Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Why Muslims do not sing Vande Mataram?

[This is my feeble attempt to understand ‘other kind’ of people. I could be wrong in some of my assumptions about certain religions. If that is case, please let me know]. I already wrote another blog titled ‘On singing Vande Mataram’.


Indian Hindus ask:

“Why do Muslims object to singing our National Song- which is the symbol of our Freedom Movement? Why don’t they realize that it is a song more about our nation and less about Goddess Durga? Are they Muslim first and Indian next? Is their allegiance towards their religion and not towards India? Why don’t they keep nation above religion like us?”


There is a tendency in India (as elsewhere) to assume that the ‘way the majority behaves’ is the right way and that others should just conform to it. For Hindus, may be, religion is secondary compared to nationality. For Muslims, religion is their biggest identity- which is supposedly constant, unchanging and permanent for many millennia. For them, nations, states, kingdoms and other allegiances change with time while religion remains the same. They attach more importance to religion and its interpretation compared to a nation and its interpretation. The failure to understand this aspect of Islam will result in confusion. Being tolerant is the ability to understand why certain cultures, religions and people behave the way they behave and accept it. Just because Muslims consider religion to be supreme it does NOT mean they are NOT patriotic. Allegiance to religion and then to a nation/state is quite practical and NOT mutually exclusive. For many Hindus this may sound alien, but Muslims have been practicing this for ages. In the same way, for many monotheistic religious people it may seem alien to see Hindus praying to so many gods, demi-gods and human-gods. There is a need to understand that expressions, practices and rituals are different for different kinds of people. Imposing one’s idea of what is right onto others will cause friction. There is NO necessity to conform to majority’s expression and practice to show one’s patriotism or loyalty. What if someone refuses to sing Vande Mataram because he hates Bengali? Does that make him unpatriotic? Don’t Sikh soldiers wear turban (unlike majority soldiers) and still be patriotic? Muslims do not seem to have a problem singing National Anthem, another symbol to prove one’s patriotism; so isn’t that proof enough?


Now, let’s look at it in another way- What if certain majority define the practice of 'eating beef' as one of the rituals to express one’s patriotism and make it a national symbol- will the higher caste chaste Hindus who practice strict vegetarianism be willing to eat beef just to prove they are patriotic? And if those Hindus refuse to eat beef arguing that patriotism has nothing to do with 'eating beef', will others accuse them of mixing nationalism and religious-caste identity?


Muslims have always opposed (not only in India but also in other Islamic countries) deification of a nation. According to them it is idolatry. Calling rain as rain-god, monkey as monkey-god, or a nation as Goddess Durga (Bharat Mata) might come easy and sound completely innocuous to Hindus, but it is considered un-Islamic by most Muslims. The very foundation of Islam was made on breaking away from such pagan worships- wherein all forms of anthropomorphism are discarded. To ask or request Muslims to sing a song or practice a ritual that deifies nation (as human) is tantamount to worshipping idols which goes against basic tenets of Islam. Muslims have no problem respecting the Nature and the Nation, but they will not pray to it. Is that so hard to accept? While Hindus can pray to almost anything- including a rock, animal, natural event, or human, Muslims do not. While Muslims can eat beef, some high caste and chaste Hindus do not. The failure to understand such belief systems and practices will result in false expectations and hence disappointment. It is nothing to do with patriotism.

98 comments:

  1. Come to think of it, Is it even wise to call it a National Song when about 15% of the population cannot sing it because of their religious beliefs?

    Disregarding religious sentiments of any community can be one of the worst mistakes anyone can make.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Suj Nana,

    Again very aptly summed up. I am so proud of you.
    Isn't it strange that such a simple understanding of a this fact has eluded us for such a long time? Or could it be that we do understand it all, but deliberately try to rake up issues like this just to "finger" the muslim community. At every step you will bump into people who take pleasure in Muslim bashing these days, but have never ever taken the trouble to try understand the basic tenets of Islam. They just don't want to. And this latest war on terror (read Islam) by the affluent western nations have only added more credibility to this perverted school of thought. After all as you mentioned in one of your previous blogs, we Indians have always looked up to the west in awe and readily lap up anything they throw at us, even if just to portray some commonality in victimization at the hands of Islamic radical forces.

    Your expression is very clear and unhibited. Continue on undaunted. You might get nasty comments from the so called self proclaimed nationalists, but don't let that unnerve you.

    Inder

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Inder:
    So good to hear from you.
    Thanks for the encouragement and support.
    Sujai

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am more than surprised and impressed by your understanding of Islam. I have rarely found any post which talked about logical interpretation of the vande matram post and on the other hand i am surprised that this fact about Islam is unknown to many non-muslims.

    btw do u have any control over the lenght of word verification on this comment page :P

    ReplyDelete
  5. "There is a tendency in India (as elsewhere) to assume that the ‘way the majority behaves’ is the right way and that others should just conform to it. "

    On the contrary, I'm afraid there is a tendency in India (as in no other place) to assume that the 'way the minority likes it' is the right way and that the majority should just conform to it. This post of yours does exactly that.

    "For Hindus, may be, religion is secondary compared to nationality. For Muslims, religion is their biggest identity- [...] They attach more importance to religion and its interpretation compared to a nation and its interpretation. "

    If religion is more than country for a section of Muslims, isnt that enough reason to conclude that those Muslims are not compatible with living in a modern, secular and democratic nation? If religion is greater to such a person, maybe s/he should not live in a nation whose Constitution makes it a fundamental duty of every Indian citizen to:

    "(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;" - Article 51A (e) (my emphasis.)

    "What if someone refuses to sing Vande Mataram because he hates Bengali? Does that make him unpatriotic? "

    YES! Because Vande Mataram is not sung as a part of some Bengali music class. If someone understands the spirit of Vande Mataram (instead of making a fundamentalist interpretation of the semantics when it is the gist that matters), then s/he shouldnt make noises about the language. And, I wonder, Sujai, why would anyone dislike a language? Do you dislike any language? Have you met any who dislikes a particular language? I never disliked any language. Also, if a person claims "I dislike this language", that only puts the shallow intellect of that person on display since language is just language, not chicken or mutton so that it tastes differently for different people.

    "Don’t Sikh soldiers wear turban (unlike majority soldiers) and still be patriotic?"

    Yes, they are patriotic. Likewise, Muslims also wear skullcaps and if anyone claims that Muslim is not patriotic just because he wears a skullcap or sports a beard, s/he's a fool. Dress has nothing to do with patriotism. This nation provides the freedom to practice religion (with limitations of course) and no one can question religious expression through dressing.

    "What if certain majority define the practice of 'eating beef' as one of the rituals to express one’s patriotism and make it a national symbol- will the higher caste chaste Hindus who practice strict vegetarianism be willing to eat beef just to prove they are patriotic?"

