Shekhar: Your tie-in to economic disparities being the true source of terrorist activities, the one hiding behind the militant/religious face of fanatism, is the one that hits me square between the eyes--ie, the one I can't bend or twist out of "it's truth being true!"

Isn't the situation then one of econmic ideologies masked and justified by pitting the surfaces differences of religious fervor against each other?

I am left then with questioning only to what level, ie. how broad and deep is "it," the 'it" being a consciously driven intent to create and maintain even larger divisions between the "haves and have nots?"

How real then are these "conspiracy theories" about the hidden power structures (the so-called "powers-that-be") of the worlds governments and economic bases?

Or would you suggest that I am reading too much into this and that the situations we see are more random in their nature--ie. "not planeed" with intentional consequences to the masses, as well as those who would benefit from installing unseen mechanisms of division among populations such as those alluded to in "Fahrenheit 9/11," like "The Carlysle Group" who reap economic benefit from warfare???? Dave

To say that terrorism is purely (or even primarily) a function of economics seems wrong.

It has been most successfully invoked in the name of God. Among the religions, Islam has been most successful in invoking their God to the terrorist cause. Probably, this is why terrorism is most closely identified with Islam.

I agree that the generalisation on the basis of the above is extremely wrong.

TOKYO - Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi scored a political triumph Sunday as the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party headed for a landslide win in an election touted as a referendum on his push to privatize Japan's cash-swollen postal system.

The results keep a staunch ally of President Bush in power. Koizumi is expected to stand by his dispatch of troops to support the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq over opposition objections, and he also strongly supports the continued presence of 50,000 U.S. military personnel in Japan.

Japan also is one of the United States' negotiating partners in the effort to disarm North Korea of its nuclear weapons.

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Darla Jordan said the Bush administration looked forward to continuing to work closely with Koizumi's government and "to move ahead in our close cooperation on a broad range of global, regional and bilateral issues." - By ERIC TALMADGE, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050911/ap_on_re_as/japan_elections;_ylt=AlXBM1otqBKClIv_z6KjIxys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY

David, I do not believe conspiracy theorists. What I do believe is that goverments act in their own best interests, just as the corporations act in the best interests of the shareholders. Globalization and the availablity of information (look at this blog) has come at such speed that everyone has jumped on the bandwagon without undertsanding the consequences. I am for Globalization, but old economic and social parameters to not apply any more. New ones have to be developed, that allow the economic benefits to filter down as soon as possible. world of far more conflict

sorry david : the last sentence should have read " or we are heading to a world of far more conflict than we can imagine right now" - shekhar

"major recruiting grounds are amongst people that feel unable to give their allegiance to a system of goverment that is seen as unfair,unstable or non existent, and therefore are looking to 'belong'" you hit the nail right on the head here. And by terming it as Islamic terrorism we are actually supporting their stance.They are to be seen in true light for what they are- terrorrorist who have no place in this civilization.

Vish,

Imagine a Taliban fighter. He grew up in country already ravaged by power play between Super Powers. He has no way to earn an income, or have a career, or get married and have a family. There is no education, no jobs, no future.

The only way he can eat is if he can fire a gun. And the only way he can survive is by firing a gun for the side that at that time looks like they are winning. So that is what he does. and that happens to be at that time the Taliban.

Now lets look at the young men that exploded the bombs in London. Racially sidelined, the commuinity has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the UK. Much much better off than the Taliban fighter ofcourse, but much much more vulnerable to the 'relativity' effect. Where he see's his life far far less beneficial than others in the same country.

I will state what I said again. The RECRUITING grounds of the terrorists organization lies in the dissafected. And without recruitment - the organizations will ultimately fail. Shekhar

Truly said ‘it is the alienation, anger, and lack of hope that leads young men and women to become suicide bombers’
But it is a too general a statement for anybody’s comfort. It will need volumes to write about origin, evolution and globalization of terrorism. The world has lived with terrorism for quite a sometime now. But fortunately, till recently, all the acts of terrorism were localized, whether it is in Vietnam against American occupation, or in Ireland, Palestine or Naxalite movement in West Bengal, part of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, insurgents in North Eastern states, Bhindranwale in Punjab, etc. This type of movements no doubt created by disillusionment of unemployed youth, due to social oppression, instigated by self proclaimed leaders of doom, but either died down of their own or changed its course to moderate democratic political activities.
The real threat from terrorism started only when it took the pan Islamic color. It have started with Kashmir and spread its tentacles to other parts of the world. And there lies the most unfortunate tragedy of human history. The simmering fire of these terrorism were stoked by the shortsighted world leaders. The west under the benign supervision of United State of America, showed a blind eye to the unashamed support of Pakistan in exporting terror to Kashmir, encouraged Talibanisation of Afghanistan just to harass USSR. The fuel is supplied by outfits like RSS and BJP in India, atrocities in Bosnia etc. West only came out of its’ stupor after September 11.
But what is the solution? The great ‘FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM’ only facing a tunnel of gloom. The mess in Iraq is getting messier day by day.
The situation is becoming worse day by day. One has to accept the fact that the terrorists are gaining. They have succeeded in creating a divide in the world society- ‘It is them versus us’. Muslims versus Non Muslims. You are no safer anywhere in the world, whether it is a theatre hall in Delhi, or a temple in Hyderabad, or a tube station in London or a nightclub in Bali not to mention scores of unknown places in hot belts of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chechnya etc.
The knee jerk reaction of the rest of the human race only creating more hurdles. One set of people started condemning everything in Islam, thus strengthening the hands of fundamentalists and pushing the moderates in them to the corner. Another set of people who call themselves liberals started justifying them, comparing with atrocities committed by others.
There is no shortcut solution to this problem. But there is an urgent to address this problem in proper perspective otherwise we are waiting for the doomsday.

dear bikash, quite right, it needs a lot lot more than one blog to understand the problem of terrorism and how to tackle it. But as you rightly said, terrorism used to be localized, but has now become a Global phenomena - and I am saying that us as a result of globalization - and we must recognize that as everything goes more and more Global, so does terrorism

shekhar

Dear Shekhar,

Both your examples support your hypothesis.

But not true if you look at Pakistan or Sri Lanka as examples. Ideological drive seems to be a significant motivating factor. Even in Afghanistan or the UK, I wonder if you could recruit a terrorist without ideology as a driving force.

I agree that reducing economic disparity could dry up the recruiting grounds.

"Ideological drive seems to be a significant motivating factor. Even in Afghanistan or the UK, I wonder if you could recruit a terrorist without ideology as a driving force." - vish

Maybe. In my experience, not many 20 year olds have really arrived at an understanding with regard to ideology, certainly not their own understanding. They are susceptible to hype.

Boredom may be closer to the truth with regard to the root cause. It's rather easy to romance the passion of a cause with a bored person.

Boredom is the opposite of reverence for life.

I think:
1. Wars (read violence) can never resolve issues. Wars can only complicate issues. Violence resolves issues only in commercial movies and people started believing that a Tom Cruise can kill all the bad people and save us, we don't have to do anything.
2. Bad people can never be identified or quantified. They are omnipotent, omnipresent, form-less, localtion-less. May be they in the minds of everybody.
3. Forgiveness, care, love can resolve issues. Setting same rules for everybody globally can resolve issues. God has given food for everybody, its only some people are eating more than required and others are dying hungry. Humanity should be above corporate-profit, international-borders, etc. If some people are home-less and hungry then it is the responsibility of every home-owner of that city to take care of him.

I would go as far as to say that religion has almost nothing to do with terrorism, all it provdes is a vehicle - a structure - for the views of terrorists to be expressed. I feel that if the circumstances were the same but the religion had been other than Islam we would still have the same situation as we have now - but by a different name. The rehetoric used by 'terrorists' through the ages and across religions, cultures and creeds is remarkably similar, and to die for a cause is nothing new. Yesterday I watched a documentary of the 'kidnapping' of Patty Hurst - the words used by the 'kidnappers' were very similar to the words used by current 'Islamist terrorists'just the references were different. What religion does is provide a further justification to being right and having god on your side. It was interesting that the Patty Hurst kidnappers also spoke about injustice and the treatment of the poor. I agree that the main difference now is the fact that these issues are globalised and we are going to have to develop a sense of global responsibility in our economic policies, you cant have your cake and eat it.

k

thank u Kamaljeet for the patty hearst example. u r right, the 'umbrella ideology' changes but the rhetoric is the same. The source is not a single religion. shekhar

Shekhar,

That is a brilliant summary. This is what I would expect the president or other leaders of the world to be communicating and understanding.

You have at least outlined the cause which then point to the solution.

I would also say that to some degree it can be a conflict of belief systems but the greatest factor is a desire for a change in experience that leads people to take action.

People that are unhappy and having a bad experience are most likely to go to extremes.

One factor that we leave out as it relates to suicide bombers is that there is evidence to support in at least some of them their families or loved ones were held hostage and threatened with suffering or death if they did not commit the acts that they did.

Then I am sure there are those that are brainwashed or tricked into believing something greater awaits them if the do this act of faith for God and die fighting the infidel.

No matter what, the solution is helping create a better life experience for all people. It has no bad side effects.

This thing you speak of even applies within to our own nations. Turn the electric power off for more than three days in the US and I bet we slide into anarchy. Amazing about New Orleans was that there was no communication infrastructure. What is up with that? Isn't communications the most important element in a crisis? Heck the general's cell phone battery was going dead. What happened to two way radio?

Was the power outage in LA really accidental? Was it a psychological game being played by finite players? Or was it God, in his infinite play bringing something to our attention, trying to create awareness.

One last point. The government is supposed to be the manifestation of our collective and beneficial will. This makes the "people" responsible for the actions of their government.

Now it is true that the government can get disconnected from the people and begin acting as it's own agent or to the benefit of special interests, so although war may not be the collective will of the people and not directly responsible. The people have the ultimate responsibility to ensure the individuals in their government are well managed and carry out the collective and beneficial will of the people they represent.

Since many have been brainwashed into thinking government is an authority they fail to yield their power and authority over government.

The people are the authority not the government. Government is a non-entity that does not think or make decisions. It does not own a dime or pay for anything.

The citizens do.

We must destroy this Illusion and then we can implement your solution and make the world better for those currently having a bad experience.

That should have read...

Since many have been brainwashed into thinking government is an authority they fail to ~WIELD~ [EXERCISE] their power and authority over government.

Shekhar,

I have noticed,when it comes to terrorists, that while the rank and file seem to come out of the economically deprived, the leadership of the terrorist organizations seem to come from the previliged section of society driven more by ideology that anything else. Thus while the average taliban fighter was, as you have said, an unfortunate young afghan looking for a way out, the leaders from Osama bin Laden, to Mohammad Atta to Sheik Khaled have all been well-off, well educated men. So along with looking at the bringing of economic prosperity to combat terrorism, I feel one needs to look more carefully at the ideological basis of the so-called pan-islamic terrorist organization.
When news analysists from Fox News to CNN claim that the terrorists are against 'our freedom and way of life here in the united states' I do not fully agree. I feel the terrorits are more against what they percieve as the muddling of western powers in the internal issues of the islamic caliphate, which they consider to be the entire islamic world. They see this muddling in a historic sense ranging from the crusades a thousand years ago, to the colonial era, to the creation of israel, the support of totalitarian regimes like the house of Saud, to finally the stationing of american troops in Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war. Infact, this seems to have been the final flashpoint in Osama bin Laden's own twisted mind. The war is Iraq only furthers this notion even in the minds of less fanatical muslims.
Before thinking about a solution, I feel that the US needs to look into its foreign policy and accept this fact. Then it can look at changing the perception among the ordinary middle east muslim that it does not want to meddle with his internal affairs. Setting a timeline for an Iraq withdrawal might be a first step in the short term, and reducing its dependence of Saudi oil would be the long term solution.

