising Muslim and calling yourself an atheist.

This report alluded to the fact that a small percentage of Muslims called themselves atheist which is not compatible with one another.

Although I understand these people may be living amongst Muslim communities as the various religious communities are highly segregated in India.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You'll find regional parties even in India and a sense of rivalry or competition between different states in India. People identifying on their ethnicities is nothing new in India or Pakistan, but you'll find that that ethnic rivalry rarely breaks out into full blown violence, at least in India. Religious or caste violence is far more common than ethnic violence in India.

Similarly you'll find that violence happens far more on a sectarian basis than ethnic basis even in Pakistan. People are far more emotional about religion and caste in the subcontinent than ethnicity. And sectarian attacks, even by fringe groups, don't happen without some sort of ground support. I mean, we saw streets full of anti shia rallies in Karachi last year didn't we..



That's paranoia. India, even with the most right wing party, won't invade or "finish off" Pakistan like many Pakistanis think. They would give talks in election rallies of course, to get some political mileage from their simple minded followers, but it would never happen in a million years. Let's imagine India "invades" Pakistan (however silly it sounds) - what then? Why would a muslim hating right wing party willingly add more muslims to the population of the country when it's trying to get muslims out of the country through CAA, NRC, etc. That would be counterproductive.



India acknowledges its islamic history far more than Pakistan ever acknowledging its hindu or buddhist history. We study about the Delhi Sultanate, Mughal kings, Deccan Sultanate, Tipu Sultan more than we study about hindu kings actually. Most Indians wouldn't know a great deal about the south Indian or north east Indian kingdoms but I can trot out the entire Mughal family lineage from Babur to Aurangzeb. Mughal monuments are historic landmarks and well maintained, even old dargahs are well maintained and attended even by many hindus (I myself have visited a dargah once, though I didn't know the difference between a mosque and a dargah then during my childhood).

This is in contrast to Pakistan which views its non muslim past as the dark periods or when the region was in the wrong ignorant path till Bin Qasim came to the subcontinent (these aren't my views but things I've read here). At best, there's a passive feeling towards the non muslim history of Pakistan and negative sentiments at worst. The hindutvadis want to erase the muslim history of India obviously, but is it any different to the official stance of Pakistan with regards to its non muslim past. I've said this a lot of times here, but the hindutvadis don't hate Pakistan as much, they only want India to be their own version of Pakistan. They hate liberals and seculars much more because they're an impediment to achieving that objective.

While I can see there is some truth in that statement, I would say Pakistanis are rather more ambivalent towards Hinduism or Buddhism as faiths, but in reality, a lot of the culture is still present today. You can see it even in some forms of worship such as khatams or wedding ceremonies which would probably be looked on with some confusion by Muslims outside of India. You still get mehndi ceremonies for example, Pakistanis are still watching Bollywood films and outside the temples or mosques there probably isn't that much difference in day to day life of the average Indian or Pakistani.

I think there is a distinction between studying history and religious literature. When you are studying about Mughal empire you are talking about history rather than religion per se. Still might be more than what is taught in Pakistan about pre-islamic India so you are correct in that ( I think).

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-racist-countries

 

[street cricketer]

I think there is a distinction between studying history and religious literature. When you are studying about Mughal empire you are talking about history rather than religion per se. Still might be more than what is taught in Pakistan about pre-islamic India so you are correct in that ( I think).

Well there isn't a concept of religious studies in India like it is there in Pakistan, even for Hinduism. I mean, we study about the names of major religions and their respective prophets but that's about it. Religious studies in the context of India is when you do masters in that field.

I definitely didn't come across such a subject during my school life. The closest subject to religious studies during my schooling was a boring class called "moral science" which dealt with various ethical and moral lessons, but in a non religious way.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Humanity is a plague to the planet and no other community represent humans more than Indians in this regard.

There are just too many of us and it is a problem.

Everything that is wrong about Indians today traces its roots eventually to overpopulation which has lead to a vast majority of Indians being physically, mentally and spiritually stunted.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Humanity is a plague to the planet and no other community represent humans more than Indians in this regard.

There are just too many of us and it is a problem.

Everything that is wrong about Indians today traces its roots eventually to overpopulation which has lead to a vast majority of Indians being physically, mentally and spiritually stunted.

If humanity keeps on current rate of destruction, I give us around 120 years... after that we might struggle to breath.

Future generations will see the past generations as a virus.

Americans, Europeans, Arabs and Japanese consume (and destroy) per càpita at a higher level than let's say a Chinese, Indian, Pakistani or African.

That said, I totally agree with you, we the humanity are a plague to this beautiful planet and are a violent species.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I think there's a difference between a non-practising Muslim and calling yourself an atheist.

This report alluded to the fact that a small percentage of Muslims called themselves atheist which is not compatible with one another.