    India, my friend, is not a Stone Age cult. It is a modern nation state. I dont think any nation or even a fourth world tribe has "eating beef" as one of the "rituals to express patriotism." (Please do let me know if I'm wrong.)

    Comparing "beef eating" and singing Vande Mataram is also an invalid analogy. Why?:

    Vande Mataram was a song which united Indians. Many Muslims also sung the song during India's struggle for freedom and MANY patriotic Muslim brothers still sing it - actually a majority of them (only in isolated pockets in Rajasthan and MP the song wasnt sung on Sep. 8).

    Now, compare this with your scenario. Let us assume that "eating beef" indeed was the "ritual to express patriotism." When the nationalist movement was in full throttle, many Muslims sang Vande Mataram and many still sing now. Likewise, if during a similar movement, upper caste Hindus also performed "beef eating" to express patriotism (in the past), clearly going against their religious beliefs for a much larger and a far more important purpose and still do today in large numbers, then I dont see why there should be any problem now!

    One more thing. Only the first two stanzas are sung today. The rest of the stanzas do have religious connotations and so they arent sung. What's the big issue now?! Vande Mataram means "I bow to Thee." Muslims dont bow to anyone except Allah? Isnt that a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam? If that is correct and valid to you, then you may also accept that many of the derogatory references in the Quran to the socalled "kaffirs" (infidel) are also true, correct, completely valid, beyond question and reason? Now here, many Muslims will tell me I am interpreting the Quran in the wrong way. I'd also give them the same medicine. Saying "bowing to someone is prohibited in the Quran" is also a wrong interpretation. Or, suffice it to say, a fundamentalist interpretation . That is the same kind of interpretation practised by the Taliban, the Al Qaeda and the Wahhabi sect, mind you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why dont all muslims just pack their bags and leave for pakistan n practice n preach what they like....wasnt Pakistan founded for this

      Hinduism is not a religion...its a way of life for the majority here...this is the last terrain for Hindus....

      Many Muslims in India still support Pakistani cricket team because their religious identity overtakes national interest...what would happen if we were to enter a war with a Muslim nation...whom would Muslims support..

      Delete
    2. i mean utterly no disrespect, but if you truly feel so as a muslim then go pakistan, banglades, afghanistan and follow your faith. afterall, your ethnicity will be in the fore as they all know your ancestors were all chanting the durga chalisa. how silly and divisive peope can truly be. your ancestor did not have a choice and were converted thru sheer brutality, oh god come to terms with this and know you cant change your dna just saying the kalma. go baba go to suadi and iraq in the name of muslim only then you will appreciate the mithi of india. sometimes when you think of nehru you could get real upset for forcing the residue of muslim to stay in india. jinnah wanted pakistan for you all. might i ask what has islam given to the world or for that matter to pakistan as well as to india. by being given your birth right in india you hate the creator such that you plan against the very earth you were blessed to born on. so very wrong. god doesnt like ugly. keep in mind jinnah s grandfather came from a gujjarati brhamin home poonjei bhai and zulfikar bhutto came from the womb of a hindu woman i do believe her name is kamala before conversion. please let humanity prevail and enjoy the true divinity which is one

      Delete
  6. Atlantaen:

    "Likewise, if during a similar movement, upper caste Hindus also performed "beef eating" to express patriotism (in the past), clearly going against their religious beliefs for a much larger and a far more important purpose and still do today in large numbers, then I dont see why there should be any problem now!"

    Is that a valid justification? Just because it was being done in the past it should be done even now? And even if it has to be done how justified is it to force someone to do it?

    "That is the same kind of interpretation practised by the Taliban, the Al Qaeda and the Wahhabi sect, mind you."

    This is a different issue. Now you are negating the basis on which Muslims are opposing it. If what you are saying is correct, then let the muslims come out and say that it is not against the religion.
    If you think by forcing Muslims to sing one can make them understand their flawed interpretation then you are wrong. This is not how bring about religious reforms, if that is what you suggest.

    Now let us give some credit to the basis and ask ... if it is indeed against the religion to sing it then why not acknowledge it and try to find a peaceful solution to such a problem? Give it a try and you might come accross a brilliant idea to balance the two i.e. religion and nation.

    Let me ask you... if the reason not to sing is other than religious would you still expect someone to sing it?
    e.g.
    1. I don't know the lyrics so I can't sing it.
    2. I don't understand the language it is written?
    3. It is difficult to remember the lyrics as the words used are not in practice.
    4. Even if I learn the lyrics I keep forgetting it every 15 days.

    Because of all the reasons above I don't like that song and hence will not sing it.

    How would you test patriotism in this case?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;" - Article 51A (e) (my emphasis.)

    Atlantean, what if a muslim chooses to not sing Vande Mataram because it offends his understanding of monotheistic worship, but positively promotes harmony by working shoulder to shoulder with Hindus in humanitarian works? Where would you place his patriotism? Do you still see incomptibility with living in India?

    I can see why you take offence to a muslim's abstinence from singing Vande Mataram. For you, it is symbolic of patriotism...The Symbol perhaps. For a muslim like me, patriotism is not a lofty ideal; rather a natural inclination of man. Conducting one's affairs in the context of the monotheistic worship of God is the lofty ideal that I adhere to or atleast try to.
    I'm afraid I do sense an incomtability in the lyrics of Vande Mataram and my notions of God and therefore cannot sing it. But I also acknowledge the natural love in me for many aspects of Indian culture.

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trying to understand IslaamNovember 20, 2006 1:41 PM

    My 2 cents worth. If religion is above country for a muslim, can we really count on muslims to defend the country. The notion of a country/patriotism is really a question of what is it that you hold sacred and will defend. If for a muslim the religion comes above the country they will obviously defend the religion before the country so how can they expect the rest of the country to subsidse anything for them. I will understand the muslim stance if they have the guts to say we as a community have the ability to support ourselves and we do not need any special treatment from you in economic or social terms. Let them first show that and then they can assert their identity.
    The reason a national identity is created is to allow people to have a sense of community so they will help each other out. If the muslims do not want to share in the national identity, they should also not have a share in the national riches, let them get their concept of community from their religion, why should I pay for their trip to Mecca. Does anyone have an answer to that ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They want to sever our roots and we are letting them

      Delete
  9. Trying to Understand Islam:
    The concept of nation is an idea, so is the concept of religion, casteism, language, and other man-made divisions.

    Do we go about asking every Indian if he/she holds the concept of nation above all other ideas he believes in, such as communism, liberalism, justice, morality, regionalism, casteism, feminism, etc?

    Do we check if any of them hold any of these ideas higher than the idea of the nation? and if so, hold them unpatriotic?

    Such affinities to a multiple ideas can co-exist, they need not be mutually exclusive.