I agree Sid, people like Hitler and Osama Bin Laden demonize ideology and twist it to their own purpose. But their breeding grounds are the vast plains of humanity that feels alienated and deprived. You can do nothing abot an individual twisted mind. But you can stop peopel bieng swayed by that mind. and I agree fully with you that a the muslim perspective of the west is that of colonial powers looking after only their own interests and the war in Iraq justtifies that perpective in their mind - thanks - Shekhar

Shekhar - How do you explain the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia? They're a rich country and they live among their own kind.

What about Pakistan? Remember we are the same people. With one difference. They have Islam.

Neither does your theory of disenfranchisement hold any water. Indians were in the same exact plight in Britain as the Pakistanis. Why did Indians not take to terrorism? Africa has some of the poorest nations on this planet. Why is the overt terrorism in Africa only carried out by the Islamics and the covert terrorism only by the Christians?

Why did Stalin and Mao end up killing millions? Why did Hitler do the same?

It's all about power and the mechanism is provided by ideology. Do not underestimate the power of ideology. If we want terrorism to end, we absolutely need to expose the nature of all religious ideology, including communism.

Please reflect carefully on the fact that religion will cease to exist if the religious authorities declare jesus, allah, buddha and krishna to be interchangeable. The only way religion can survive is to hang on to its exclusivity claims. To do this, religion will resort to whatever means it takes, including war. Ideology is just a means to power and the masses are its cannon fodder. Your arguments just don't hold up to scrutiny.

Himanshu - Can you please provide one example in human history where "Forgiveness, care, love" have resolved a political or military issue. Just curious.

Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Krishna and others are not interchangeable but in this universe of all possibilities they all do exist. Unfortunately their messages have been filter and corrupted by the ego of the men who put words of the great spiritual texts on paper. Religious laws are the outcome, which cause both resentment and fear of God. Resentment causes a loss of spirituality (I have two friends who I call 'Roman Catholic Atheists', former Alter Boys both). Fear of God causes War, sooner or later.
The fact that God has found infinite ways to touch man on Earth should be a celebration as all of our cultures come closer together on this planet, but technology currently is far outpacing tribal instincts (perhaps NASA should be on the base closure list).
Hopefully this gap will close more by the next century. Perhaps by then we will recognize the greatest spiritual leader of the last century as being Albert Einstein.

We have a leader (Bush) who sincerely beliefs that Jesus Christ is on his way and will appear on earth very soon.

So, while I agree with much that is expressed by Shekhar, Bush’s deep religious conviction must be considered when analyzing the war on terror!

Shekhar, I somehow feel that the main reason for all the acts of terrorism and killing (whether it is by islamic terrorists, Powerful country hitting dead snakes or Gujarat massacre) is the urge to gain cultural supremacy. Christians want their religion to be supreme whereas Islamists want theirs to prevail. Hindus want to make India a hindu nation. Every fundamentalist wants their religion to dominate over the other religion. So all the fundamentalists (Jihadists, right wing christians, Hindutva gang) use the "terrorism in the other religion" claim to carry on their agenda (which is to establish their supremacy). All the mess in this world today is just a clash of culture just like primitive times.

But economics is the reason why there are many terrorists from a particular religion at this point of time. Poverty in their countries are driving more people into terrorism. When you live in poverty, you tend to get brainwashed very easily. This is the reason why there are many extremists visible from one particular religion. Economics play a role only in the recruitment. Hate agenda is culturally driven.

divya,

why did Hindu's not become terrorists instead of Muslims in the UK ? Because no Hindu country has been bombed or invaded recently. Afganistan, Iraq, Palistine, are all muslim countries and muslims do fear that their community is under threat.

Is terrorism limited to Islam ? What about the militancy in Punjab ? What about the blowing up of the Air India flight ? What about the assasination of Indira Gandhi ?

How about the assasination of Rajiv Gandhi ?

What about the killings of muslims in Gujrat and in the killings of Sikhs after the assasination of Indira Gandhi ?

Saudi Arabia ? The wealth is largely held by the royal families and the relative poverty is huge.

Hitler and Stalin both gained their power in countries ravaged by war and on the brink of bankruptcy.

Africa - I have wondered about that, but have noticed that more and more terrorists are now coming from the Afrcan nations.

I think that the only way I disagree with you is when you say that it's all about Power and the methodology is provided by Ideology. I feel that ideology is usurped by those seeking Power, and the breeding ground is suffering,alienation and disaffectedness.

What about the Dec 6th destruction of Babri Masjid ? What about Gujrat ?

We have to dig much much deeper. But the militancy in Punjab was supported largely by the recruitment of dissaffected Sikh youth. You can tell by the kill counts.

You say we must expose the nature of ideology, I say I agree. That is exactly what I am saying - but how ? I believe that people will always be vulnerable to ideology if they are alienated and dissafected.

To hope for religion to be taken away is both a false and probably wrong hope. Because people need Mythology to help them see beyond their lives. Take away one religion and you will merely plant it with another.

The only hope is to not Globalize without first encompassing the mass of people that live on the poverty line. Or they will hit back hard, under the excuse of some ideology or the other.

shekhar

Last night I watched a newscast televised by the BBC. The first item was coverage of the disastrous conditions in Niger, with footage of children dying of starvation while frustrated European caregivers waited in vain for promised relief supplies to arrive. The next item covered the opening of a Disney World in Hong Kong, where millions are being spent in hopes of earning billions from newly prosperous Chinese. Now we were seeing already overweight children eating suckers with Mickey Mouse. The contrast was too painful to watch. But what to do? Someone in this discussion asked those of us living in warm homes to help and share with the disdvantaged in our own communities. A start I agree with, but what about those children in Niger? I wonder what mythologies/ideologies help the parents of those children.

Shekhar,

"The only hope is to not Globalize without first encompassing the mass of people that live on the poverty line. Or they will hit back hard, under the excuse of some ideology or the other"

I totally agree..This is not possible in capitalist society that we are living now.May be It sounds good on theory however we are living in highly competetive Capitalist society..
darwin theory of "Surrival of fittest".

May be you can join to U2's Bano and other people to help poor in africa and other parts of world. May be that is what bush administration saying..
However problem with kind of situation is we will enourage incompetence...Example Welfare dependent large population of African american society in america....tell me what kind of problem they have..for them everything is racism..well,If racism is case, then you ,me and large no of indians were not doing good in this coutry.

So it is complex problem.

I would not agree to the fact that only economic disparity is the cause of terrorism. Its mostly because of lack of education and distortion of islamic teachings as taken up by the fundamentalists and madrasas.Educate,Educate and Educate and then only we can free ourselves from this menace.And for heaven's sake there is only one Quran and will somebody like Fareed Zakaria please stand up and explain the true meaning to one and all without any ambiguity please.

Jignesh, Wow. Theory of evolution comes handy to justify ill effects of capitalism. I don't mean to ridicule you. But it is downright crazy to use the theory to justify the results of extreme capitalism while talk shit about it due to religious convictions. This is right wing hypocrisy my friend. Let us take the evolutionary theories (you have used) to explain why there are so much problems in African American community. They have been put under slavery for hundreds and hundreds of years and you want them to compete with you now right out of the box. The same theories of evolution you quote will explain very well how you cannot expect them to compete with you right away. It takes a longer time for them to evolve out of the suppressive environment in which they lived. You cannot expect them to compete with whites in everything within just 30-40 years. It takes several generations for them to come out of their conditions.

Let me give you a thought experiment. Let us say a couple have twins. Let us say the one of the twins puts the other one in a dark room from day one and the he/she has a normal life. After five years, if you take the kid in the dark room and allow that kid to live normally. Now you put both the kids in the same school and give both the kids everything in the same way (from food, pocket money, books etc). What will happen is the kid who lived the normal life will excel in his/her education. The kid who spent the first 5 years in a dark room secluded from everything will havge trouble coping up with the other kids in the class. This kid will be afraid of all the kids in the class. This kid will think that all the kids are going to put him/her back into darkness. It is normal. It happens because of what the kid underwent. This kids behaviour is pretty much consistent with basic theories of science. It takes a really long time for the this kid from dark room to realize everything about life and compete with other kids. This is what is happening in African American community here. Ridiculing them doesn't make any sense. Try to understand what went wrong in this society and level the playing field for them. Then you can talk about "survival of the fittest".

Dear Shekhar,

You said "why did Hindu's not become terrorists instead of Muslims in the UK ? Because no Hindu country has been bombed or invaded recently. Afganistan, Iraq, Palistine, are all muslim countries and muslims do fear that their community is under threat."

This still does not hold up to logic. Why did Vietnam and Korea not become terrorists? Why did Hindus never turn into terrorists in spite of 1,500 years of attacks.

Terrorism has just taken on a new form these days. Otherwise, Christianity and Islam have been terroristic ideologies since their conception. You have to read the Islamic accounts of Mohammad's rise to power. He was ruthless and brutal to the point of depravity. These biographies are not written by Islam-haters, but by their own people who consider his exploits glorious. As for Christianity, the less said the better. But there is an 8-volume account of its criminal history that does not even cover the 20th century. That alone will fill another 5 volumes. Pure, unadulterated terror for 1,500 years straight in Europe. Thereafter, in the Americas and India. Read about the Goan Inquisition for local relevance. You will throw up.

"Is terrorism limited to Islam ? What about the militancy in Punjab ? What about the blowing up of the Air India flight ? What about the assasination of Indira Gandhi?"

The Sikh problem was created by Indira Gandhi and it blew right up in her face. Otherwise, historically, there has never been any animosity between Sikhs and Hindus. In any case you cannot take a few exceptions to prove the rule. Terrorism has not been the policy of our civilization, unlike the Christian and Islamic civilizations.

"Africa - I have wondered about that, but have noticed that more and more terrorists are now coming from the Afrcan nations. "

One theory I have heard and which sounds very credible to me is that the reason Africa is in such a mess is because their native traditions have been completely destroyed by Christianity and Islam. Once the social fabric of a community is destroyed, it is easy to foment hatred among their midst as they no longer have binding ties to the community.

"What about the Dec 6th destruction of Babri Masjid ?"

That's one mosque as against 600,000 temples destroyed. This is what I mean when I say you cannot take an exception to prove a rule.

" What about Gujrat?" - This was a retaliation after decades and decades of Muslim aggression against Hindus. Again an exception and not the rule. If it had been the rule Gujarat would have had no Muslims at all. Consider Bangladesh which does practice intolerance. Hindus have terrorized down from a population of 25% in 1947 to less than 2% now. I do not have the population statistics for Gujarat but I am willing to bet the Muslim population must have doubled in the last 50 years.

"We have to dig much much deeper. But the militancy in Punjab was supported largely by the recruitment of dissaffected Sikh youth. You can tell by the kill counts. "

The militancy in Punjab was supported by Indira Gandhi and the Congress party for political reasons and not ideological ones. It's always the poor who get killed. But poor and disaffected are not synonyms so your last sentence is perplexing.

"To hope for religion to be taken away is both a false and probably wrong hope. Because people need Mythology to help them see beyond their lives. Take away one religion and you will merely plant it with another."

Now, now Shekhar. You are still innocent. Actually this is typical of most Hindus. They are clueless about the nature of religion because Hinduism is not a religion and they just assume everything must be like what we have back home. Islam and Christianity are not based on mythology but on God's truth. Please do not confuse the two. Back in the day you would have been roasted alive for this statement. When I say religion needs to go, I don't mean to attack mythology. That's beautiful. The gods and goddesses are beautiful (note the capitalization on gods). It's God with the big G that needs to go and the religions that espouse this God.