Although I understand these people may be living amongst Muslim communities as the various religious communities are highly segregated in India.

Neither is believing in multiple Gods, which the survey also said 3% of Indian Muslims believe in.

However the same way their are cultural Jews/Hindus, some who call them self Atheist, the same can apply to Muslims. Especially in the subcontinent, when so much of ones culture is based on their religious background. In ethnic groups with one religion its easier to just be an atheist, and completely stop identifying with any religion. However in ethnic groups with multiple religions, its much more difficult.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-racist-countries

Per this survey Indians are tied with the Jordanian as being the most racist in the world. And the US is tied for being the least racist. Perhaps Indians were more honest about their feelings than others, as it seems hard to believe that the US is the least racist country in the world.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

While I can see there is some truth in that statement, I would say Pakistanis are rather more ambivalent towards Hinduism or Buddhism as faiths, but in reality, a lot of the culture is still present today. You can see it even in some forms of worship such as khatams or wedding ceremonies which would probably be looked on with some confusion by Muslims outside of India. You still get mehndi ceremonies for example, Pakistanis are still watching Bollywood films and outside the temples or mosques there probably isn't that much difference in day to day life of the average Indian or Pakistani.

I think there is a distinction between studying history and religious literature. When you are studying about Mughal empire you are talking about history rather than religion per se. Still might be more than what is taught in Pakistan about pre-islamic India so you are correct in that ( I think).

Yes this is true. They just view those cultural attributes which perhaps derived from Hinduism/Buddhism, as part of the local culture, and dont identify it with a religion. Same way people dont necessarily see Halloween as having anything to do with religion.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

You'll find regional parties even in India and a sense of rivalry or competition between different states in India. People identifying on their ethnicities is nothing new in India or Pakistan, but you'll find that that ethnic rivalry rarely breaks out into full blown violence, at least in India. Religious or caste violence is far more common than ethnic violence in India.

Similarly you'll find that violence happens far more on a sectarian basis than ethnic basis even in Pakistan. People are far more emotional about religion and caste in the subcontinent than ethnicity. And sectarian attacks, even by fringe groups, don't happen without some sort of ground support. I mean, we saw streets full of anti shia rallies in Karachi last year didn't we..

Since you mentioned my hometown let me put this way. I have heard plenty of derogatory statements about other ethnic groups. I am talking about educated middle class/upper middle class people, who have said crude remarks about other ethnic groups. Among this group people I have also heard derogatory statements about other religious groups, in particular Jews and Hindus. However in my life I have never heard of one these people say anything derogatory about Shias.

Those anti Shia rally are done for the most part by uneducated poor people. And as Pakistan has a lot of poor people their is definitely ground support for those fringe groups. Perhaps i should have said polarization among educated middle/upper middle class people is higher among ethnicity than sect.

That's paranoia. India, even with the most right wing party, won't invade or "finish off" Pakistan like many Pakistanis think. They would give talks in election rallies of course, to get some political mileage from their simple minded followers, but it would never happen in a million years. Let's imagine India "invades" Pakistan (however silly it sounds) - what then? Why would a muslim hating right wing party willingly add more muslims to the population of the country when it's trying to get muslims out of the country through CAA, NRC, etc. That would be counterproductive.

I agree its paranoia. And some do think that India wants "Akhand Bharat". However others think that India wants to break Pakistan into pieces, and make the new states vassals of India. Again not sayings its true, but that's what some Pakistanis think.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

This is in contrast to Pakistan which views its non muslim past as the dark periods or when the region was in the wrong ignorant path till Bin Qasim came to the subcontinent (these aren't my views but things I've read here). At best, there's a passive feeling towards the non muslim history of Pakistan and negative sentiments at worst. The hindutvadis want to erase the muslim history of India obviously, but is it any different to the official stance of Pakistan with regards to its non muslim past. I've said this a lot of times here, but the hindutvadis don't hate Pakistan as much, they only want India to be their own version of Pakistan. They hate liberals and seculars much more because they're an impediment to achieving that objective.

I dont think dark periods is the right word. Their is mostly indifference to it, and certainly not as much emphasis on the Iron and Bronze Age than India would place on that era. However this is not unique to Pakistan, their is not one formula on what part of history would a country place the most emphasis on.

Look at England. They would view the Bronze and Iron age as part of their history. However they really put the most emphasis starting with the Anglo-Saxon period. Which makes sense as that's how England was created.

Same way Pakistan would cover the Indus Valley Civilization, and to a lesser degree Gandhara. And there are plenty of things in Pakistan named after them and people view it as part of their history. However the core Pakistani history begins with the Muslim era, which makes sense as the country was created on Muslim nationalism in the subcontinent.