    A person can be devout Muslim and still defend his/her nation without having to sing Vande Mataram. Singing Vande Mataram is a ritual, and patriotism is an idea. They need not be measured one against the other.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Trying to understand IslaamNovember 20, 2006 10:17 PM

    Sujai,
    My problem is not with a person having multiple affinities, the problem is which one takes precedence. If for a muslim his religion is higher than nation, would he defend the nation or the religion if they are in conflict ( for example , what does he do if there is a fatwah that he blow up the parliament). Every person in this world has multiple affinities but they all have an order of precedence. The whole question of singing Vande Mataram is not what I am concerned about, it is the fact that I have seen these divided loyalties, I have lived a substantial portion of my life in Hyd and have had muslims as an integral part of my life and that is why I raise this point, because their religion puts them at odds with the country. I do not say that they should change, all I say is that if that is important to you please do not expect me to pay for it. If their faith is more important and if islaam is really a brotherhood the way they portray it why do not the devout muslims who feel that islaam is higher than India move to the middle east or atleast have the self respect to say that they do not need special treatment in the form of my taxes paying for their hajj. Let them state that and I will respect them for it, but please do not expect me to respect someone who cannot sacrifice for their beliefs. Ask the muslim who says he does not want to sing the "Vande Mataram" how come he has no problems with keeping his money in banks and using credit cards because Islaam forbids interest. In my view all these muslims who talk about Islaam and faith are really oppurtunistic people who have no real faith, it is but a faith of convenience.

    ReplyDelete
  11. i understand why some people may not want to sing a song.. they need not have to say their reasons either.. as ours is a free country!

    But your reasoning is like "they are irrational.. we have to respect their beliefs nevertheless because ours is a secular country"... this is precisely the kind of lines that communalists like vhp and co. take advantage of to lure the masses..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go to Pakistan and suggest you want to change there national anthem

      Delete
  12. the lone sailor:
    I am not really sure if I agree with your interpretation that my reasoning is:
    "they are irrational.. we have to respect their beliefs nevertheless because ours is a secular country"

    I don't say that we should respect the belief systems even though they are irrational.

    There are many belief systems which I find completely irrational- for example, starting a event on an 'auspicious' day, or doing a puja to a Hindu God or Goddess before starting something significant, etc. But we seem to respect such belief systems in our daily life.

    What is irrational?

    I like to classify them as tolerable ones or not-tolerable ones.

    As long as someone's belief systems does not encroach upon rights of the others, it is a tolerable belief system. Choosing not to sing is one of those tolerable belief systems.

    For example, killing the other person to uphold your belief system is NOT a tolerable one.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If one mocks the concept of a nation state (as you claim Muslims do), then *by definition*, such a person cannot be patriotic. For patriotism is allegiance to a nation state, nothing more, nothing less.

    If they find brotherhood in religion, as opposed to nation, tell me, by your own logic, which side will they support in case of another Indo-Pak war?

    You still call that patriotism (towards India, that is)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Democracy in in direct confrontation with Islam. Either it fails or it only for namesake.

      Delete
  14. Anonymous:

    I don't think I say that Muslims "mock" the concept of a nation state.

    I am not sure why you assumed that about me.

    "...then *by definition*, such a person cannot be patriotic."

    First, you assume something about me which is not true, and then you go to extrapolate on that assumption to make your case.

    Doesn't make sense.

    If they find brotherhood in religion, as opposed to nation, tell me, by your own logic, which side will they support in case of another Indo-Pak war?

    I maintain that a person has more than one allegiance. A person has allegiance to his community, his town, his language, his region, his caste, culture, etc. In India, we see such multiple allegiances all the time. Many Muslims have participated in the war against another Muslim nation (including Indo-Pak War) without being in conflict!

    I don't like to talk about patriotism, because it is conveniently defined. RSS thinks their are the true torch bearers of patriotism defining India as Hindu Rashtra. Some of us, Indians, do not agree with that definition.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear Young friends,
    Perhaps you have heard my name.
    A little bit of history is necessary to understand the Bande Matarm conundrum. Anandamath was a novel with sannyasi rebellion as backdrop during the hoary hours of declining Muslim power and emerging British hegemony. The novel depicts basically Hindu struggle against Muslim tyranny and welcomes advent of the British that allegedly helped the Hindus to break the supposed shackles of Muslim bondage.
    Besides religious shenanigans the Muslims abhorred the idea of losing power to the British and later the fear of being subjugated by Hindus haunted them.
    This is the historical reason for opposing the song that hail motherland in poetic language and indirectly welcomes the British.
    Don't our Muslim brothers and sisters love their mothers? They do as any Hindu does. Worship is an exalted fom of love. There is no space for relogion. Religion is a systemic tool like technology that guides a society. God is equivalent to Science. Both show us the path towards higher realisation and truth.
    Maloy krishna Dhar.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @polite indian's first comment :

    dear sir ..
    i wud love to ask u ...is it wise to not consider a song as national song wen 85% of total population feels proud to sing it ... and rest (as u call it ) 15% too respect it ...??

    @blog
    this is one of the very impressing blogs i ve ever read ...
    just happened to pass by this blog .. and cudnt resist reading it to till the end !!!

    hats off to the blogger ... who so clearly and so boldy presented his views

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just one question, if I may ask. If Muslims only give importance to their religion then why did they demand for Paskistan? Why the hindus of Pakistan have no rights in the constitution? While Muslims in India live like kings.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous:

    If Muslims only give importance to their religion then why did they demand for Paskistan?

    Those Muslims who demanded Pakistan got their Pakistan. Those Muslims who wished remain in India remained in India.

    Why the hindus of Pakistan have no rights in the constitution?

    You should ask that question to Pakistan. In the same way you may want to ask other nations why they do not give equal rights to minority religions!

    Here, I am concerned about India and what India does! Just because some African nation kicks out its minorities, I don't think India should do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  19. >>Why the hindus of Pakistan have >.no rights in the constitution?

    What kind of rights are the Hindus denied there?

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  20. "If they find brotherhood in religion, as opposed to nation, tell me, by your own logic, which side will they support in case of another Indo-Pak war?"

    Wars are never just. There are no just wars fought. To think that in a Indo-Pak war, India is on the just side or Pakistan is on the just side smacks of naivity and delusion. As a muslim, I will take the side which ends the war.

    "for example , what does he do if there is a fatwah that he blow up the parliament). "

    Muslims are not brainless people to follow fatwas blindly (though admittedly many of them do). The course of action in the case of such fatwas is determined by common sense. Since when did blowing up people or buildings ever solve a problem? People bring up such naive simplistic cases illustrating their own prejudices of muslims. Muslims are not a homogenous group in their thinking. They are a widely heterogenous group.

    ~ Vinod
    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  21. I appreciate your analysis, however i differ in my opinion.

    I may be wrong or may be right because i don't know Islam , and nor can i claim i know hinduism or any other religion well.

    But one thing i definetly know is that, no religion actually talks about country. It's not just Islam.
    Even Hinduism talks about way of life independent of any country or borders. There is no concept of borders anywhere in vedas or shastras.