"The only hope is to not Globalize without first encompassing the mass of people that live on the poverty line. Or they will hit back hard, under the excuse of some ideology or the other."

Having said all of this, in the final analysis, I do agree that economic factors play a huge role in wreaking havoc around the world.

Regards,
Divya

Divya, this is not a personal attack. I am just participating in a discussion against your argument. Take it easy.

You said "" What about Gujrat?" - This was a retaliation after decades and decades of Muslim aggression against Hindus."

The above part of your argument fits very well in what Deepak has said (http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2005/08/if_you_dont_wan.html).

Regarding your increase in population argument, I have a post in my blog which debunks the Hindutva argument. The data I have put in there clearly shows that Islam and Christianity is not rising as claimed by Hindutva supporters and in fact, over a period of one century, Hindu population has increased by 7-10 percent.

http://krishworld.com/politics/?p=3

If you look at the current world and see countries cooperating to improve their standards of living and opportunities, you will see that economics is actually the SOLUTION to terrorism.... getting people out of poverty is the solution, and positive economic interaction can do this, as long as both cultures understand that they will have to give and take a bit and they must be secure and understand that they must adopt certain external values.

Despite some conflicts, cooperation between Inda, Japan, China, and the US, for example has become much more positive because of economics. Look at Malaysia, where Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs work together.

Economics and trade are not an immediate solution. They are a means to an ends, an ends that some liberals idealistically think should be immediately attainable.

Look at India for example. Outsourcing has improved India by making people wealthier and more self-sufficent. However, it took some time and some bland work by Indians for this to happen. If done in a way that workers make the choice to work and are treated well, multinational companies can lead to people in foreign countries living much better lives, but they will have to endure a period of what could be seen as oppressive work. But the end result can be very positive.

Divya, In gujarat, there are 89.48 percent Hindus and 8.73 percent Muslims. Your argument doesn't hold true.

Source: http://www.censusindia.net/cendat/datatable23.html

Shekhar, one more thing, from what you're saying it sounds like economics can have good or bad effects, which is correct, but why do you only focus on the bad? Globalized Islamic countries or those with large Muslim populations are much more peaceful than those who alienate Western values. These countries need to realize they can maintain a strong cultural identity while adopting certain Western values. The best example is Japan, and India is a good example. In this Muslim world, Malaysia, UAE, and again, India is a great example.

A couple more things.... you are making it sound like the Mid East's messy state is all the US's fault. It is the fault of selfish dictators and kings who keep the wealth for themselves, and religious fundamentalists. Ordinary poor citizens of these countries are torn between two horrible forms of leaders. If the kings and fundamentalists are not going to do anything to help the economic state of the people, then how will the countries ever improve? The only way I see that is if a country like the US intervenes and sets up a democratic system. Wouldn't you agree that democracy promotes much more care of the people, as it is the people, not kings or fundamentalists, who call the shots?

Even though you are saying globalization is bad, it sounds like the solution to what you state is the problem is actually ironically more globalization and worldwide economic investment.

You must acknowledge that globalization is both good and bad. Otherwise, you are being really hypocritical, considering that you yourself are promoting globalization through your transition to Hollywood cinema. This site, after all, is a product of globalization as we have people from all over the world participating.

Your anti-globalization mission itself is a form of globalization.

Shekhar
Ideology or economic condition can only provide fertile ground for recruiting. But the real reason for terrorism is injustices real or perceived. Middle East is the root cause. The conflicts have been going on for more than fifty years. Muslims rich or poor all around the world perhaps feel that their brothers are being subjected to massive injustice. The same can be said about Chechnya, Kashmir and now to make the things worse about Iraq. In their eyes, super powers only conviently intervene to rectify the injustice and often support the perpatrators. I do not think it is much more than that. It has been going that way ever since except that with today's info technology and globaliztion of population, its effect is immediate and world wide.
Imrovement of economic condition may help but will not remove terrorism. Those in powers have to make sincere effort to be fair and just and education are the answers.
Morris

I am just an ”outsider looking in” but Divya, you make a lot of sense as you often do!

Skeptisch

Krish - I checked your blog. You're as militant as they come. Hatred is hatred no matter which way you direct it. I do hate certain ideologies but I try not to spew like you openly do in your blog. Whether this is personal or not I still think this is a relevant point to make.

Okay, the Muslim population in Gujarat has not doubled as I thought. But it has increased. If Hindus were in the extermination business, the population would have decreased not increased. That was my argument - so please tell me how it does not hold true.

Divya, The link was not an advertisement to the blog. I do spew venom on the concept of conservatism, fundamentalism and terrorism. It is my argument that they are cancer to the society. Spilling venom on the concept is different from killing people. I posted my link to just show that Hindutva propoganda is DOWNRIGHT wrong and not to advertise my ideas. I have clearly warned in the blog warning.

Regd your argument "Okay, the Muslim population in Gujarat has not doubled as I thought. But it has increased. If Hindus were in the extermination business, the population would have decreased not increased. That was my argument - so please tell me how it does not hold true."

The increase is not much to do anything. Miniscule. I have data from the last one century for you to compare the population based on religion. This very clearly debunks those advocated by Hindutva activists. Also your argument that if Hindus were exterminating muslims, then their population is vary naive at the best. Killing 3000 people will not have any effect if the population is in millions. Pure and simple mathematics. But killing 3000 people is what I call terrorist act whether it is 9/11 or Gujarat. Killing is an act of terrorism and it cannot be justified.

Dear Illmatic : Globalization is not inherrently bad. I do not mantain that at all. But Globalization carries great responsibility, and it effectively means that no longer can we hide behind the principle of the Nation State completely. That is a contradiction. You are unable to isolate yourself in a Global Village.

But yes, the colonial policies of the bigger powers in last 50 years have led to a messy state in middle eastern politics. Just look at the History of Iraq. This is not US bashing - Soviet Union and Britain and other European Colonizers were equally responsible. Though I absolutely believe that the invasion of Iraq, and the support for the Shah of Iran and the previous support for Saddam Hussian and probably the support for the current regime in Saudi Arabia have been mistakes and History will look back at them as such.

Shekhar

Also if you see http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/statement.pdf, you will know that the growth rate has decreased in both Hindu and Muslim communities in the last decade. So the argument that muslims will easily populate India with their breed is also ridiculus.

Krish - I continue to be confused by the numbers you throw in. Which 3000 people are you talking about?

Where is the logical discrepancy in concluding that if the Muslim population has stayed the same that implies we are not killing them off?

You keep repeating that killing is wrong. Are you just trying to convince us that you are a nice person or is there any relevance to the discussion? The discussion is about a civilization of terror and not random acts of terror.

Okay Divya, I have been watching various talking points in your posts everywhere, I have been able to single out one concept from you: Islam and Christianity are the problems, rest is all good and dandy.

Is that it or is there more?

I wouldn't be asking this question if you were to claim that religion is a problem period. But you have suggested that Hiduism is not a religion. Which basically suggests what? That your's is wrong, mine is correct. Isn't it?

With this logic, I'm not sure how Skiptsch can agree with you.

Am I missing something here?

And if you can track your own postings on other topics, you can probably come to the numbers of time your posts have diverted the attention of discussion to something other than what the original author intended.

Now throw me a grenade if you wish, but this is my observation.

I am talking about the 3000 people who got eliminated in Gujarat. The number may be more but not less.

Also there is a big logical discrepancy in your conclusion. Let us say their population is 5 million and if 3000 people are killed by Hindu extremists, this will not alter the percentage of muslims much. 3000 over 5 million is almost negligible. The population will stay the same as there are also other factors to it. With this I conclude that your argument that Hindus haven't killed Muslims because their percentage has stayed the same is wrong. Your argument doesn't hold.

Also I gave the data to show that muslim population has not increased as you claimed and also to debunk the claim of Hindutva activists. The data clearly shows that.

I agree that the post has deviated from the topic. I am sorry for my post. I just wanted to show that her arguments are wrong based on the data available(without even going to the fact you have put forward). I apologize if I had deviated from the topic.

Krish,divya..

Guys...Shekhar wants to make good movies and we want to see them..

please...give Shekhar a break....let other share some thoughts...you guys can go for Blind Date I guess...

Krish - The number of Muslims killed in Gujarat as published by this current non-BJP government is in the 700's. Regarding the census, you make no sense but keep repeating yourself. Over a 60 year period these things do show up on the record as in the reports from Pakistan and Bangladesh which you conveniently choose to ignore.

Curious - I have indeed said that Islam and Christianity are problems but where have I implied that the rest is good and dandy?

I have said that religion is a problem. If you take away religion you will have nothing but a diffuse set of practices in thousands of different forms without structure. There will be no mine and thine to it let alone false and correct. Hinduism is a word inflicted on us by foreigners. We just have (had?) dharma. And I do value dharma. If you have a problem with dharma, please do elaborate on it.

How can you say that Islam and Christianity are not relevant in a discussion of terrorism? If people (in this instance Shekhar) try and whitewash the causes of terror why should I not point it out. You're free to come up with counter-arguments. If religion is something people are not comfortable discussing then they should not allow this subject on the blog. Meanwhile I will certainly continue to voice my opinion. I think awareness is of more value than sentiments.

I really don't understand why I should look at bangladesh and Pakistan when so many bad things are happening in India. I will clean my house first before talking about others.

Anyhow I don't want to continue arguing with you as it serves no purpose and others should convey their views too. My philosophy is plain and simple. Stop terrorism irrespective of religion and get evolved from primitive age by not waging religious wars.

Divya, you said "I think awareness is of more value than sentiments."

This is exactly what I point out. Believe in data not in religious propaganda. If you can show data for whatever you talk (with proof), then I can accept it. As long as it is not done, your argument is no different from any fundamentalist. I don't give any importance to arguments without data to back it up.

Krish - the Pak & Bdesh reference was to the census figures that you keep slapping on to us. Nothing to do with cleaning house at all. Your ability to miss the point is remarkable although I have no dispute with your philosophy.

Howcome you profusely apologize to the group for going off-topic but have no qualms about continuing to do so? Do you really about what you claim to be about?

Geez, another one. But the link provided by you is sufficient!

Typo in my last post - Read the last line as Are you really about what you claim to be about?

That's a rhetorical question by the way, you don't have to answer it.

Raj:
"Guys...Shekhar wants to make good movies and we want to see them.."

Agree with you, dude..

Krish,divya
BTW Blind date is not bad idea or may be you can ask curious,skeptics to join then it will become ELIMIDATE...

There is no point in going for personal attack. My apology is for people who felt bad with this discussion. I am just being civil. But I am continuing my argument based on what you said in one of your posts.

"If religion is something people are not comfortable discussing then they should not allow this subject on the blog. Meanwhile I will certainly continue to voice my opinion."

I voice my opinion as I have a feeling similar to what you have in your quote above. Instead of going into personal attacks, try to argue on any topic with data to back up. Saying muslim population has doubled and then withdrawing the statement saying that "I am wrong but it has increased" doesn't make sense. I don't plan to continue any argument with you in this matter unless you follow up your arguments with proper data. Any argument on religious issues without data to backup your claims is similar to what fundamentalists in all religions do.

But Raj, nobody's stopping anyone else from participating. Notice how there are often a 100 responses to deepak's posts? Seems like if people want to share they do.