Here is the difference between the Hindutva types and Pakistan. People in Pakistan dont give much importance to the Hindu/Buddhist history, however they have no objection to Indians or Hindus giving it great importance. However Hindutva supporters think that the Muslim history of subcontinent belongs to people of Afghanistan or Central Asians, or Iran. They have a huge problem in Muslims celebrating that history and viewing it as their own.

Going back to England, people there dont view the Anglo-Saxons and Normans as foreign invaders. They dont believe that Westminster Abbey, Windsor Castle, Canterbury Cathedral, etc as being created by foreigners. They dont view the Anglo-Saxon and Norman era as a dark age, and long to go back to the culture that existed before they arrived. They view themselves as a mix of all the people who came to England. And view all the heritage this as belonging to England and not France and Germany.

Similarly people in Pakistan view all the Muslim empires which were based in the subcontinent and viewed it as their home, as locals and the history and contributions of those empires belongs to the people of the subcontinent.

India acknowledges its islamic history far more than Pakistan ever acknowledging its hindu or buddhist history. We study about the Delhi Sultanate, Mughal kings, Deccan Sultanate, Tipu Sultan more than we study about hindu kings actually. Most Indians wouldn't know a great deal about the south Indian or north east Indian kingdoms but I can trot out the entire Mughal family lineage from Babur to Aurangzeb. Mughal monuments are historic landmarks and well maintained, even old dargahs are well maintained and attended even by many hindus (I myself have visited a dargah once, though I didn't know the difference between a mosque and a dargah then during my childhood).

Yes this is true. Its more because Indian liberals were in charge of the country for decades. What if instead of Congress it was BJP? It would be completely different.

Like I mentioned above Pakistan just gives more importance to the Muslim period, instead of the Iron and Bronze Age.

So I would say that Pakistan view on history is in between the Indian liberal and Indian conservatives. In the sense that they dont give the Hindu/Buddhist period enough importance (which is wrong) but dont hate it like Right wing Hindus do about the Muslim period.

 

[street cricketer]

I dont think dark periods is the right word. Their is mostly indifference to it, and certainly not as much emphasis on the Iron and Bronze Age than India would place on that era. However this is not unique to Pakistan, their is not one formula on what part of history would a country place the most emphasis on.

Look at England. They would view the Bronze and Iron age as part of their history. However they really put the most emphasis starting with the Anglo-Saxon period. Which makes sense as that's how England was created.

Same way Pakistan would cover the Indus Valley Civilization, and to a lesser degree Gandhara. And there are plenty of things in Pakistan named after them and people view it as part of their history. However the core Pakistani history begins with the Muslim era, which makes sense as the country was created on Muslim nationalism in the subcontinent.

Here is the difference between the Hindutva types and Pakistan. People in Pakistan dont give much importance to the Hindu/Buddhist history, however they have no objection to Indians or Hindus giving it great importance. However Hindutva supporters think that the Muslim history of subcontinent belongs to people of Afghanistan or Central Asians, or Iran. They have a huge problem in Muslims celebrating that history and viewing it as their own.

Going back to England, people there dont view the Anglo-Saxons and Normans as foreign invaders. They dont believe that Westminster Abbey, Windsor Castle, Canterbury Cathedral, etc as being created by foreigners. They dont view the Anglo-Saxon and Norman era as a dark age, and long to go back to the culture that existed before they arrived. They view themselves as a mix of all the people who came to England. And view all the heritage this as belonging to England and not France and Germany.

Similarly people in Pakistan view all the Muslim empires which were based in the subcontinent and viewed it as their home, as locals and the history and contributions of those empires belongs to the people of the subcontinent.

The hindutvadis who believe muslims shouldn't be proud of muslim kings are silly. Hindus are well within their rights to not look at the muslim empires of the past in a fond manner, but it's silly to expect the muslims to do the same. But it goes both ways. I mean you are not going to tell me that there's absolutely no malicious intent in naming Pakistan's nukes "Ghazni", "Abdali", "Ghauri", etc. You often say that the mughal kings were not foreigners as the BJP is trying to portray because they settled and established their empire in India after having conquered it and they're no different from other Indian kings, which is very true. But the likes of Ghazni, Abdali and Ghauri were all Afghan kings who repeatedly raided India & the regions comprising Pakistan and plundered its resources. Abdali was known for his repeated campaigns against the Mughals and the Sikhs in Pakistani and Indian Punjab while Ghazni was known mainly for raiding India and plundering the resources in the Somnath temple and the rest of Indian subcontinent.

I mean, if you do have to name your weapons after muslim kings, they could have named it after any one of the great Mughal kings who you say are Indian (not in the modern sense of India but belonging to the Indian subcontinent) and rightly so too. Surely the intent behind naming Pakistan's nukes, which are directed at India, after Afghan kings who repeatedly raided the Indian subcontinent and primarily its hindu kingdoms, is not lost on anyone. So the negative sentiments towards respective histories goes both ways.