    The concept of My country, my land, my colony, my team all has come from the basic thinking in people i.e 'think globally act locally'.
    And from there only comes things like team spirit, patriotism or call it whatever.

    So i really don't know why country and religion are being linked in this case.

    If Islam had really said your religion is more important than your country , then should we assume that all muslim patriots who have sacrifised for the country were anti-islamic?

    If Islam finds Vande Mataram meaning against islam then i agree that they should not sing.

    But if the reason is 'my religion is more important than country' then there is some serious problem somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anjama ramamoorthy:

    But if the reason is 'my religion is more important than country' then there is some serious problem somewhere.

    Muslims do not seem to have a problem with Jana Gana Mana, but seem to have a problem with Vande Mataram. The first praises the land, the second praises a lady.

    And why should not religion be more important than the nation? Who decides what should be important for people?

    Many Tamilians consider themselves Tamilians first and Indian next. So, we could say that they consider their language more important than the nation. Is that a serious problem now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Muslims do not seem to have a problem with Jana Gana Mana, but seem to have a problem with Vande Mataram. The first praises the land, the second praises a lady.

      Sujai, your arguments are almost invariably very logical and correct, but i must differ here.

      Jana Gana Mana does not praise the land, it *also* praises a "God", the Lord of India's Destiny:

      जन-गण मंगलदायक जय हे,
      भारत-भाग्य-विधाता

      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Gana_Mana#English_translation)

      I am not an expert in any of these matters, so please do correct me if i'm wrong, but on the face of it, Muslims should refuse to sing Jana Gana Mana for the exact same reasons as they give for not singing Vande Mataram.

      Which leads me to infer that there's just some dirty politics behind the whole controversy.

      Delete
  23. Well, if the meaning of the song is the problem then i am convinced that they need not sing. No one needs to force them.

    response to ur other questions....

    I am not saying one must not consider there religion, language etc more than there country. For that matter most of us today are global citizens, and think beyond a single country.

    But if you want to be doing something more actioable, you have act small and country might be one of such small groups.

    However,if many start considering religious grpups to be more important than country,then that's no sin, but ofcourse a serious problem.
    There will be more power game, more relgios divisions, more confusions,and ofcourse more and more and more sub-religions being formed.

    Because religion in my opinion is one of the most esteemed thing and hence one of the most confusing things as well.And therefore a root cause of lots of issues too.

    However if Muslims still feel that religious groups are more important for them than a country that's run with democrazy, then it's high time India stops being secular.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have few questions. I hope you can help me find answers to that:

    1. What is a Religion and how it originated
    2. How relevant it is now from the time it was conceieved. Is there any difference in the times and situations?
    3. Should the religion be rigid?
    4. In the present day Political scenario is it possible to re-draw the borders?
    5. Should religion come first than Nation?
    6. What is secularism?
    7. Should a country like India which has got many religions give importance to each and every religion than the interest of Nation and National culture and National Integrity?
    8. If it was agreed that this should be the Anthem and this should be the song of the nation why debate on that.
    9. If some opposes that since Vandemataram has got an association to Durga then what one should say about the the National Anthem which has got association to British crown.
    10. Who is Adhinayak in the Anthem when it was written?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am following your last conversations with Anjana on this topic....I got another question as usaul...

    What is the meaning of the Song Vande Maataram..?
    What is the meaning of word =Sujalaam, Suphalaam, Sasya Syaamalaam,

    What I understood about this song is...You are just treating a nationas a woman...and atriculationg the qualities of a nation...or in a sense prasing a nation..your motherland...YOUR MOTHER.....I don't think one should have any problem praising a mother?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "However,if many start considering religious grpups to be more important than country,then that's no sin, but ofcourse a serious problem."

    As a muslim, I don't see the choice in front of me as nation v religious community. A nation can be flawed and a religious community can also be flawed. Religion provides a moral basis to make a judgment. As far as I have seen, India is NOT holier than any other nation and muslims are NOT any more pious than any other community. These collectivities have their flaws that need to be worked at. While I do feel a brotherhood connection with a fellow muslim and a different kind of brotherhood connection with a fellow Indian, at the end of the day it is NOT this sense of fellowship that determines which side I'll take. I'll have to objectively decide which side carries more justice. For example, I'm fully supportive of the group formed in Netherlands of ex-muslims whose goal is to ensure that people who leave Islam are not harassed. The muslim community is known to harass such people there. I believe that such a group needs to be formed and the muslims need to be taught the freedom of faith the hard way, if need be. Similarly, I'm fully supportive of evicting those Hizbut Tahir muslims in Britain that villify the democratic system and non-muslims in general. On the other hand, I'm also fully supportive of muslims in kashmir determining their future through a referendum even if it means they get an independent state. I'm not blinded by the love of my country to deny people their self expression.

    ~ Vinod

    ReplyDelete
  27. Venkat:

    1. What is a Religion and how it originated
    :-) Because man was bored!

    2. How relevant it is now from the time it was conceieved. Is there any difference in the times and situations?
    It was completely irrelevant at all times. So was palmistry, and astrology, but they are still practiced.

    3. Should the religion be rigid?
    I am not sure whether religion is supposed to liberal either!

    4. In the present day Political scenario is it possible to re-draw the borders?
    Yes. Borders are being redrawn as we speak!

    5. Should religion come first than Nation?
    Can't say. To each his own!

    6. What is secularism?
    State should be independent of religion. That means 'no respect for any religion'. However, Indian secularism is different - it is defined more as 'equal respect to all religions'.

    7. Should a country like India which has got many religions give importance to each and every religion than the interest of Nation and National culture and National Integrity?
    Can't say what is important- caste, religion, language, culture, region, or nation? To each his own!

    8. If it was agreed that this should be the Anthem and this should be the song of the nation why debate on that.
    If it was agreed that this is the law, why debate on it? Also, was there ever an agreement?

    9. If some opposes that since Vandemataram has got an association to Durga then what one should say about the the National Anthem which has got association to British crown.
    British crown is not goddess while Durga is!

    10. Who is Adhinayak in the Anthem when it was written?
    No clue!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Venkat:
    What I understood about this song is...You are just treating a nationas a woman...and atriculationg the qualities of a nation...or in a sense prasing a nation..your motherland...YOUR MOTHER.....I don't think one should have any problem praising a mother?

    If you look at the history of this song-
    First, it was used by Hindus to fight the local Muslims in Bengal. Second, it was used as a religious prayer praising Goddess Durga (Mother here is not just any mother, but Goddess Durga).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anjana:

    However if Muslims still feel that religious groups are more important for them than a country that's run with democrazy, then it's high time India stops being secular.

    If certain naxalites feel that communism and rule-by-gun is more important than a democracy, should we discard democracy in this country?

    If certain Tamilians feel that their language is more important than the nation, should we kick them out?