Divys, I think we cross posted :-)

The keyboard sucks. Who wants the "s" key next to "a" :-)

Krish - Here's what I said "I do not have the population statistics for Gujarat but I am willing to bet the Muslim population must have doubled in the last 50 years." Notice the "must have". That's conjecture. It's right there in black and white for you to see it is conjecture. Unlike you who pull numbers out of thin air (3000) and pass them off for real without any indication that you're guessing. The minute you provided the census statistic I pointed out that the population has not decreased which still validates my point that Hindus are not exterminating Muslims. Then you go off into a bizarre tangent about how census does not register statistics. Why provide the statistics in that case?

And now I'm done with this.

Oh, I thought you were being sweet to me as I get called Divs when people are being sweet. Never mind, the smileys good enough.

As I said, I argue on the topic and don't take it beyond the argument. I am sweet to people except while arguing :-)

BTW, I have put the 3000 figure as the approximate number of muslims killed by Hindutva people. You may be right about 700+ in the Godhra violence. My suggestion of 3000 or more includes Godhra violence and others done by Hindutva forces.

I also don't have the figure for Gujarat alone but I have figures to show that their claims are bgus when you consider the whole India into account. In India, muslim population increase is miniscule and even the miniscule increase can be attributed to their poverty (poverty is not just a terrorist breeding ground. It is a breeding ground in general mostly attributed to lack of education and ignorance). You can use any statistical theory. There is no way this will make hindus into a minority.

But what I couldn't understand is your statement "I pointed out that the population has not decreased which still validates my point that Hindus are not exterminating Muslims.". How can this prove that Hindus are not exterminating Muslims. How do you classify the massacre of muslims in Gujarat and Mumbai then?

Dear Shekhar: Brilliant said.

Peace.

Ann

Of course, I meant "brialliantLY." Do'h!

Ann

I have no problem with Dharma.

Someone inflicted the word Hindusim on you? I don't disagree but how does that prove that Hinduism (or call it Dharma or abc or xyz) is not a religion? Does athiest needs to call himself athiest? Do you really need to call yourself Divya? (assuming that is your real name).

What is the difference? I'm lost in your logic dear.

I was once an athiest but then I found all encompassing God (that is with upper case G) Now I'm not sure why I even called myself athiest.

Interesting discussion!

Shekhar, your focus on the responsibility that comes with power really resonates with me. It's a life theme of mine and whether the power is of a nation or leader or parent or other organization or particular role a person is playing- it's critical to get a handle on how we impact others and the world as a whole. It's not a question of morality. It's a question of the survival of humanity. And, it's not about pointing fingers and casting praise and blame. It's about seeing the underlying unity and value of all of life and striving to nurture, honor and support that life.

Love, Kristin

I dont agree with the idea that poverty and alienation is the cause of terrorism and that people from such backgrounds become terrorists. There are many people in this world who are poor and face many injustices but they dont go around plotting/planning secretly or otherwise and go around killing others. Thinking of killing/revenge etc is fine but to actually to do requires something else. It just requires lot of hate/evil to kill others. A bad seed in the company of more bad seeds. By saying that poverty etc makes terrorists is like endorsing the behavior of terrorists and justifying it. I dont agree with it all.
-Sonali

Curious - I've been studying the pheonmenon of religion since the last 5 years. There is no consensus on the definition of religion but at the very least we can say that religions are centered around beliefs. The culture that is labeled hinduism does not revolve around any beliefs but is just a set of traditions and rituals.

For example, it is valid to say that Christians believe that Jesus is the Savior. But it is not valid to say that Hindus believe Shiva is the Destroyer. The Shiva thing is a story that is helpful in understanding certain principles, and a principle is not a belief. Now certain Christians may say that they see Jesus as a symbol of love and what not. No matter which way a Christian may want to interpret this personally, there will nevertheless be certain constraints on interpretation. You cannot interpret Jesus to be the son of the devil for example and still call yourself a Christian. The Indian myths do not run into such constraints as they are simply tools for explaining matters and the Shiva concept has no other purpose.

In the last 200 years the western world has taken to interpreting our culture. Since they are so heavily indoctrinated in the religious worldview they have been incapable of discerning that the phenomenon they are trying to describe is not religion in any way, shape or form. But since their culture is a dominant one, they have managed to force-fit Christian concepts on to the Indian traditions. Generations of Indians have now grown up who regard the Christian interpretation of Indian culture as the valid account of our culture. But if anyone wants to go deeper into the matter, or if you talk to people who do not speak any western language you will notice that their understanding is completely different. The question of belief is not an important one, but rather they perform their daily rituals in order to lead a good life. The focus is on action and not on belief. That is why it is so easy for "hindus" to put a picture of Jesus or Mary or anyone else on their altar.

This is one way that the hindutvadis have been very detrimental to our indigenous traditions. Because, instead of focusing on making our culture more vibrant, they are focusing on competing with the other religions and insist on converting our traditions into a religion.

Hope I've been able to bring out the distinction.

Divya:
what is the problem you have.Not getting l@id or what?...
what is wrong with you and krish?
why the hell you are waisting Shekhar's interesting blog...Give Mr. shekhar some break...
we want good movies from him we do not want to spoil his extraordinary movie making record...
give 'em break.

How many people here knew that Muslim countries are wanting to establish a gold backed currency?

They are. Do you know this is a threat to fiat based currency?

Do you know it is a threat to the games played my being in control of a monetary symbol that is backed by nothing.

If you want to understand the world you need to understand the games. When you understand the games you can put a stop to them.

Did you know Saddam threatned to sell Oil in Euro's?

These are the truths and understanding that need to happen.

Fiat currency allows the few to steal from the many producers.

Divya,

I also think along the same lines. Good to know someone similar !

-Sonali

As far as I'm concerned, there are no constraints on accepting, believing, interpreting, practicing the all encompassing God. This all encompassing God does not even restrict you and I from calling him the Evil let alone anything else.

Divya, I'm sorry to break this news to you, but you have been studying human politics for the last 5 years and not religion.

BTW, are these rituals and tradition in this cultural set of Hinduism comes mechanically with no soul, or is there a belief with soul of perhaps all encompassing God, behind it?

Richard, its either "your" globalization or "my" globalization. Who's it going to be?

We go back to the dance of leela.

Well Curious,

That is up to the audience, or whatever is left of it after all is said and done.

Most of us decended back into the audience seats knowing full well that we were actors in this stage of life in the first place.

Oh well, eventually we will be back in action. The God of inaction and laziness has taken over, what can we do.

Imagine for a moment that there is one that can email or through other channels communicate to 35 million people with several hours labor and a number of keystrokes. Imagine that this One does not seek fame, fortune or power. Realize that not another soul on this planet, government or corporation is even aware of this and what is being communicated. The words travel like a thief in the night.

Imagine that the worlds systems, structures and foundations all depend on ignorance. Imagine that this intelligence is designed to eliminate ignorance. What happens to the systems built on ignorance? Now you will begin to understand what is happening in the world.

Imagine with a few keystrokes this One can impart a unit of information to 15,000 financial advisors, o the world’s governments and universities. Consider that this One could enlighten some of the players in the game as to what they other players were doing and their intentions and methods.

Then see the next day as all these individuals alter their behavior and decisions not knowing that this communication was to thousands.

That is why I suggest the world embrace it's truth before it is embraced for you.

Watch the analysts scratch their heads as they attempt to understand what is going on.

Imagine that there is such intelligence on the planet.

If you can imagine that then you have seen reality.

Well, I don't have time to read the responses to Shehkar's posts at the moment, as there are just too many.

Hey, Shekhar, you never cease to amaze me. I can never figure you out. On one hand, I view you as a rebel with a sword and on the other hand I see your heart shinning like a halo. Hummm ... you are a complex and very passion being! Maybe that's why people are inspired by your words, as I so love your poetry. Anyway, I really liked this post of yours and I thank you for sharing. Let's hope that WE all can see our true Self and love one another as we love ourselves. Then, just maybe I (we) will be able understand world peace and what Deepak talks about in his “Peace is the Way” book, which BTW is excellent.

Love,
Char

I donot have to add anything to the thread as evrything has been said and debated,religion culture..etc.
Shekhar i agree with you that economics and power shape the world.Very well said and expressed.
I somehow feel that religious differences have divided the people for centuries but in our personal relationships individual matters not religion.
Secondly,i want to add killing another human being is the most heinous crime anyone can commit.If i say that gujrat is result of years of repression or 9/11 is a result of repression....etc etc.then i've missed a basic point of humanity that no matter what... who kills whom a wrong can never be right.
I cannot condemn one death and rejoice in another...I believe neither Godhra nor Gujrat riots...can justify any thing.Thousand of people have suffered hindu/muslim both.I cannot oversimplify their suffering by turning them into a statistic.Loss of each life is important and a lesson to living that raise your children with integrity and teach them tolerance..Not only tolerance but they should be open to discussion.
Divya i really want to know from which book you are getting your islamic history just curious.

I glanced at all the replies (names) and I can see why there are so many posts, as Shekhar actually came out and played! :-) ... but I've got to meditate and read the Bible now, so I will read all of this tomorrow as I am sure it's probably very interesting. Love to all, Char

Dear Shekhar,
Thanks for bringing out a debate of most importance. The comments pouring in are a reasonably good sign of concern of fellow bloggers. There are some personal attacks, but overall we are looking at the problem in different angles and finding different solutions being thrown in.
The various theories put forward in this blog as the cause of terrorism can be summarized as
1. Economic deprivation,
2. Religious
3. Conspiracy
4. Ideological drive
5. Revenge –‘One factor that we leave out as it relates to suicide bombers is that there is evidence to support in at least some of them their families or loved ones were held hostage and threatened with suffering or death if they did not commit the acts that they did’
6. Sense of isolation and humiliation.
Definitely truth lies somewhere in between.
But the important aspect pointed by you is the GLOBALIZATION OF TERRORISM. It needs to be tackled urgently. And as we are seeing ‘the great FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM’ taking us nowhere, there is need to think for some alternate solutions which only common citizen can take.
Now look at the task ahead for tackling this problem. Without personal bias I assume that, whatever be the reason, the present problem is the pan Islamic terrorism.
First and foremost is obviously to attack the breeding ground of terrorism i.e. providing economic development to the underdeveloped areas.
Secondly there needs a concerted effort by world community to show solidarity with the moderate section of the Muslim community. The terrorists need to be isolated. The hands of the moderates need to be strengthened. No youth should feel neglected or alienated in the society, which would force him to the laps of terrorism.
Easier said than done. But we need to act urgently. The heavy price the human race is paying today cannot go on endlessly. By heavy price, I mean FEAR. How long are we going to live with FEAR? I request all of you who are posting their comments to ponder for a while; How Long? How Long? I am facing this question day in and day out. I believe that we need to act. We have lived our life but what are we leaving for the future generations? LET’S ACT TODAY TO LEAVE THIS EARTH A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE-IN FOR THE GENERATION NEXT.
Regards
Bikash

Dang!!! Now this is where I regret I got on to this train too late, blame it on the time zones.

Wonderful post Shekhar - the response you have intiated is mind boggling - specially for small minds like yours truly!

Hang on though - all this is not going to prevent me from putting in my two annas worth.

Shekhar has spoken of deprivation as being at the root of terrorism - I like to refer to it as frustration. That is basically, I think, the cause, but it needs a little more spice to drive people to committing acts of inhuman proportions. As already mentioned by others, if it was just economic deprivation then perhaps the epicenter of terrorism should be in the African continent. This frustration needs to be fuelled with an ideology, religion or any cause that has an emotional appeal to the underpriviledged. But these are only the foot soldiers really, the masterminds have their own axe to grind very often - ego massage, revenge and vendetta or trying to balance their own inadequacies and shortcomings. However whatever be the cause the end result of terrorism is generally political anarchy brought on by instilling fear.