Yes this is true. Its more because Indian liberals were in charge of the country for decades. What if instead of Congress it was BJP? It would be completely different.

Like I mentioned above Pakistan just gives more importance to the Muslim period, instead of the Iron and Bronze Age.

So I would say that Pakistan view on history is in between the Indian liberal and Indian conservatives. In the sense that they dont give the Hindu/Buddhist period enough importance (which is wrong) but dont hate it like Right wing Hindus do about the Muslim period.

How one views history is irrelevant, history is full of dead people who won't ever come back and make a change to the present. How one's views are in the present scheme of things in politics and governance matter more. Now the left wing-right wing division of ideology deals with views on various subjects like economy, politics, immigration, government, social issues, etc. But purely on religion, muslims by default fall in the right wing spectrum, actually in the far right tbh. The left wing believes in the separation of the church and the state while the right wing believes the church has an important role to play in governing the country (church in this context means religion).

And muslims, if they're practising, would very rarely support the separation of the church and the state as in secular countries. This is because for a muslim, Islam is not just a religion but a way of life which gives rules on basically everything, how to live and how to govern a society. So for a practising muslim, if you say that the church (religion) should be separated from the state, it pretty much implies that infusing religion in the state has a detrimental effect on the society, which is not acceptable for a muslim as most muslims believe a society based on the islamic jurisdiction is far better than any other form of governance and even in terms of minority rights, they feel a state under islamic jurisdiction guarantees more rights than any secular state can (regardless of whether it's true or false). I've come across verh few muslims supporting secularism because of the same reason, and if they do so, they tend to be cultural muslims of the agnostic type or atheists. This is why most muslim majority states tend to have laws of Islam incorporated to varying degrees in its constitution and only few are secular states - Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, central asian republics like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, etc., just from the top of my head.

You ask Pakistanis their views on removing blasphemy laws, allowing interfaith marriages, separating religion from the state and making Pakistan a secular country, you'll find that nearly everyone's views with the odd exception would fall under the much maligned "right wing" category. This is because the word secularism has strong negative connotations in the muslim world due to its association of removing islamic influence from the public and legal sphere and is seen as a "foreign or colonial" terminology that has no place in the muslim world. Pakistan as a state is an Islamic republic and therefore falls under the category of a right wing theocratic state, but not as much as say Saudi Arabia. The hindutvadis views on separation of church from the state is not too dissimilar from the views of Pakistanis in that they want Hinduism to play a major governing role in the country like Islam does in Pakistan. Only they have not succeeded in what they aspire to, as it would require tampering the constitution. So they do what they can do within the realms of a secular state (in the Indian definition) by introducing laws like the beef ban, NRC, etc., without going overboard and crossing into the boundaries of becoming a theocracy.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

The hindutvadis who believe muslims shouldn't be proud of muslim kings are silly. Hindus are well within their rights to not look at the muslim empires of the past in a fond manner, but it's silly to expect the muslims to do the same. But it goes both ways. I mean you are not going to tell me that there's absolutely no malicious intent in naming Pakistan's nukes "Ghazni", "Abdali", "Ghauri", etc. You often say that the mughal kings were not foreigners as the BJP is trying to portray because they settled and established their empire in India after having conquered it and they're no different from other Indian kings, which is very true. But the likes of Ghazni, Abdali and Ghauri were all Afghan kings who repeatedly raided India & the regions comprising Pakistan and plundered its resources. Abdali was known for his repeated campaigns against the Mughals and the Sikhs in Pakistani and Indian Punjab while Ghazni was known mainly for raiding India and plundering the resources in the Somnath temple and the rest of Indian subcontinent.

I mean, if you do have to name your weapons after muslim kings, they could have named it after any one of the great Mughal kings who you say are Indian (not in the modern sense of India but belonging to the Indian subcontinent) and rightly so too. Surely the intent behind naming Pakistan's nukes, which are directed at India, after Afghan kings who repeatedly raided the Indian subcontinent and primarily its hindu kingdoms, is not lost on anyone. So the negative sentiments towards respective histories goes both ways.

Imagine if Afghanistan was still Hindu/Buddhist and a King from that area invaded the subcontinent, would anyone in India view that as a invasion by a foreign King, or would people would just view it as one Indian king invading another part of India. I mean the map of Akhand Bharat includes Afghanistan. People in India view the Hindu Shahi, Kabul Shahis, Buddhas of Bamiyan, etc as part of ancient India. So I dont feel you can have it both ways. Its either part of Ancient India or not.

Second their some confusion on who is an Afghan among most people. Historically Afghan referred only to the Pashtun people, and it was only after the creation of the modern state of Afghanistan that did it refer to the people of that country. So Ghaznavi and Ghori were not Afghan Kings, they just happened to be born in whats now Afghanistan. They were ethnic Turks. Same way Akbar and Shah Jahan are not Pakistani Kings because they were born in whats now Pakistan.