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sujai, Now you disappointed me with your answers to my questions. Expected that you would come out with an unbiased analtical replies. Question is not in what context it the song was used. It was adopted. And that too only one stanza.
    Your answer to Durga and British Crown: Where is Durga in the NATIONAL Song...British Crown I hate to bow my head infront of a crown that occupied illegally and treated us badly.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sujai said:

    "And why should not religion be more important than the nation? Who decides what should be important for people?"

    I think it is on basis of reciprocity.

    No one can dictate that one should value nation more than religion. However no one should also complain that a nation is trying to maximize its interests by giving preferential treatment to those whose primary loyalty is to nation.

    If religious groups are entitled to make discrimination based on their religious loyalties, so is nation. Nothing wrong in putting either over the above as long as one understands that the other party (nation or religion) is also entitled to deal with them on the same principles of differential treatment.

    I believe it is perfectly justified for people to resent when they see a nation extending the same rights to those for whom the primary loyalty is to nation, as to those whose primary loyalty is to some other group. In such cases the former group has a moral justification to ask for preferential treatment from nation.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Venkat:
    I take a stand. I am not TOI who offers a view and counter-view.

    Either you agree with me or you disagree with me. And either way, it does not affect me. I am not writing to impress people. These are my views!

    I am not going to write two sides of the story in here. Please read ABOUT ME.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Venkat:
    British Crown I hate to bow my head infront of a crown that occupied illegally and treated us badly.

    And if you do believe that is a good reason NOT to sing Vande Mataram, then you are entitled to. Nobody should force you into singing.

    That is the gist of my argument here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous:
    However no one should also complain that a nation is trying to maximize its interests by giving preferential treatment to those whose primary loyalty is to nation.

    Agreed. But how do you devise the exams to test the 'primary loyalties'?

    I think we should do it. Give a Brahmin meat to eat, and tell him that nation demands it of him, and that he should show his loyalty by eating meat.

    We should give Sikh a scissor and ask him to cut his hair, and tell him that nation demands it of him, and that he should his loyalty by cutting his hair.

    :)

    Cutting hair, eating meat, saluting a flag, singing an anthem, are rituals and symbols. To judge someone merely by the practice or non-practice of such symbols reeks of Middle Ages. Welcome Insurrection!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Sujai, your point is valid, but only partly. Unlike Islam, neither hinduism, nor sikhism have a clearly carved out political dimension. OTOH, Islam has a clear political dimension to it that is in direct competiton to political nation-state. Islam is a competitor to the ideal of a nation-state in a way that other religions are not. An entity (political nation) can hardly be faulted for discriminating against loyalists of its competitor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are generous and most tolerant...

      Delete
  36. Anonymous:
    Unlike Islam, neither hinduism, nor sikhism have a clearly carved out political dimension.

    What is the basis for this conclusion? Who is entitled to decree that Islam has a 'political dimension' (unlike Sikhism and Hinduism). What about Christianity then? Does it or doesn't it have a 'political dimension'?

    Islam is a competitor to the ideal of a nation-state in a way that other religions are not.

    What is your definition of a nation-state? May be, your definition is not entirely acceptable by all. May be, Islam has its own version of nation-state to which you do not subscribe to. In such a case, your definition is actually a direct competitor to Islam's definition of nation-state.

    Which nation on this planet actually provides the example of a Islamic state. And is that state touted by other Islamic nations as the right example? I mean, do Muslims agree on what that Islamic state is? And if so, which nation is the right example?

    An entity (political nation) can hardly be faulted for discriminating against loyalists of its competitor.

    :)
    First, do we agree on what is a nation-state in India? What are the general rules on which we find the loyalists of the nation? And how do we determine who is a competitor? You are treading a dangerous ground here, and I am not sure if you are aware of that.

    Is someone who refuses to sing a song a competitor? Is someone who breaks the law but gladly sings the same song a loyalist?

    Who decides who is a competitor and who is a loyalist, and what is criteria for that?

    Is religion a good enough criteria? If so, what do we do to Muslims? Do we carve out another nation for them? Or should we make it an official policy that henceforth Muslims will be discriminated because of their allegiance to a religion that is a direct competition to the welfare of this nation? Do you remember a famous person from our recent history who has actually made this an official policy and what that movement is known for?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sujai, the commenter is right here. The difference between Islam and other religions is that Islam is not just a religion, it is a complete, self-contained political system. And this is not my understanding, this is something i learned from a Muslim friend.

      Which nation on this planet actually provides the example of a Islamic state.

      My Muslim friend would give the example of the Caliphate as a real political entity, a true Islamic nation-state if you will that existed barely a hundred years ago.

      Delete
    2. They go to Pakistan.

      Delete
  37. Sujai said:

    "What is the basis for this conclusion? Who is entitled to decree that Islam has a 'political dimension' (unlike Sikhism and Hinduism). What about Christianity then? Does it or doesn't it have a 'political dimension'?"

    Christianity does not have a political dimension. Apart from Islam, no other religion has this political dimension. No one is entitled to decree about this political dimension but the believers themselves. For a muslim, concept of nation of islam is a goal worth striving for.

    "What is your definition of a nation-state? May be, your definition is not entirely acceptable by all. May be, Islam has its own version of nation-state to which you do not subscribe to. In such a case, your definition is actually a direct competitor to Islam's definition of nation-state."

    My definition of nation-state is same as taken in contemporary political science i.e. a nation-state is a geo-political entity. And, yes you are right that this definition is actually a direct competitor of Islam's definition of nation-state, which is based on religion. I am not saying that one definition is correct and the other one is wrong. Both sides are within rights to stand by their own definition and reject the claims of the competitor. A nation-state (such as India), which is defined geo-politically, need not entertain the claims of the competitor concept.

    "First, do we agree on what is a nation-state in India?"

    I think we do. Our constitution does not entertain a nation-state defined by religion. By implication, it is a geo-political entity.

    "What are the general rules on which we find the loyalists of the nation? And how do we determine who is a competitor? You are treading a dangerous ground here, and I am not sure if you are aware of that."

    I am aware of the dangers of devising a loyalty test. Quite possibly we can never devise such test. However, what about those who by their own admission disown the concept of a geo-political nation?

    "Is religion a good enough criteria? If so, what do we do to Muslims? Do we carve out another nation for them? Or should we make it an official policy that henceforth Muslims will be discriminated because of their allegiance to a religion that is a direct competition to the welfare of this nation?"

    OK. We may not have any solution for a problem. Does it mean that we take denial as the solution? Do we start claiming that the problem does not exist at all? Being politically correct is OK, however it should not cloud the reality.

    "Do you remember a famous person from our recent history who has actually made this an official policy and what that movement is known for?"

    Yes. He took race as the the essence of "nation-state"; not quite different from those who take religion as the essence of "nation-state". If you start with wrong fundamentals, you will only reach a wrong destination.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous:

    Christianity does not have a political dimension.