I agree that military offensives are not an answer by themselves and will not root out terrorism but strongly feel that unless the political will to counter terrorist acts is not there there simply will be no end to it. Military action is a temporary and essential tool. In the final analysis it is political will and the manner in whuich the root cause of frustration is addressed that will determine success or failure.

There is also another aspect of terrorism, that I find is slowly gaining ground, which disturbs me - the 'culture police' and the moral brigades - all too often aided and abetted by the state.

Though my experience is limited to the Indian environment I am sure it is slowly gaining ground elsewhere. Shooting and screening of films is disrupted through violent means ('Fire' as an example), banning of books just because some felt it was against 'our ethos'. A violent attack on a renowned artist and his work - almost 20 years after the painting was put on public display! Indiscriminate banning of books and issuing 'fatwas', just because a lumpen group of bigots feels it is an attack on their religion or some other 'do gooders' feel it will poison innocent young minds. Burning and destroying archives which housed invaluable and ancient manuscripts because some foreign author used the facility for reference and research and made some uncomplimentary remarks about a very respected and historical figure.

Is this not terrorism and in some cases State sponsored terrorism?

Curious - to put it briefly, atman is a technical word and it is not soul. There are no matching concepts in any other culutre. Ditto for the rest of the indigenous concepts.

you are right to some extent. religion can only be studied by the believers because religion is what it says it is, i.e, the bible is the word of god, so says the bible. if you don't believe that then you are not studying religion but just a book.

I do not believe that economic desparity causes terrorism. It is not what created Osama Bin Laden. He came from a very wealthy family. It is however what provides a ready pool of recruits. But then is it not what also provides a ready pool of soldiers ready to fight them. I wonder what would happen if President Bush were to ask Osama Bin Laden for a meeting to discuss their differences.

dara- if it is nt state sponsored terrorism, it certainly is state abetted terrorism. Terrorism against artists and intellectuals is commonly state sponsored or abetted. The police is a well used terrorist weapon by the State all over the world. Shekhar

Andaleeb - here's one of my sources of information on Islam.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq.htm

shekhar writes...
"Imagine a Taliban fighter. He grew up in country already ravaged by power play between Super Powers. He has no way to earn an income, or have a career, or get married and have a family. There is no education, no jobs, no future."

shekhar,
what do you say about the case of omar sheikh who was financer of al qaeda and the one who killed daniel pearl.

omar belonged to a wealthy family in england,had good education,went to london school of economics.but then also he believed in radical islam ,joined al qaeda,and killed daniel pearl because he was a jew and omar believed that muslims must kill all jews.

your logic is really a logic defying logic.you have ignored the radical islam which clearly tells that non muslims must be killed.

you have ignored all the verses of koran which talks about killing infidels.

Divya, if I wish to learn about what that cultural set and tradition of Hinduism is NOT, which website should I go to? I'm sure there are many anti-hindu websites out there, however, I do hope not to waste my time on something that teaches me hinduism as described by non-hindus.

You have no idea what Islam is, it is very obvious from this sentence of yours: There are no matching concepts in any other culutre.

I hope you would learn more about Islam and other religion so you won't have to make such a comment again in the future.

The terrorists foot-soldiers do not stem from poor Africa because terrorist foot-solders do no initiate idiology wars. The wars are the cause of humans who never take their political blinders off or leave their ego at rest. Have you seen many great big politicians from African continent? If you had then you would have seen the balance between reform and chaos. There are hardly any reforms and there are hardly any chaos. Does it have anything to do with evolution in race, climate etc? I don't know.

Now look around other continents, we have raised great and big politicians, Czars, imperialists, Churchil, Mossulini, Hitler, Gandhi, Jinnah. Weren't all these people great mobilizers of humanity they served? Negative or positive is irrelevant.

Curious - I don't know if you are being sarcastic or asking for information on hinduism. In any case, please fend for yourself.

I repeat, there is no matching concept for atman in Islam or any western tradition. One of these days I may elaborate on it.

Thanks Divya, Thanks

It is really an enlightening experience to read your posts!

Btw, there is an atheist in Kerala and his name is Idamaruk. He calims he has studied 33 religions and to prove his claims he has written books as many books!! Has he understood , at least one of them?

YOu have asked that why did Hindus not become terrorists. IN the first place, there were no hindus in the past, as you see now. And there was no India too as we see it now.

There were different countries fighting each other. For example in Kerala, Travancore fought against Cochin, Cochin fought against Calicut. If somebody needs, I can give details.

There were different societies or communities based on "graded inequality." There were grave social injustices prevailing then. The majority of the people were treated like animals. There are many examples, and if somebody wants to know, they can search the net and find out themselves!!

However for those who are lazy to search: Guys from top layer of the caste system never allowed ladies of lower castes to cover their breasts. There were breast taxes imposed on lower caste ladies, if their breasts were bigger than certain size. (I wonder how did they measure it!!) People from some castes were not allowed to come out from their 'dwellings' in daylight. Most shamingly, we in India had 'untouchables'!! Shall we not consider this terrorism? Proactised for thousands of years? No, it should not be. Instead, we should forget about the millions who lived and died in these terrible conditions and start to praise about Vasudaiva kudumbakam!!

Thanks to the much hated communists, it is only in 1930s lower caste people were allowed entry to temples, in Kerala. (So much for the claim that in India, everybody were allowed to 'worship' thier own god) In other states, we still hear that lower caste people are not allowed the entry, even today !

True, the gods and goddesses (not capital g!) were beautiful in ancient India. But only brahmins were allowed to worship those beautiful gods. The gods the lower caste people were 'allowed' to pray were not so beatiful.

Did caste orginate from tribal system or religious belief? It is originated from religion. Period. The caste system was based on the belief that brahmins originated from the head of Brahma, the creator. Kshtriyas from arms etc etc. Is the concept of brahma a belief or is it merely used to explain some principles, like that of Shiva?!! I think it is religious belief. Because, as you said in another post, religion is what believers believe. I can show you thousand if not millions who believe Shiva is God (with a capital G!) For example, ask a Shiv sena or bajrang dal memeber!! A warning: be careful, when you ask a Shiva sena memeber about it.

Did I picture badly about India. I don't think so

India had two traditions. One is represented by those great Gurus from the ancient time. We had Budha. We had the Sikh Guru who asked a prominent Muslim to lay the first stone of Golden Temple. We had Dr.Radhakrishnan. We had Sree Narayana Guru. We have now Mr.Deepak and others, who are 'reluctant Hindus'.

In the other stream we had Jagad Guru Adi Shankaracharya. For him to understand that all humans are equal and have to be treated equally, the G(g)od (I am not sure if it should be a small g!) had to appear in front of him, disguised as an untouchable!!

I wonder who should appear here to make us understand that it is not monotheism or communism that is causing the 'us vs them' mentality.

Najeeb,

Some of your critique is valid. Most of it is a diatribe. In any case two wrongs don’t make a right. You describe the ills of the caste system in the past tense, although they are more prevalent today than they were in the past. Untouchability is a crime and so are other forms of discrimination. But these are social evils and have nothing to do with the scriptures. I don't see anything wrong with the Vedic conceptualization that Brahmins emerged from the head of Brahman and sudras from the feet. Only fools go around believing that people are equal in every way. But there is no injunction to treat anyone badly because they are not equal except in one obscure text called the Manu Smriti which no-one has heard of. In any case, there is no authority to implement anything. This is simply a persistent social evil.

I do not agree with your characterization of the development of these atrocious traditions. From accounts of pre-British India and from a writer by the name of Dharampal who studied the British archives we know that harijans in the olden days were economically well off and that that they received an education. They were valiant soldiers. Most importantly, like other jatis, most harijan jatis too had their own gods, goddesses, temples, priests, religio-cultural heros, origin stories, even swamis and gurus.

Don't forget this is a different culture we are talking about, this is not a one size fits all philosophy. There was a notion that the higher up you are the more responsibility you have. Brahmins had to follow a strict adherence to many dharmic injunctions, including elaborate purity rituals. Even the Christian monks separate themselves in order to go deeper into their practice. But brahmins were not monks, they were part of society. It was these notions of purity that degenerated into untouchability.

I acknowledge that Shiv Sena treats Hinduism like a religion as do the other hindutvadis. People reading this blog too have grown up with the same notions. They have been educated in the western tradition and have a monolithic mentality and easily swallow foreign descriptions of their own culture. Too bad for them. It takes a serious commitment to learning to really want to discover the essence of the culture. Mindless discussions of advaita are way too easy in comparison.

Divya...that site is from the people who have not even understood the basics of Islam..This site is made by ex muslims so people leave the religion so they know the "truth".I thought you read islamic history books or did some valid research.

thanks

Andaleeb, if there are any factual errors in the site please point them out. There's no use claiming those people don't understand anything. In any case, they quote extensively from the Quran. If that's not serious enough then what is?

Divya, you sure don't want me to spend time in finding out anti-hindu websites, although they will all be legitimate with all the facts with proof and everything.

I mean, what are we trying to get here with your logic?

Divya i will definetly point it out to you..once my (school break) starts...but there has been an extensive research done on quoting from Quran...It is so easy to quote anything out of context.In misquoting quran Osama bin laden is a pro...thats how he used the word of GOD!!!!to call people for JEHAD...the true jihad in islam is to control your desires and to walk with the people who are truthful and honest.(doesnot say muslim)It says follow those who are truthful and honest.If you have more then others give freely to charity so the community can live in harmony.Every man and woman is created equal in front of GOD.
Lead a pious Where there is no greed,where you do not take what doesnot belong to you,the true jihad is not to back bite or talk ill of any one.Live a simple life ,work,be good to your neighbor(it doesnot say that neighbour needs to be a muslim"
Divya this is the islam i follow and practise.
You live in newyork there is a very nice center there where you can find a lot about Islam. I forgot the name of the centre...but i can find that out for you.

Or read Feisal Abdul Rauf's What is Right with Islam. He is from NY, I wonder if Andaleeb is referring to his center.

I do not understand how do you assume that the evils of caste system are more prevalent today than they were in the past. Did you mean that in India nowadays, the guys from top castes, do not allow women, from the so called lower caste, cover more private parts? Is it so? Would you mind enlightening me further?

What I know is that things have changed and the evils are not so evident in the arena of social activities. However, it is still there. We can still read news of caste based atrocities from Tamil Nadu and many other northern states. And I know that if it has diminished and saved millions of people from suffering at least partially , it is definitely because of people who did see much wrongs in the ‘conceptualization’ (not belief, it is a conceptualization!!) about the origins of brahmins.

I am amazed to read that you do not see any problem with that belief of the origins of brahimns. .(It is actually a belief only, it has given a cover of conceptualization to exploit comfortably) You claim that the scriptures have nothing to do with these atrocities. And in the next sentence, you say that you do not see any problem in the scriptures that builds up the base for discrimination.

It is true that most ‘harijans’ also had their ‘own’ gods etc etc. But what I was saying that if they wanted to worship “other castes’ G(g)ods, they were not permitted. If you read the history of Sree Narayana Guru, you will understand it.

I am not sure about Dharampal, but if the people were not allowed to step out of their ‘dwellings’ during daytime, how did they manage to become economically sound? It does not make any sense. And it is a very vague statement. Who are those harijans? Where did they live? What was there financial status? How many individuals from that community were well off? Is it a few?

Let us say there were financially well. That does not solve the problem. I have read quite some time ago, a member from Ezhava community in Kerala had a car. But he was not allowed to drive the car on the road near to a temple. !!