Now as far as why Pakistan named missiles after them, I can take the following guess:

1 - Abdali was a Pashtun. Pashtuns are the second largest ethnic group in Pakistan, and the majority of them live in Pakistan.

2 - Ghori - You said you studied the Delhi Sultanate. I think you might have forgotten his role in the creation of that. What Babur is to the Mughal Empire, that's what Ghori is to the Delhi Sultanate. And Pakistan does have a cruise missile named after Babur, which no one complains about. So i dont see the problem with naming a missile after him. Not to mention he is buried in Pakistan as well.

3 - Ghaznavi - His empire included most of whats now Pakistan, and Lahore was also a capital of that empire. So not sure why he belongs exclusively to Afghanistan. I think the issue is the border. Had the Durand Line not been the border, and the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan been part of British India, then the city of Ghazni would viewed as part of India. And Ghaznavi would be viewed as an Indian King, especially if he was not Muslim. And same way no one in India cares that the Gupta Empire conquered other parts of India, no one would care that much about Ghaznavi conquering other parts of India.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

How one views history is irrelevant, history is full of dead people who won't ever come back and make a change to the present. How one's views are in the present scheme of things in politics and governance matter more. Now the left wing-right wing division of ideology deals with views on various subjects like economy, politics, immigration, government, social issues, etc. But purely on religion, muslims by default fall in the right wing spectrum, actually in the far right tbh. The left wing believes in the separation of the church and the state while the right wing believes the church has an important role to play in governing the country (church in this context means religion).

And muslims, if they're practising, would very rarely support the separation of the church and the state as in secular countries. This is because for a muslim, Islam is not just a religion but a way of life which gives rules on basically everything, how to live and how to govern a society. So for a practising muslim, if you say that the church (religion) should be separated from the state, it pretty much implies that infusing religion in the state has a detrimental effect on the society, which is not acceptable for a muslim as most muslims believe a society based on the islamic jurisdiction is far better than any other form of governance and even in terms of minority rights, they feel a state under islamic jurisdiction guarantees more rights than any secular state can (regardless of whether it's true or false). I've come across verh few muslims supporting secularism because of the same reason, and if they do so, they tend to be cultural muslims of the agnostic type or atheists. This is why most muslim majority states tend to have laws of Islam incorporated to varying degrees in its constitution and only few are secular states - Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, central asian republics like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, etc., just from the top of my head.

You ask Pakistanis their views on removing blasphemy laws, allowing interfaith marriages, separating religion from the state and making Pakistan a secular country, you'll find that nearly everyone's views with the odd exception would fall under the much maligned "right wing" category. This is because the word secularism has strong negative connotations in the muslim world due to its association of removing islamic influence from the public and legal sphere and is seen as a "foreign or colonial" terminology that has no place in the muslim world. Pakistan as a state is an Islamic republic and therefore falls under the category of a right wing theocratic state, but not as much as say Saudi Arabia. The hindutvadis views on separation of church from the state is not too dissimilar from the views of Pakistanis in that they want Hinduism to play a major governing role in the country like Islam does in Pakistan. Only they have not succeeded in what they aspire to, as it would require tampering the constitution. So they do what they can do within the realms of a secular state (in the Indian definition) by introducing laws like the beef ban, NRC, etc., without going overboard and crossing into the boundaries of becoming a theocracy.

Muslims are not a monolithic. You should have left it at Pakistan, and you would have had a fair point. You yourself mentioned 5 Muslim countries which are secular. Let me add 5 more secular Muslim countrues. Burkina Faso, Albania, Chad, Mali, and Senegal.

I would completely agree that India is more liberal than Pakistan, thanks to Nehru. However we will never know what Pakistan could have been had a liberal Muslim like Jinnah did not die one year after the creation of Pakistan. Maybe Pakistan could have been secular and maybe not. We will never know.

Also you mentioned Blasphemy in Pakistan several times. Do you realize India also has a Blasphemy law? Here it is:

295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.— Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-295a-indian-penal-code

Obviously not as harsh as Pakistan. But this is a Blasphemy law.

 

[Giannis]

Talk is easy

 

[street cricketer]

Imagine if Afghanistan was still Hindu/Buddhist and a King from that area invaded the subcontinent, would anyone in India view that as a invasion by a foreign King, or would people would just view it as one Indian king invading another part of India. I mean the map of Akhand Bharat includes Afghanistan. People in India view the Hindu Shahi, Kabul Shahis, Buddhas of Bamiyan, etc as part of ancient India. So I dont feel you can have it both ways. Its either part of Ancient India or not.

Second their some confusion on who is an Afghan among most people. Historically Afghan referred only to the Pashtun people, and it was only after the creation of the modern state of Afghanistan that did it refer to the people of that country. So Ghaznavi and Ghori were not Afghan Kings, they just happened to be born in whats now Afghanistan. They were ethnic Turks. Same way Akbar and Shah Jahan are not Pakistani Kings because they were born in whats now Pakistan.