    In Bible or in practice? What exactly do you mean by political dimension?

    Apart from Islam, no other religion has this political dimension.

    I am yet to figure that out. I am not sure what that 'political dimension' is.

    For a muslim, concept of nation of islam is a goal worth striving for.

    For a Hindu, a concept of 'Hindu Rashtra' is a goal worth striving for. Does that mean Hinduism has a political dimension?

    And, yes you are right that this definition is actually a direct competitor of Islam's definition of nation-state

    I didn't say that!

    A nation-state (such as India), which is defined geo-politically, need not entertain the claims of the competitor concept.

    I don't think India does entertain such claims. I don't think India entertains the concept of Islamic state in India.

    BTW, Does that 'competitor concept' include Hindu Rashtra?

    However, what about those who by their own admission disown the concept of a geo-political nation?

    What do we do of them? What someone avows that he does not believe in Democracy? Should we discriminate against him? (Like communists who jailed those who did not believe in communism) Should we make policies that are based in one's belief systems? :)

    Should India discriminate against those who express their belief in Hindu Rashtra?

    Do we start claiming that the problem does not exist at all?

    I don't think that it is a problem at all. If someone believes they would rather have a Tamil country, its up to them to believe it. I don't think there should be any law or policy to discriminate against them.

    I am not sure if you want to convert our state into moral police that starts examining people's thoughts and belief systems.

    India does not recognize a religion as basis for forming the nation. If people do, that's their problem.

    India does not recognize an ideology, such as communism, as basis for forming the nation. However, communist government do come into power in various states and they are NOT discriminated against based on their ideology.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anon said:

    "Christianity does not have a political dimension."

    Sujai replied:

    "In Bible or in practice? What exactly do you mean by political dimension?"

    In Bible as well as in practice. By political dimension I mean I concept of nation based on religion distinct from nation as a geo-political concept. Bible does not talk about tenets of a christain state, status of non-christians in a christian state etc. Qura'n does it at length.

    Sujai said:

    "For a Hindu, a concept of 'Hindu Rashtra' is a goal worth striving for. Does that mean Hinduism has a political dimension?"

    If the concept of Hindu Rashtra is in denial of concept of nation as a geo-political entity, then it does. However, as I earlier said, apart from Islam I am not aware of this dimension in any other religion.

    Anon said:

    "And, yes you are right that this definition is actually a direct competitor of Islam's definition of nation-state."

    Sujai said:

    "BTW, Does that 'competitor concept' include Hindu Rashtra?"

    It may or may not.

    A "hindu rashtra" may not be in the best interest of India, but it becomes a competitor concept only when it is taken in denial of the geo-political entity called India.

    "What do we do of them? What someone avows that he does not believe in Democracy? Should we discriminate against him? (Like communists who jailed those who did not believe in communism) Should we make policies that are based in one's belief systems? :)"

    There are two issues confused here. First, "what do we do with them" is a different question and does not alter "what is".

    Secondly, democracy is only one of the methods of governing a nation-state. It is not the essence. A dictatorship (Singapore), a military dictatorship (Pakistan) or even a religious dictatorship (Iran) may not necessarily be in direct competition to the concept of nation as a geo-political entity.

    Sujai said:

    "I don't think that it is a problem at all. If someone believes they would rather have a Tamil country, its up to them to believe it. I don't think there should be any law or policy to discriminate against them."

    Whether to have a policy to actually discriminate against those who believe in different concepts of nation, is a matter of pragmatic considerations. It may or may not be fruitful. However, being aware of the risks is never going to harm.

    Sujai said:

    "India does not recognize a religion as basis for forming the nation. If people do, that's their problem."

    It is not only those people's problems, but the problem of Indian state as well -- to remain aware of the conflict and not be caught off-guard!

    Sujai said:

    "India does not recognize an ideology, such as communism, as basis for forming the nation. However, communist government do come into power in various states and they are NOT discriminated against based on their ideology."

    Communism has a strong element of a communist ummah that goes against the idea of a nation-state. However, none of the communist parties profess their belief -- at least not openly -- in the communist ideal that is in denial of Indian state. There were indeed such communist groups that professed their loyalty to communist ummah in denial of Indian state. Today, they are either no more or remain underground.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Guys
    Lets be clear about the future of our nation
    We can only be secure when we do not have internal disputes
    The best way forward is to gently [
    persuade our religious minorities to come to the eternal path - Sanatana Dharma and leave their false beliefs behind and unify as one people
    If they are not willing to do so , show them the way out
    We have already paid the price 60 years ago , now is the time to extract our due

    Let us be open about our goals and not beat about the bush any longer

    Best regards

    Vijay

    ReplyDelete
  41. Interesting observation, Vijay.

    However, religion is not the sole dimension that creates minorities. There is ethnicity (look towards North East. Manipuri and Assamese separatists are primarily hindus), language (look at Bangla Desh and Sri Lanka), culture (look at Sri Lanka and Bodos), territoriality and a whole host of other dimensions that will still have minorities. They will still keep asserting their identities.

    In my opinion, the solution is to first flush out religious minorities, then proceed to cultural minorities, then get rid of linguistic minorities, then remove ethnic minorities and may be in the end we will be left with a perfect nation!

    ReplyDelete
  42. I guess the word traitor should be removed immediately and banned form usage. After reading this blog, I strongly believe that it doesn't have any more usage.
    oh did I dream reading such a blog or is it that a muslim is using a hindu identity to feel good about islam or did someone change the meaning of e=mc^2. Very wrong tag for the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Just in response to the comment justifying why muslims should not singe vandematarem because ist like idol worship and all that. good we should respect their views. they have to go according to koran.now the following important points:
    1. should muslims be allowed to join indian army?
    answer: NO. because according to koran a muslim cannot kill a muslim. so if india had war with pakistan then muslims in indian army will follow koran and not want to fight. so we cant put them in the indian army.
    2.Can muslim kids go to government schools or any other schools where we study normal subjects?
    answer: NO. because biology teaches the theory of evolution which is against koran.geography says earth is not flat and sun dosent set in muddy water(like koran says) and many other things all not agreeing with koran. so they should not be allowed in our non islamic schools cause we dont want them to be kafirs like us.
    3.Should we give them jobs in banks?
    answer: NO. islam is against interest charging. banks survive on interests. so that is haram for muslims. we should not allow them to work in banks and push them to do something against islam.
    4.Should muslim be elected as a minister?
    answer:No. because india is a democratic country not based on sharya law. its wrong to be a part of something non islamic for a muslim. so we should never allow them to stand for elections and destroy their faith.
    I will post more.

    ReplyDelete
  44. If you translate "Vande Mataram" as "I salute India" then 99% of muslims will say it proudly. When you translate it to "I worship India" then very few will say it, since muslims don't worship anything but God. Country and God has their own different places in Islam. Even many muslims will say "Vande Matram"
    if this is just a slogan of nationalism but not somebody bulling on you.