I do not understand what type of purity you are talking about that leads to the concept of untouchability!! For me, it is plain racism. Sree Narayana Guru , in one of his books wrote that all rituals are symbolic. So if the ‘elaborate purity rituals’ degenerate in to untouchability, what does that mean?

I had no intention to discuss Advaita with a person who can’t distinguish the difference between treating people equally and saying all are “equal in every way.” What I wanted to point out that India had/have highly knowledgeable people like him. They were/are able to discuss Advaita deep and quote suktas but they were/are total failures as humans. And this happens because of too much academic knowledge in these matters and very little experience.

Najeeb - It is true that caste discrimination is worse now than it was at any time from the beginning of recorded history up to the 19th century. All of the examples you have given are practices that have evolved since the 1850's. The only relief that has been provided has been in the form of government programs, but socially there has not been much improvement. There is still oppression of women regarding covering of breasts in some villages.

What I tried to say in my previous post was that the discrimination is not specified in the scriptures. (As opposed to the Quran where it is specifically written to go kill the infidel). All that is described in the scriptures is a hierarchy and the duties involved. Untouchablity too is not mentioned anywhere.

It is not up to you or your guru to interpret for me what rituals mean. Most people who perform rituals do not know the meaning of rituals and in fact I too am convinced there is no meaning to them as such but the significane lies in the actual performance. There is a beautiful book by Fritz Staal recently been published on this very topic.

Ritual purity for brahmins involved bathing many times a day, eating certain types of food, not allowing anyone into the kitchen, and a whole host of nitpicky things like this. There is nothing racist about not wanting to be around certain people. Racism means having discriminatory practices against a certain race. Caste discrimination is a discriminatory practice. But not wanting to be around certain people is a matter of personal choice.

It is equally ridiculous to expect to treat all people equally. This is not practiced anywhere in the world. The CEO is treated better than the janitor. Talking of equality is mostly empty rhetorics. How much equality did we see in New Orleans recently?

Remember the theme of this topic was whether terrorism is caused by economic factors leading to disaffectation. My theory was that ideology plays an important part in terrorism. I do not see your point in bringing in a discussion of the caste system since the untouchables are poor and disaffected but they have not turned into terrorists. I fail to see the connection.

Andaleeb - I have no doubt in my mind that you have been inspired in a good way by Islam. I will await your comments on that site after your school break.

Curious - If you have any relevant issues to bring up, please do so and I will let you know what I think. I did not ask you for any websites and I have no intention of plowing through anything unless you provide me with a reason for it. Andlaleeb asked me where I was getting my information from and I told him. If you have specific objections to the contents of the website please let me know what they are. It is not enough to say it is essentially garbage without pointing out to the facts that make it so.

As is the case of many of your posts, the current one also do not touch the factors of plain life, as encountered by millions of Indians.

We know that when was Budha lived. And we know that he was totally against the evils of caste system, brahminism and the related atrocities. So what do you mean such practises were not mentioned in the any of recorded history?

As you mentioned in the earlier post, the 'purity rituals' degenerated in to untouchability and that is plain discrimination. And thus it is racism.

It is not an excuse to say that CEO and janitor is not treated alike. I have recently read, (if i am not mistaken in this blog) that CEO shakeshand with janitor in a lift. And if i remember correctly, you too somewhere else mentioned that the beauty of America is that people are treated equally.

Actually this analogy is not apt. There is a great difference between treating a CEO and janitor differently and denying the right of way, or worship or work. I hope you will see that one day.

The connection of my posts with the subject is that you mentioned Hinus had not turned to terrorism for the past 1500 yrs. I said that there were no hindus as we see now in those years. And i asked the question whether the brahmins of those time can be called as terrorists, as they committed henious crimes such as untouchability agains fellow humans, since at least the time of Budha.

I do not quite agree with Shekar kapur on the root causes of Islamic terrorism. And I will explain why.

The epicenter of Islamic fundamentalism today comes from the arab countries (Pakistan can also be added to the list). These countries are rich in oil. They have a made a lot of money selling the oil they have and are very well off financially. If the money the government made by selling oil is not percolated to the common man in these countries, then it is clearly a case of bad governance.

I cannot understand what the western governments should have done differently so that the common arab man would have been more friendly towards the people from the west. The Americans discovered oil in the middle east, offered to buy it from these governments and made these countries rich. If the leaders of these countries were shrewd, thew would not have squandered the capital they accumulated so easily.

Even the people involved in the terrorist activities are not poor people but are people who are well off. Bin Laden reportedly has assets of $250 million. The person involved in the murder of Daniel Pearl and who was released by India in exchange of the passengers of the Indian Airlines plane at Khandahar was a British citizen and had a business degree from London school of economics.

I think the main difference between the attitudes in the west and the middle east is in education. If you think of new technologies being created today, almost all new ideas that are changing our world today are comaing from America and some countries in the west.

Sometime back a study was conducted in the US where they measured the number of patents each country produced in the past 50 years. It turned out that the countries in the middle east produced very very few patents and whatever they produced were negligible. This difference is very notable and should not be ignored.

There are no new ideas being developed in the middle east. The people there are essentially frozen in their mindset and are unwilling to change.

It is this unwillingness to change which brings them in conflict with the people in not just the the west but really all of the non muslim cultures.

One more point: I am not very sure about the whole of India, though the conditions must have been improved a minimum, I can be very sure about Kerala.

We do not have such evils now in Kerala, at least not as prominent as those days. The reformation was started by Shree Nararayana Guru and completed by communists. The christian missionaries started schools almost all over Kerala and provided education to people from every level of the society. Islam provided a sense of social justices and equality.

andaleeb writes..."that site is from the people who have not even understood the basics of Islam"

dude,you need to read about history of islam

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

Muhammad, Allah, Mecca, and the formation of Islam are completely unknown to secular history. All we know of them is derived from the Qur’an and Hadith. The earliest and most important collection of Hadith is called the Sira, or Biography. Compiled by Ibn Ishaq, the Sira provides the only written account of this man, his god, place and religion within two centuries of his death. There is no other valid source from which Muhammad can be seen, or Islam can be interpreted, differently.

source- http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

Okay there is no point in reading or discussing further if you guys keep on bringing in "anti" material. I was expecting something better from this crowd but it is showing typical signs. No Divya, I won't argue with you based on the website you have provided, it is not worth my time. If you intend to learn more about what the true Islam is then I have already provided you one reference, read Reza Aslan, read Dominque Sila Khan if you wish to dig deep on South Asia's Muslim-Hindu diaspora. I don't waste my time on websites invented specifically to ridicule Islam.

I dont know why when a Hindu talks of terrorists others bring in the topic of untouchability. Hello !! Untouchability was a social evil. And certainly it has stopped as far as I know. My parents who are Hindus never taught me or anyone that or followed that and their parents before them never practised or followed that. So I can atleast vouch for 50-70 years in my knowledge.

There are many laws in our country against murder, robbery etc. But people still do them dont they ?? So does this mean that our Constitution encourages such things or is the statement 'Indians are murderers' is correct ? No. It is a social evil.

Hinduism teaches many good things most important being love and respect for all religions. There were some bad practices which some people in some era invented and practised and probably compiled a collection of their thoughts (eg. manu smriti) BUT Hindu religion as such DID NOT endorse them and doesnt today. Such things happen in all religions. Compared to them I would say Hinduism is really a very very decent religion.

If untouchability was still practised today (or was practised severly in the near past...then belive me there would not have been such progress in our country....it requires a good positive atmosphere in any place for progress) as people seem to be implying

Sonali: "Hinduism is really a very very decent religion". Agreed one hundred percent.

Now how do I come to this agreement? Not from reading your comments, not from reading anyone else's comment. I came to this conclusion because I read your books and did studies from your books and I find your sentence comprehensible and your faith and religion decent.

Now tell me (keeping Divya's above posts in mind) if you were to study Islam, would you read books or study Islam based on what anti-islamist may have written about the "religion"? Or would you base your judgement about Islam reading some anti-islamic websites? Does this make sense from any viewpoint?

I mean forget about everyone else, Divya here has lost credibility altogether. I would have given benefit of a doubt if Divya had shown any valid history book on Islam but it is ridiculous to ridicule a religion based on material written specifically to deny what is "decent" in Islam as a religion and faith.

The basic problem with these heated debates is this: "you" and "me" would take a cursory look at one religion, read the sound bites from media and boom we got ourselves five year degree in religion.

I have no problem with people who wish to deny other religion just because they don't like it, as long as they stay behind their computer desk and don't come near me. You can come near me if you respect other people's faith and religion based on what is good and decent.

Najeeb perhaps didn't label social evils on Hinduism but it is a fact that those social evils were done from both sides to those who were/are practicing Hinduism. This is as same as a fact that terrorist are blowing up other people these days and they happen to be Muslims or calling themselves Muslims.

You and I know that both of these extremes are taking advantage of religion and ridiculing the faith.

Curious - The substance is of importance more than the source. Please state what is substantively wrong with the information on the site. As you said, there are thousands of hindu hate groups and let's say you had pulled up material from those sites. I would have let you know whether it was true or false to the best of my ability. You keep insisting that there are other sources of material on Islam. That may be true. This is also a valid source. No source on this planet can change the fact that the great prophet of Islam at the age of 54 lusted after and married a 9 year old girl or that he forced himself on to a woman the same night as he slaughtered her husband, father and mother. This is just a drop in the ocean of the personal side of the story. The politics were equally debased. Why do you think it is of no importance to spread awareness about these issues? Specially since the murderous insticts are very much of topical interest. They're still talking about killing the Hindu dogs, so please don't deny that. Yes, a majority of the Muslims are good people. Unfortunately, at times of aggression, that has not saved anyone's skin not even their own.

"This is also a valid source."

NO IT IS NOT.

And this is true to the best of my ability. And no, I won't throw dirt on you so you can tell me if it is true or not, to the best of your ability.

Now accuse me of running away. I would rather be accused of running away then be a mudslinger here on intentblog.

I don't agree with the argument that "substance is more important than source". I can always quote substance from many sources which may be outright wrong. There could be a group of people who believe that the substance in that site is correct. It doesn't make the substance right or the source authoritative.

Substance & source are important. But actually it is the implementation which counts. I belive that many Muslims are normal (ofcourse there are bad ones but thats true in any religion)...it all depends on how you practise your religion and whether you directly or indirectly support terrorism/oppression of others. The point here is maybe some person(s) did write 'holy' books and wrote bad things in them....but do you have to follow them ? For that you need to recognize that it is a bad thing. A bad thing is much easier to do if it is endorsed by some authority.

Let me give you an example, do you know or have you noticed, that in a national newspapers like Times of India (who calls itself secular) I have seen advertisements from Arab countries asking only Muslim/Christian candidates to apply for jobs ? Hindus not allowed. Do you think such countries love non-Muslims esp. Hindus/buddhists ? They are probably more 'liniet' towards Christians cause thats where their money comes from (western christian nations who buy oil).

I think (and hope) that Indian Muslims practise their religion differntly than Pakistanis or Arabs.

Curious: Evils in other religions (whether temp or permanent) have nothing to do with terrorism, because their sources (holy books) dont ask for killing 'non-belivers'. And this is not about 9/11 or Kashmir...it is history repeating itself. I am not going by recents events, recent events are only re-enforcing the general history and image that Muslims have created for themselves.