Now as far as why Pakistan named missiles after them, I can take the following guess:

1 - Abdali was a Pashtun. Pashtuns are the second largest ethnic group in Pakistan, and the majority of them live in Pakistan.

2 - Ghori - You said you studied the Delhi Sultanate. I think you might have forgotten his role in the creation of that. What Babur is to the Mughal Empire, that's what Ghori is to the Delhi Sultanate. And Pakistan does have a cruise missile named after Babur, which no one complains about. So i dont see the problem with naming a missile after him. Not to mention he is buried in Pakistan as well.

3 - Ghaznavi - His empire included most of whats now Pakistan, and Lahore was also a capital of that empire. So not sure why he belongs exclusively to Afghanistan. I think the issue is the border. Had the Durand Line not been the border, and the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan been part of British India, then the city of Ghazni would viewed as part of India. And Ghaznavi would be viewed as an Indian King, especially if he was not Muslim. And same way no one in India cares that the Gupta Empire conquered other parts of India, no one would care that much about Ghaznavi conquering other parts of India.

The crux of the issue is that hindus and muslims fall on the two opposite sides of the divide when it comes to viewing history. One man's hero is another man's villain. It's why many Hindus don't feel proud about muslim kings as they felt they were an outsider invading and oppressing the local population. You are right when you say that some of the past hindu kings in the Gandhara region would also be outsiders but are not seen as villains by hindus but that's how tribalism works. Muslims don't feel the same negative way about past hindu or buddhist kings because the power dynamics weren't always the same. There was never a point in history when a muslim majority population had the opportunity to feel the "outsider oppressor" narrative because when the Hindu/Buddhist kingdoms were at their peak in the Indian subcontinent, either Islam had not yet taken foothold as a religion or it had not spread yet to the subcontinent and therefore the people living in the region of Pakistan and Afghanistan were either hindus/buddhists or some form of pagans.

When the muslim kingdoms invaded India, the local population converted to Islam gradually and therefore didn't feel the "outsider oppressor" sentiment. When the mughal kingdom was finished and the marathas took over, they mostly took back what were hindu majority areas in India from the muslims. And then the British came and so there was never an opportunity for the muslims to feel a non muslim king oppressing them except maybe during the Ranjit Singh era, which not many muslims remember fondly as much as the Sikhs do.

A better example would be Kashmiri muslims feeling antagonised about the Kashmiri pandits feeling proud about the Dogra empire. Now the Dogras were seen as outsiders by the Kashmiri muslims because they were from Jammu and not ethnically kashmiris (as in from the valley of Kashmir) and they were also hindu. The Kashmiri Pandits related to them (even though the Dogras weren't Kashmiri in the same way they were) how a muslim would relate to Abdali or Ghazni eventhough he isn't Afghan or Pashtun. From the pov of a Kashmiri muslim, the Dogra army were the outsider oppressor army that subjugated them, but the Kashmiri pandits do not feel the same way about both the Dogra army, just like how muslims don't necessarily have the same opinion of the hindus with regards to the past muslim rule of India. Ultimately it boils down to tribalism and not who's right or wrong.

 

[street cricketer]

Muslims are not a monolithic. You should have left it at Pakistan, and you would have had a fair point. You yourself mentioned 5 Muslim countries which are secular. Let me add 5 more secular Muslim countrues. Burkina Faso, Albania, Chad, Mali, and Senegal.

I would completely agree that India is more liberal than Pakistan, thanks to Nehru. However we will never know what Pakistan could have been had a liberal Muslim like Jinnah did not die one year after the creation of Pakistan. Maybe Pakistan could have been secular and maybe not. We will never know.

Also you mentioned Blasphemy in Pakistan several times. Do you realize India also has a Blasphemy law? Here it is:



https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-295a-indian-penal-code

Obviously not as harsh as Pakistan. But this is a Blasphemy law.

India adopted the British legal system which had the blasphemy law too, but it's hardly ever implemented. There are plenty of cases where a muslim artist has painted hindu deities in controversial manner, most notably MF Hussain and there was also a recent case of it happening which made the news. But people are rarely convicted and imprisoned for it in the same way a person could be imprisoned for years together in Pakistan just because his neighbour alleged that he blasphemed.

 

[PakLFC]

Generally I have no problem with this survey. All Indian's are free to practice their faith without mixing it. This is how it should be only that to be Indian one has to be Hindu will be problematic for many Indians.

 

[ex-q-zit]

"Mere Allah Burai Se Bachana Mujhko" Prayer Gets UP Principal Suspended

The principal of a government-run school in Uttar Pradesh's Bareilly district has been suspended by the state's education department after right-wing groups reportedly complained to the police about a prayer song sung by the children. The police have filed a case. No one has been arrested yet.