    Vande Mataram
    Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  45. Every religion started with some rules but later evolved with time. But Islam did not. Mr. Sujai your writings in one way support Taliban. Your example of beef is out of place. If Muslims think they can not worship there country then they have no right to call them Indians.

    ReplyDelete
  46. satsriakal....a.r. rehman sang vande mataram....satsriakal....oiyye he's fond of lassi too yaari? tussi jidh yaar inderjeet nu baat na maan sada baat maan yaar mainu lagkta hai ki mela duniya muslim barbaat kar raha hai...jai veeru

    ReplyDelete
  47. Putting the religion before the nation would go against the Indian constitution too which our Founding Fathers created with great hopes. It also means that when in a majority they will give preference to their religion and its tenets especially laws over religion neutral national laws. I am amazed how you could be so tolerant of this. As a nation state, India should protect its secularism by not yielding to any religion and always keeping religion (the basis of totalitarianism and irrationality) subservient to the state. This is the principle on which our state was founded.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Pravin Sharma:

    As a nation state, India should protect its secularism by not yielding to any religion and always keeping religion (the basis of totalitarianism and irrationality) subservient to the state.

    My definition of secularism does not allow having a national song which is deifying the nation as a goddess.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The Wikipedia article says that India is referred as mother, not goddess.

    ReplyDelete
  50. A.R. Rahman was such a great artist during the times he sung "Vande Maataram", and now he is making songs like "Jai Ho".

    I know everyone would agree with me that "Vande Maataram" was much better than "Jai Ho"

    ReplyDelete
  51. You are plain mistaken. They sing. Very very few dont. And among those who don't, most owe allegiance to only their religion, having nothing to do with the Nation. In that case I refuse to consider them Indians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The one who sing dont know what it is. They just sing because many other people sing it. they sing out of ignorance about the matter.

      Delete
  52. Citizens got a right to sing or not to sing National anthem in almost all democratic and non-democratic countries.Forcing any citizen to sing and not to sing is unconstitutional and undemocratic.

    Monsterous-Villainous presentation of muslims in novel 'AnandMath' is another historical reason for muslims against singing.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Citizens got a right to sing or not to sing National anthem in almost all democratic and non-democratic countries.Forcing any citizen to sing and not to sing is unconstitutional and undemocratic.

    Monsterous-Villainous presentation of muslims in novel 'AnandMath' is another historical reason for muslims against singing.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Sujai
    i really think that religion is more than country for muslims becoz they think that One Almighty has made whole world a beautiful place to live in and humans have broken it into boundries so definately they bow only to the God and no one else (as in Vande mataram).They r patriotic which has nothing to do with any particular song.
    Religion cums first to muslims becoz it is their religion which has taught them that God is one and Hez the only one to be bowed ( as in Namaz).
    Wot will u say for the people who leave their country for a better job, or a better life and stay back there for ever..
    i definately appericiate ur guts on writing a clear view on this issue congrats and keep it up!
    undrstndng religion

    ReplyDelete
  55. Sujai,

    It has been three days now that I have been reading articles on your blog. I must commend your broad-mindedness on most articles and you seem to hit the nail right on the spot with them. Very well done!

    However, there is one issue which nags me. A lot of Hindu bashing. Not that I care about it and nor do I intend on standing up for it. Religion and Gods are not my cup of tea. I understand where this Hindu bashing comes from and admittedly, I think it is high time its followers started acknowledging these points. The superstitions, the mind-numbing rituals, blind faith, decline of science. The last point is something which irks me and I have noticed that "Science" only means rote to most. But, when I read a fellow skeptic's blog, I expect the bashing to extend to all sides of the cube that is India. I also understand the Hindu bashing comes in because, let's face it, they are in majority and they DO use that fact to shout down a lot of advancements. However, the more I read your blog, the more I cannot help but question your intentions. Are you REALLY a skeptic? Or do you just assume that title so as to obtain a free license to get away with bashing a specific religion - in this case, Hinduism.

    I am ALL for religion bashing. But to do it for just one religion, especially since you claim to be an atheist, is kinda hypocritical.

    In this case, the point was very well mentioned by you. Muslims do not give much credibility to the concept of nation as much and hence, it is understandable why the Vande Matram issue came about. However, isn't this an irrational tenet of Islam which must be criticised? Of course, the fact that such a hue and cry was created about it must also be criticised - something that you have done in an extremely well written article. Kudos. But I cannot help but wonder why Islam would escape your ridicule!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jai you brought the essence of this site.

    I agree with you. I am not with or against any religion. Nor i believe bashing it up. But it definitely points that sujai, your mind is undermining your own logic.
    It apparently gives your hypocritical side.

    This forum would be good if things are taught good about all religions rather mud slugging on any of religion.

    Sujai, If u believe all religion is one and there is only one god(whatever u want to call, allah, bhagwan, ram,jesus etc). Then let this forum brings out this value and Probably it will open a whole new insight to all the people on this forum.

    ReplyDelete
  57. My Dear and respected Muslim brothers and Sisters I welcome this healthy discussion. Regarding Vande mataram I read the long discussion and one thing I got the conclusion that All muslims's first priority is their religion with strictly and then other things. I respect it.
    But some question I have and request to reply. First "All religion is made for on which propose, basic and concept"? 2nd "is Koran allow to make religion transformation force fully"? Third "Is it allow to spread violence on the name of the JIHAD"?. Fourth "Except Islam are all religion are based on wrong concept"? Fifth "caliph and Many Islamic rulers had made their great history to destroyed many temples and Today also many temples is being destroyed in Muslim majority places and country. Is the Koran allow to do this activity?. Sixth Is Koran not allow to read other religion books like Beda,Gita or Bible? If not then is there any right to criticize to others believe? seventh To whom you are calling "Hindu"do know reality is what? Eighth "Is Islam is not permit to respect mother and mother land if yes, then what is the problem with "VandeMaataram"?Ok Islam is not allowed to pray to human shaped statue, as there is some line compose about deity Durga and Bharat Mata.But Do you know Beda also not allowed to make worship to murty or human statue God. But why this tradition stated is there any interest taken by any Muslim?9th question is that “Except Muslim Are all persons Caper to whom Koran allow to slay or kill? 10th question “If any one give you milk like mother, whose stool is major thing for your land , alternative to LPG gas, which urine is a great part of Ayurved that is cow and it’s meat is known as beef. Probably the Islam is start from Arab country where there is no value , but in India more then 60% people ae depend upon cow ,bull and cow dung and here kill to cow mean kill to Mother. Is Koran allow to kill mother? Untill Islam will keep away all Muslims from the believe of Hindu(known as Santana Dharma )I feel for them Saudi Arab or all Islamic country is best place As with out unity No nation will be become powerfull.
    For your kind information I am a Brahmin to whom you said higher cast Hindu, but I also read Koran with deeply as well as Geeta and Bible as I know for you there is a Allah not God.But with narrow tic notion can you see or feel Allah?