I believe that the core of any religion's teachings are very sane (whether it is Hindu, muslim or christians). It is the interpretations which is responsible for many of the issues. Terrorism in Islam arose by intrepreting it in one way. The social issues in Hindu religion ALSO arose due to one way of interpreting the teachings in Hindu religion. So both the Islamic terrorism and Social evis of Hindus are manifestations of religious teachings. When the same interpretations are applied over a very long period of time (not talking about a time scale that fits our lifetime), these interpretations becomes part of the religion. So if terrorism can be talked as an outcome of religious teachings, social evils in india can also be talked as an outcome of religious teaching. The often quoted Manu Sashtra is being followed by many Hindus as religious teachings. But in my opinion, manu shastra is the reason for the male chavunism and caste system. So I would say all the social evils are due to Hindu teachings. However, many of us also know that the real Hinduism doesn't preach these things. So we don't want to consider these social evils as something that came out of our religion. None of us know about Islamic teachings or the real Christian teachings. So we term that those religions are evil compared to ours. For a non Hindu, he will not see the real teachings of Hinduism and take out few of the interpretations and say that Hinduism is evil. In essence, you see with what you know but you don't know what is there on the other side. But you (meaning many hindus) claim that Islam and Christianity advocates hatred. This is exactly what the other side is saying too.

In my opinion, it is not easy to judge what is taught on the other side based on few texts and websites.

Hey Krish, you talking sense. Sonali, I say Ameen to this: "I think (and hope) that Indian Muslims practise their religion differntly than Pakistanis or Arabs."

I once again ask you sensible guys to check out Crossing the Threshold : Understanding Religious Identities in South Asia

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1850434352/amzna9-1-20/ref=nosim/104-8056060-9754367?dev-t=D26XECQVNV6NDQ%26camp=2025%26link_code=xm2

Its worth a read if you are Hindu/Muslim and from south asia.

Looks like an interesting read. Will check out my county library first.

Well sachin thats a first i've never heard it before that prophet mohammad is unknown to secular history and he is a creation of hadith etc etc.There are many history books written about prophets life.Now they are translated in English...You can read Karen Armstrong she writes extensively on islam.
Secondly,I donot need to check a website to confirm my belief.Neither your anti muslim/anti/mohammad stance will made me get into an anti hindu lashing or hunt for websites which spew venom on hindu religion.I believe that all human beings are created equal by GOD...and we choose different leaders in life to reach our destination.My aim is to reach to GOD so is yours.The fighting over religion is the pettiest thing for me.I came and read Deepak's blog and his insights into concept of GOD and people's reply because it has made me understood GOD...as described in ISlam...GoD is energy ,power,it is not born from anyone neither can give birth to anything.Nothing can kill it neither anything can destroy GOd.It was there before time and will be there after the end...So i donot want to deviate from my search of God...in getting into fight over my leader ie muhaamad....

On reading your post, I was reminded of another kind of revolt that took place during the Late Republic of Rome (around 72 BC), led by a slave named Spartacus. His 'army' was comprised of men, women and children, the aged and the young, all of them poor, without any status and without freedom of any kind.

Well, the story is well known and we all know that the Romans were merciless and after killing all the slaves they could in a final battle, they crucified the survivors (6,000 of them) along the Appian Way as a reminder to the other slaves that this would be their fate, if they dreamed of freedom again.

I think the ideology that Islam or its modified version offers to the new recruits is somewhat similar, a paradise in the after life, as all their techniques are geared to self destruct themselves. People cling to lives, no matter how brief or how short. Unless there is that chimera or freedom created for them, not in this life but the next, no one in their right minds would even consent to becoming a 'suicide bomber'.

It just shows how miserable people really are and what conditions that they live in. This is what all rich societies are blind to. They cannot imagine themselves existing in those conditions and turn a blind eye, as it is sheer built up apathy. Take Africa as an example. Does anyone even feel anything for the images of starving children et al that are broadcast on TV?

We have all learned to turn away and in that respect we are no different than the Romans. We allow the slaves to roam free, to fend for themselves knowing fully well that they have no resources and cannot help themselves. When promised an alternative that liberates them in the afterlife, perhaps that is the only 'dream' they can achieve.

In America, the dream still exists and people do attain that proverbial 2 car garage picture perfect home and other comforts of modern living like 24 hr hot and cold water, luxurious bath tubs, all kinds of digital entertainment, fine dining etc. etc. - the list is endless. It is possible and the American system makes it possible.

However, the cost of providing this dream to a few millions on the backs of a few billions is slowly taking its toll and the price being paid currently is called 'terrorism'. I think non violent ways of protest have been effective in the past and can still be effective, if they have the right kind of leadership. Also, the rich need to give back, as otherwise, there's no solution in sight.

If I may, I have no intention to blame hindu religion in whatsoever manner.(I think I have passed that state). It seems that somebody got agitated or felt insulted because of my posting. I apologize.

There is another thing which I do not like. I strongly disagree with a person who can discuss advaita, but fails to know what laymen in the street seems to know. I strongly disagree with a person who thinks that it is only fools who treat people equally. So Gandhiji was a fool, Tagore was a fool, Azad was a fool. Those who discriminate people according to their social status, the money they make are the intelligent ones!!

You see, I have already described the following incident in another post earlier, but I will relate it one more. I have read a book written by Mr.Chopra’s father. In that book, he, Mr.Chopra’s father narrates an incident that that happened in his childhood. He had a muslim friend. After playing in the evening, he used to have meals in his kitchen with his muslim friend. One day while his mother was serving food to the children, the local pujari (priest) visited the house and saw the muslim boy sitting in the kitchen and having the food. The priest got angry and admonished her for allowing a muslim to enter the kitchen and thus destroying the purity of the kitchen. But as a true human, Mr.Chopra’s grand mother asked the priest to get out from the house and not to return until he changes his opinion.

Now consider what Divya says here. She says it is ok not to allow certain people to the kitchen, as that is a part of the purity Brahmins maintain. If that purity is determined by personal hygiene, there is no problem in not allowing people in someone’s private places. But if that purity is solely determined by the caste into which a person is born, then it is discrimination and thus it is racism. How? Since it is because of purity concerns certain people are not allowed in the kitchen and since that purity is not determined by the personal hygiene but by the caste, it means that the other person is considered impure because of the caste he is condemned to be born by G(g)od or Universal intelligence or whatever nonsense. Which implies that brahmins are more pure, genetically!!.

What will happen if we see something/someone impure? We will not touch it. We may clean the thing or ask the person to get a shower. Once cleaned, we will have no problem to touch it or interact with the person. But if the impurity is because of the caste, it can’t cleaned, it is genetically impure. Is this not untouchability?

Now consider the mother who allows people irrespective of their caste/religion and a person who says that it is ok not to allow lower castes. I am not sure whether the mother was well versed with Suktas, Advaita and other obscure philosophies. But she was sure a true human being. And I like such people, even if they are not highly knowledgeable. And I believe strongly that that is what a human being should try to acquire first than anything else.

I strongly disagree with a person who can lecture about vasudaiva kudumbagam extensively and show that no other culture in the world had developed such nice ‘conceptualizations’ but believes that Brahmins originated from the head of brhama and lower castes are impure.

I remember reading a story of Moses in one of the poems of Rumi. Moses admonished a shepherd boy for talking to God in a very natural way, similar to what we - Indians - treat Krishna in his childhood. Moses scolded him that God is not a child to be treated as the boy tried to. Crying, the boy left the scene. God immediately talked to Moses and told him that he is wrong.

I like the simplicity of the shepherd boy. Though I do not dislike the opposite, I strongly disagree.

Najeeb - Nobody treats everybody equally ever. Unless they are retarded and cannot tell the difference. Do you treat your mother the same as you treat your brother? Do you treat your guru the same as you treat a layman? Do you treat your boss the same as you treat your co-worker? And nor should it be so. Different behavior is appropriate for different circumstances.

As for ritual purity, if you want entry into a Brahmin kitchen you need to follow the same rules of ritual purity. You need to get up at 4:00 a.m. and take a bath, chant your mantras, meditate, eat a strict diet and do whatever else it takes. It's very pretentious of you to think that these things are not important but your rule that anybody should be allowed to go anywhere at any time is important. Why? They want to maintain certain vibrations and that's the way they do it. Why do you insist that their culture be destroyed to accomodate your belief that having a bath is cleanliness enough. No, you need to have a certain attitude, a certain respect for their practices, and a certain familiarity with their lifestyle. This is not some simplistic culture that believes that one idiotic god in the sky saves our soul if we believe in him. This is a culture that holds that a certain lifestyle must be maintained to attain god. You're inflicting your rules on someone else's culture and thinking you're being broadminded and generous. Remember these are people who crammed thousands and thousands of pages of text. How in the world do you think they did it? It boggles my mind. They must have had to be very, very disciplined, including not mingling and socializing too much. It's true that the brahmins tended to degenerate into pettiness, but the results of their work are there for us to see. The vedas are 5000 years old and have only survived because they were committed to memory.

I think you should contemplate for some time and then you will understand the difference between what I said about treating people equally and treating a mother and brother differently. Anyway, I would rather be a fool or consider myself mentally retarded, than differentiate people. I am sure with there will be people like Shree Narayana Guru, Gandhiji, the mother in the story...

Further more I am not insisting that their culture should be destroyed. Everybody is entitled to have their own idiosyncrasy. And I am in way going to destroy any such idiosyncrasy. I wonder how did you get the idea that I was about destroy it,I was just discussing only.

Though not related with this post, I have one question. You stated that "This is a culture that holds that a certain lifestyle must be maintained to attain god." SO the culture is maintained to attain god. Are you saying that in order to attain god, we should keep away people who are different? And if we keep the company of people who follow different lifestyles, will we not be able to attain god, who is not 'idiotic' but an intellignet one?

Why do we want to attain god? As you have argued elsewhere if there is no purpose in life or Universe, why do you want to attain god? To me, following a culture to attain god, indicates that there is a purpose.

Najeeb - those practices were done to maintain the culture. Opposite of maintain is to destroy. I just used a figure of speech. Don't read too much into it.

I didn't quite understand your following paragraph, but I used the term attaining god generically. Actually the term they use is moksha which is not the same concept. Not everyone is capable of cramming 3000 pages of text so each person has a differnt role in life and a different path to moksha.

As for purpose - There are 2 slightly different issues. Firstly, I wouldn't call nirvana/moksha the purpose of life. Maybe for some, but if so few attain moksha how can we call an impossible goal the purpose of life? So my focus is on how to live life rather than mull about its purpose. Secondly, the ID people claim that there is a purpose to life, and that is that each and every thing in this world has a purpose and basically the purpose is to know God's will. I reject this line of thinking completely and believe this world is just leela and we need to live life the best we can.

That is it Divya. I too don't care much about such obscure philosophies. What is my primary concern is about the people and leading a best life with compassion.

So if some people discriminate others, thinking, conceptualizing and believing that they are impure and such thinking and conceptualizing is for maintaining certain vibrations to attain moksha, I have difficulty to digest it.

Whenever I hear nirvana, the first name that comes to my mind is Budha and I know that he did not differentiate people. Then there is Shree Narayana Guru, he did not differentiate. I can continue to name ……

Yes, the system has developed for more than 5000 yrs and that means this belief of purity and impurity must have existed for that long. We have already seen that how this extreme sense of purity of brhamins and impurity of other human beings will ‘degenerate’ naturally into untouchability and racism. Then I wonder how did you came to the conclusion that the evils only started at around 1850s ??!! Did you mean that it took exactly 4850 years to degenerate?

Do you think that these people with such extreme views about purity and impurity will not have ‘us vs them’ mentality? By justifying such behavior, don’t you think that you are also justifying that thinking or mentality? Then why did you not include this in the list of the isms that cause the ‘us vs them’ mentality? Why did you include only monotheism, communism etc?