The suspension came after a video clip of the children singing a popular Urdu language prayer "lab pe aati hai dua banke tamanna meri" in the morning assembly was widely circulated.

The clip shows the part where the children are heard singing the lines "mere allah burai se bachaana mujhko".

The police said they filed the case because the prayer is not part of the daily prayer schedule of government schools and has to do "with a religion".

"The prayer was not part of the approved list and pertained to a community," said a senior police officer of the area.

The education department said the principal has been suspended on basis of initial information and they will conduct an inquiry into the matter.

The song in question was penned in 1902 by Urdu poet Mohammad Iqbal, who also wrote the famous lines "Sare jahan se achcha Hindustan hamara".

In 2019, a headmaster in the state's Pilibhit district was also suspended after the students were heard singing the song. Following a complaint by the local unit of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the authorities had taken action.

At the time, reports said the Pilibhit District Magistrate had claimed the headmaster was suspended because he was not making the students sing the national anthem.

Last month, right-wing activists in Karnataka's Udupi held protests against the authorities of a private school after the students staged a performance of "Azan", the Muslim call to prayer at a sports event. The Mother Teresa Memorial School at Shankaranarayana town had to apologise after the activists confronted the school authorities.

NDTV

 

[IAJ]

Politics of ruin: Why Modi wants to demolish India’s mosques

The necro-economy of Hindu nationalism relies on making history its most important site. Muslim shrines must suffer.


Sara Ather
Independent architect and writer based in New Delhi, India

Published On 3 Apr 2023

A historic 16th-century mosque, Shahi Masjid, in Prayagraj city in India’s Uttar Pradesh state was demolished by bulldozers on January 9 under a road-widening project.

The demolition took place even though, according to the mosque’s imam, a local court was supposed to hear a petition seeking a stay on the city administration’s plans on January 16, a week later.

This incident should have caused public outrage, but the matter hardly made any headlines. The destruction of structures using bulldozers in India has become a banal occurrence and has already lost its shock value.

Shahi Masjid is also not the first ancient mosque to have been sacrificed for a road widening project. Last November, a 300-year-old mosque in Uttar Pradesh’s Muzaffarnagar district that stood in the way of a highway was razed.

Another mosque, one of the largest and oldest in India, Shamsi Jama Masjid, an 800-year-old national heritage site in Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, became a matter of dispute last year when a court case was filed on behalf of a local Hindu farmer — backed by the right-wing Hindu nationalist group Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM) — alleging that the mosque is an “illegal structure” built on a demolished 10th-century temple of Lord Shiva. Their petition states that Hindus have rightful ownership of the land and should be able to pray there.

The claim of illegality rests on a far-right narrative according to which most of the Indian mosques were actually temples at one point in time and were forcefully converted into mosques by Muslim rulers. Even though most historians today deny these claims because there is little material evidence to support them, they have enormous popular support.

The rule of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is increasingly marked by a destructive urgency. The party’s attempts to culturally homogenise India began with the renaming of places in an overtly Hindu vocabulary and progressed to new strategies such as bulldozing Muslim monuments and archaeological excavations to find Hindu roots at Muslim religious sites.

In the past few years, there have been a number of controversies surrounding Mughal monuments. Even the Taj Mahal, a monument of global importance, has not been spared. Far-right Hindu groups claim, again without any evidence, that it was a Hindu temple.

The fate of Indian Muslims has reached a watershed moment. Scores of petitions have been filed by right-wing Hindu groups against mosques across the country.

The past several years have also seen the activation of an informal apparatus of religious volunteers who use religious processions to establish dominance over Muslim places of worship, including mosques and Muslim shrines. During several Hindu festival celebrations in 2022, including Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti, armed Hindu mobs, led at times by BJP members, entered Muslim neighbourhoods and chanted obscene slogans while planting saffron flags on mosques.

MS Golwalkar, one of the founders of Hindu nationalist ideology or Hindutva, claimed in his most renowned text, Bunch of Thoughts, that “wherever there is a masjid [mosque] or a Muslim mohalla [colony], Muslims believe that it is their own separate territory”. It is important to remember that the belief in exclusive ownership of Indian land did not emerge with the BJP’s election to power, but has always been a central tenet of Hindu nationalist thought.

Golwalkar throughout his writing maintained a definition of “nation” that kept the “natural” congruence between a Hindu monoculture and territory, excluding from within it all those who the Hindu right views as a political or cultural threat.

It was no coincidence that it was the destruction of a historical mosque that fuelled the rise of the far-right nationalist politics that dominates India today.

The illegal destruction of a historical Mughal-era mosque, the Babri Masjid, on December 6, 1992, served as the declaration of a mute war cry against history. The mosque was reduced to rubble by religious volunteers who claimed that an ancient Ram temple stood at the same site. Images of the demolished mosque gave graphic representation to the idea of a pre- and post-Babri India, signalling the beginning of a nationalist project that rejects all possibilities of plurality on Indian land.

The demolition of Babri Masjid, in many ways the most significant single event in post-independence India, triggered a spiral of violence in several cities, culminating in riots.

The heterogeneous social fabric of Indian cities was violently transformed, with urban spaces reorganised along religious lines. The memory of those violent encounters continues to inform the logic of spatial segregation in many Indian cities up to this day.

But Babri was not destined to be the only mosque to be demolished; rather, it was only the first of many monumental martyrs that were to follow. The slogan, “Babri to bas jhanki hai, Kashi Mathura baki hai” (Babri is only a sneak peek; Kashi and Mathura are yet to happen), attests to the longing that persists even today. A list of such Muslim landmarks and monuments marked for demolition has been in broad public circulation for quite some time.

Meanwhile, in 2019, the Supreme Court of India issued a ruling according to which the land of the Babri Masjid was handed over to Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Rama. This emboldened the right wing to shift from illegal mob violence to legal methods.

Indeed, Hindu groups have challenged the continuing existence of historic mosques in Mathura and Varanasi (also known as Kashi) through court cases. And a Mathura court has already ordered a survey based on the claims of the petitioners that the land of the Shahi Idgah Mosque is actually the rightful birthplace of Lord Krishna.

Several states in India have gone through their own unique rebranding as Hindu religious sites, including Kashmir, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. The Hindutva framework requires the deployment of a spatial imagination where all Indian territory is defined as a sacred landscape in an overtly Hindu religious vocabulary.

The necro-economy of Hindu nationalism today invariably relies on making history its most important site, which has to be transformed and moulded to justify its present-day rule.

Golwalkar also claimed that Muslims have transformed the Hindu nationalist homeland into “just a hotel, only a land for enjoyment”, effectively equating the presence of Muslims and mosques with the symbolic violation of the Hindu homeland.

Any sign of cultural expression in Muslim architecture, under this nationalist vision, is thus seen as a violation of the purity of the holy land or Bharat Mata – Mother India. It is this spirit of vengeance that has lived on, violently unfolding its own inner horizon, both temporally and spatially. The truth about today’s unrelenting violence on ancient Indian mosques is best understood through its deep roots.

Historically, the cultural cleansing of an entire people has been accompanied by the destruction of monuments and a clear intent to erase their memories. To deny a people their future, the past is razed first.

The events of the tragic night of the broken glass “Kristallnacht” especially shed light on this phenomenon. Hundreds of synagogues were burned to the ground, while many others were damaged on a night that arguably signalled the beginning of the Holocaust’s last phases. They were not destroyed because they housed Jews, but because they stood as a testament to the Jewish presence on that land.

Monumental architecture, by virtue of its perceived permanence and timelessness, creates a space for communities to gather and serves as a fixed anchor around which traditions are invented. Thus, its destruction promises not just a rebuilding of spatial relations but also of historical traditions.

Spatial violence is therefore not just an aggressive retributive tool for causing terror but a calculated strategy that aims to reinvent cultural meanings associated with territory and redefine them in terms of a nationalist conceptual grammar.

The political work of the BJP and its far-right Hindu allies resembles a war machine, stuck in frantic, endless attempts to deconstruct the present. The failure to find the ghost of the past is compensated by inventing one in the present. Monuments have thus become portals for this proxy war.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.


https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/...uin-why-modi-wants-to-demolish-indias-mosques

 

[MenInG]

A US government panel renewed calls on Monday to blacklist India over religious freedom, saying that the treatment of minorities has continued to worsen under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom offers recommendations but does not set policy and there is little expectation that the State Department will accept its stance on India, a growing US partner.

The State Department each year lists countries where it sees particular concern on religious freedom, with the prospect of sanctions without improvement.

The independent commission, whose members are appointed by the president and congressional party leaders, supported all of the State Department’s latest designations which included China, Iran, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

It however recommended that the State Department add several countries, including India, Nigeria and Vietnam.

The annual report pointed in India to violence and destruction of property targeting Muslims and Christians and drew links to comments and social media posts by members of Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party.

“The continued enforcement of discriminatory laws facilitated a culture of impunity for widespread campaigns of threats and violence by mobs and vigilante groups,” it said.

It was the fourth straight year that the panel has made the recommendation on India, angering New Delhi which has called the commission biased.

The State Department briefly blacklisted Nigeria at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency following calls from evangelical Christians, but President Joe Biden’s administration removed it, rejecting suggestions of violence in Africa’s most populous country being religious-based or abetted by the government.

The commission also recommended that the State Department add a number of US partners to a watch list of countries that risked being blacklisted without improvements, including Egypt, Indonesia and Turkey.

DAWN