Najeeb - From your comments it is clear that you have a fixed notion that the impurity and purity doctrine has no value but is pure racism. I do not have the patience to explain this any further. But the equality you keep on insisting exists all over the place is no different from the emperors new clothes. It is plain rhetorics. The Buddha certainly did see differences and was very proud of his Kshatriya heritage. It is the Christian and Islamic world that has spread the concept of equality while never having followed it for even one second. Why am I not allowed to go to a mosque? Why can I not go to Haj. By your logic I should be allowed to. By my logic it is perfectly fine. A person who has no respect for an institution has no business being there.

Please do not come up with all sorts of arguments to say that your Mecca is sacred and restricted to Muslims while barbarians of all sorts should be allowed to defile the Brahmin kitchens.

One more point. As I have said Hinduism is not a religion. It requires study. Just as you do not admit everyone into Harvard university but only those who qualify, similarly only those who qualify, intellectually and in conduct, were permitted access to certain things,. You cannot apply the same yardstick to Hindusim and Islam and xtiany as with the latter all you have to do is accept certain beliefs and be devoted.

And you don't have the fixed notion that people of different culture and caste must be kept away if you want to keep certain vibrations and attain the subsequent moksha! I have named few who did not believe in that conceptualisation and mingled freely with people. But it is still me who is having the fixed notion. Got it !! No further arguments!!

But even if I agree that Budha was very proud of his heritage, (I don't know where is your source) he did not say that some people were not allowed to his kitchen. In fact, as you should know, he did not even had a kitchen. He walked around and accepted food from anybody. But he had no problem in maintaining the vibrations and the world still remembers him.

What about the 'us vs them' mentality? Do you have any comments? Besides, monotheism, communism and the other items you listed, do you have any new addition to the list?

YOu claimed that you have spent five years to study religions and your conclusion is that in islam and christianity "all you have to do is accept certain beliefs and be devoted" Understood!!

I did not say that barbarians must be allowed entry. I say that i could not digest the philosophy that all other castes are impureand so their entry should be banned. HOw did you conclude that I said barbarians? Oh may be you said it generically!! HOwever, I am sure that you do not consider all those who are not brhamins are barbarians!!

I have a brhamin friend. I am sure he does not wake up at 4 AM and do the other rituals you mentioned, in order to qualify the entry. BUt I am sure he is allowed in the kitchen of all other brhamins. And I know that it is just because he was born to brhamin parents.

In fact, I have some more questions to ask about relationship between the so called purity, vibration and moksha. I think it will not be proper to discuss it now as you have started to talk like 'your Mecca' etc!!!

It is late night now here in Singapore. See you later.

"And you don't have the fixed notion that people of different culture and caste must be kept away if you want to keep certain vibrations and attain the subsequent moksha! I have named few who did not believe in that conceptualisation and mingled freely with people. But it is still me who is having the fixed notion. Got it !! No further arguments!!"

The discussion was about the origins of caste discrimination. Who gave you the idea that Brahmins attained moksha? They do not. Yogis do. Brahmins preserved the knowledge system that was systemized by yogis.

"But even if I agree that Budha was very proud of his heritage, (I don't know where is your source) he did not say that some people were not allowed to his kitchen. In fact, as you should know, he did not even had a kitchen. He walked around and accepted food from anybody. But he had no problem in maintaining the vibrations and the world still remembers him. "

Buddha very much maintained strict solitude and exclusive company of yogis when he was out on his quest for nirvana. What gave you the idea that he mingled with everyone? Read the Ambatta Sutta to see Buddha's pride in his heritage.

"What about the 'us vs them' mentality? Do you have any comments? Besides, monotheism, communism and the other items you listed, do you have any new addition to the list?"

Us v. them is typical western monolithic garbage. Just because Deepak regurgigates it does not mean it applies to all. There is a notion of simultaneity of thought and other outlooks.

"YOu claimed that you have spent five years to study religions and your conclusion is that in islam and christianity "all you have to do is accept certain beliefs and be devoted" Understood!!"

Wrong again. Spent is past tense, I'm still at it. Besides I said I have been studying the *nature* of religion. The psychology behind it. The dynamics of it. What makes people believe in nonsense. Why are intelligent and good people not able to see through it? etc. etc.

"I did not say that barbarians must be allowed entry. I say that i could not digest the philosophy that all other castes are impureand so their entry should be banned. HOw did you conclude that I said barbarians? Oh may be you said it generically!! HOwever, I am sure that you do not consider all those who are not brhamins are barbarians!!"

Barbarians was my word. Yes I meant it. Anyone who drives me nuts is a barbarian, you included. Learn to distinguish between figures of speech and literal fundamentalism.

"I have a brhamin friend. I am sure he does not wake up at 4 AM and do the other rituals you mentioned, in order to qualify the entry. BUt I am sure he is allowed in the kitchen of all other brhamins. And I know that it is just because he was born to brhamin parents. "

Is that so? Wow. Ask him how many of the vedas he has learnt by heart. Do come back to tell us about it.

You mentioned that the purity rituals were kept for the purpose of maintaing certain types of vibrations so that they can attain god. Being an idiot, I thought that those people attained god. Now, I realise my mistake. They did not attain it, they only went thru the motion without even grasping its meaning. Thanks for the lesson.

It is normal when we are on aproject to keep the company of people who are working on it. That is to keep the momentum and avoid distraction. Once the project is completed and before taking up another one, we will mingle with others. One can notice this in Budha’s life. Hope you will see it too.

I was not asking what exactly is us vs them mentality. In the original discussion, you proclaimed that certain isms are the cause of it and as long as we have these isms, the mentality will continue to exist. Now, the question I asked is: do you have any new addition to the list of causes?

Now if you are loosing your patience and getting irritated again, stop reading and skip to the last two paragraphs of this post.

Sorry for ‘spent.’ So there is hope, as you have not finished it yet!!

Thanks for the title.There is a little story about Budha. He once, went to a house seeking food. The man in the house scolded him. But Budha did not scold him back or started to call him names for irritating him. Instead he waited for the man to finish. Then he asked: If you give something to somebody, and if he refuses to accept it, who will it belong to?”
Now, I intend to return the title. Would you take it back? If you are not ready yet, I will keep it in safe custody. I hope there will be a moment in your life when you will realise it really belongs to you. I will return it to you then.

I have no intention to work as a postman. How about you looking around and see howmany brahmins wake up at 4 am and take bath. I will be intersted to know.

To prevent me driving you to nuts, I can’t do much except giving some suggestions:

"Examine your character. Pick up the defects in it. Find out its opposite. Let us say that you suffer from irritability. The opposite of irritability is patience. Try to develop this virtue by meditating on the abstract virtue of patience. Regularly every morning sit down at 4 a.m. in Padma or Siddha Asana in a solitary room for half an hour, and begin to think on patience, its value, its practice under provocation, taking one point one day, another on another day, and thinking as steadily as you can, recalling the mind when it wanders. Think of yourself as perfectly patient, a model of patience and end it with a vow: "This patience which is my true Self, I will feel and show from today."

Don’t worry if you don’t see the results immediately.

"For a few days probably there will be no change perceptible. You will still feel and show irritability. Go on practicing steadily every morning. Presently you see an irritable thing, the thought will flash into your mind: "I should have been patient." Still go on in practice. Soon the thought of patience will arise with the irritable impulse and the outer manifestation will be checked. Still go on practising. The irritable impulse will grow feebler and feebler until you find that irritability has disappeared and that patience has become your normal attitude towards annoyances. In this manner you can develop various virtues such as sympathy, self-restraint, purity, humility, benevolence, nobility, generosity, etc."

Both from: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Mind/id/23518

"Barbarians was my word. Yes I meant it. Anyone who drives me nuts is a barbarian, you included."

Though I didn't participate in the discussion of Najeeb and Divya, this statement made me laugh. This is what I call one of the traits of right wing hypocrisy.

"Yes, the system has developed for more than 5000 yrs and that means this belief of purity and impurity must have existed for that long. We have already seen that how this extreme sense of purity of brhamins and impurity of other human beings will ‘degenerate’ naturally into untouchability and racism. Then I wonder how did you came to the conclusion that the evils only started at around 1850s ??!! Did you mean that it took exactly 4850 years to degenerate?"

Najeeb, this is a valid question. Before others pound on me for this, I want to make one thing clear. I was born in a brahmin family. But I believe in "Humanism" more than "Brahminism".

"I think it will not be proper to discuss it now as you have started to talk like 'your Mecca' etc!!!"

Going tangential always happens here. Check the past comments. In fact, there are many who go tangential like this.

In the above discussions, not only Hinduism is being kept at a higher plane, Brahminism is also being potrayed at a higher plane inside Hinduism. I don't understand why people cannot treat everyone in the same footing. If this has happened from the beginning, we wouldn't have seen slavery in US, Caste based suppression in India, Islamic terrorism in many places, etc. Whether you study religion or science or literature, if you start with the concept that everyone in this world are equal, everything gets simplified. We wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Najeeb - I think I had had some discussion with you about a week ago (perhaps it was someone else, but I think it was you) and you displayed a knowledge of the Indian traditions. Therefore, I did not spell things out this time around thinking you were familiar with India. I did not know that if I did not define things for you, you would pounce on each word I said and begin a literal hair-splitting. Otherwise, I would have taken care to build things up step by step to prevent this.

I do not know if you are in the habit of distorting things, or whether you are just pumped up to get even, but this discussion centered around the possible causes for the development of discriminatory practices. Therefore it is relevant to take the entire history of the civilization into account from the beginning of time to the present day. If I mentioned a date, it was in a certain context. If I am talking about the origins, it is in another context. Is this clear? The present day Brahmins (who are nothing but businessmen of various stripes) who do not practice the rituals are of no use to our understanding of this matter, only the ones who still practice the tradition are. I'm amazed at how quickly anyone who's busy prostituting their life in a mundane carrer is ready to pipe up and claim brahminhood.

Despite your sarcasm at blind ritual, there happens to be a great deal of merit in it. You are free to ridicule it, but please remember to step off your sanctimonious pedestel while you do so.

I did not understand your reference to the title or to the postman. If there was a point you were trying to make, it is lost on me.

The mind tells you that everyone is not equal, hence, psychologically we will always have problems of inequality. The quest of finding God is that urge to suppress those thoughts, some are better at it by practice and conviction, it's not everyone's cup of tea.

All religion, faith, rituals, traditions, etc, etc, exist because of this mind. It's irrelevant to label Brahamin, Budh, Muslim or whatever. If you're struggling with your mind then that's all it matters to you, rest is all a place where you can relax and take a coffee break.

Krish, Curious, Divya

I have always wondered what is the role of ideologies or beliefs in our lives. If belief in exalted philisophies does not help to elevate the mind, what is the actual use ? Or is the trouble with the way the believer believes it?

Najeeb, I will go with the former. If the philosophy doesn't elevate the mind or help you raise your consciousness, I don't see a point in going with it. Well, many will disagree with this. My approach to life is based more on science and I tend to ridicule these ideas. Somehow I got inspired by the ideas of the famous physicist Richard Feynman about life that I tend to think lowly about many of the religious thoughts and philosophies. My mind is so tempered to think every aspect of life in a scientific way that I have moved far away from my supposed heritage and culture. Probably this is the reason why I support the argument "If belief in exalted philisophies does not help to elevate the mind, what is the actual use ?".

Maybe I am wrong. But, hey this is the way I approach life.

krish,

In a certain way, I agreew ith you.It seems there is no use.

Divya,
What is your opinion about it? Btw, you see, if two things are related, then you can't talk about the two, in different contexts.

For example, if the origin and an incident that happened at a later date are related, especially when the origin is the cause the incident - which it is in the point of discussion - you have to talk them together. We can't separate them as we like or as per our convenience. Is it clear??