    ReplyDelete
  58. The word Mathru Bhoomi a sanskrit word means simply a land of our birth.It has nothing to do with Goddess Kali . Some tribes in Iran which was known as Persia call thair land of birth as SARZAMENEH PADRI" AND ALSO AS "SARZAMINEH MADRI.which means they also call thewir land as motherland, fatherland and motherland.In Turkey the word for that is "ANA VATAN".The word ANA means mother.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I follow Islam. I have always heard By Muslim scholars that..
    Our Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said: "BE LOYAL TO OUR COUNTRY".

    Muslims follow the teachings of Prophet and they love their countries wherever they are.

    Singing or not singing any song doesn't mean we are not patriotic.

    Muslims are not considered loyal citizens of India just because they can't sing a song only.

    It hurts a lot.

    IF A PERSON DAILY RECITES VANDE MATARAM AND A CORRUPT, FRAUD, IS LOYAL TO HIS COUNTRY?

    ReplyDelete
  60. I believe, like most of us, that singing or not singing "Vande Mataram" is not a criterion to decide as to whether one is patriotic or not.

    But at the same time, I also belive that the song "Vande Mataram" has been a uniting factor for everybody irrespective of his/her religion, since days of freedom struggle. In my opinion, there are hardly any Hindus who consider the song "Vande Mataram" as something religious or something that connects to their religion alone.

    It may sound a bit whimsical but it is not. The song "Vande Mataram" is by and large a connecting factor. One feels proud of he/she being Indian when this song is sung. EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE WITH MY PROPOSITION THAT "NONE OF THE HINDUS THINKS OF HIS RELIGION WHILE SINGING 'VANDE MATARAM', ALL THAT REVOLVES AROUND HIS MIND IS SHEER PATRIOTISM" So when Hindus don't treat 'Vande Mataram' as a religious song, why do muslims treat it that way.

    SHOULD HINDUS STOP VISITING TAJ MAHAL JUST B'COZ IT RELATES TO MUSLIM HISTORY?

    I FEEL MUSLIMS SHOULD TREAT "VANDE MATARAM" AS SOMETHING WHICH IS ABOVE ALL RELIGIONS.

    ReplyDelete
  61. not singing has never been the point, insulting the song is the key point. Muslims don't bow to anyone except allah, thats bullshit, prophet mohommad isnt allah so why do these bow down to him. Peer baba is not allah why do they bow down to him. dont give this nonsense explanations to a national problem in an easy way like this

    ReplyDelete
  62. If muslims are above nationality and their primary belief is their religion then why isn't only one muslim nation in the world? So the muslims are nationalist, but its just in India that "Secular" meaning minority appeasement makes them behave in the manner that they so.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Very well said, I'm glad some people take the time to understand and just accept the way some people work. :)

    ReplyDelete
  64. @MOHAMMAD
    Better to ask this question to Akbaruddin Owaisi.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @Sujai,

    this is not just not singing a song, but far ahead than that. Assume you are living in a democratic country and that country defines certain laws to build a common citizen environment.

    You lives in this country and making a parallel judiciary called "Personal Law", just to show that you are not interested in the country's law.

    A BIG QUESTION ???

    ReplyDelete
  66. @Manoranjan Mishra



    Glad to know you respect it.



    Sure, anytime!

    <1) "All religion is made for on which propose, basic and concept"? >

    To understand the concept of religion you need to first understand the concept of LIFE. I'll explain it from an Islamic perspective. Life is a test. There is ONLY one life in THIS world. The ONLY purpose of this world's life is to PRAY to your Creator who created you.

    Good & bad things are thrown at you:

    When Good things happen to you, you PRAY in gratitude (shukr) and should be thankful to your God.

    When Bad things happen to you, you PRAY in patience (sabr) with the hope that hardships will soon be removed or a better life awaits you in the hereafter.

    Basically it is "Shukr & Sabr". How you respond to those is what sums up how are you going to be judged in the hereafter. Religion is nothing but a set of rules to properly GUIDE you to a better life in hereafter.

    <2) "is Koran allow to make religion transformation force fully"? >

    No, absolutely NOT. But then you knew it already, didn't you? Qur'an is the ONLY holy book which states that people should NOT be compelled to choose religion. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people.
    The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.

    -Rahman, Texas, USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Rahmanji, thanks for answer. But If will go to Indian History during Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, Allahuddin khilji than u can understand. yes' May be Qur'an is strict on its principle But on the name of power It had been utilized in violence way.

      Delete
  67. @Manoranjan Mishra

    <5) "caliph and Many Islamic rulers had made their great history to destroyed many temples and Today also many temples is being destroyed in Muslim majority places and country. Is the Koran allow to do this activity?. >

    Both True & False. There were only FOUR RIGHTEOUS CALIPHs in Islamic history. There were other Islamic rulers who called themselves as Caliphs to gain support of Muslims but they are NOT considered as Caliphs as Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself mentioned that Caliphate will be there only for 20 years after he passed away. This 20 year period was ruled by these four righteous Caliphs. NONE of the RIGHTEOUS Caliphs EVER broke down a temple. NOT ONE, prove me otherwise and I’ll STOP being a Muslim. That’s a direct challenge to you, my friend!

    During his life, Muhammad gave various injunctions to his forces and adopted practices toward the conduct of war. The most important of these were summarized by Muhammad's companion and first Caliph, Abu Bakr (RA), in the form of ten rules for the Muslim army:

    “O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone. (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_military_jurisprudence

    There is NO concept of collateral damage in Islam. You are responsible for EVERY attack you make. Also there is NO concept of “END JUSTIFYING THE MEANS”. Like Lord Rama killing Bali (who was busy fighting Sugreeva) from behind, which is totally against the moral rules of engagement in Islamic war (even if the purpose was supposedly to provide Bali moksha.) Both END and MEANS MUST justify each other. Sneak attacks are forbidden. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) at one point gave 4 months notice.

    Compare this with the Drone attacks that happen nowadays where an entire family is slaughtered to kill a few alleged “terrorists”. Not to mention the suicide bombings by some of the so-called Islamic Jihadi teams. NONE of these are permitted. Period.

    But, were there other Islamic kings or rulers who broke down temples? Absolutley! We had our fair share of such rulers. But then again, a lot of wars weren’t stricly Islam vs Hinduism. Aurangazeb broke down a number of temples. But he had the highest number of Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court among the Mughal rulers (148 compared to Akbar who had just 14). Lots of these wars were performed under these Hindu generals as well. Aurangazeb also constructed a lot of temples and paid for their maintenance. Likewise Shivaji had many high ranking Muslims in his army as well.
    But you are right, there were many temples broken down by Muslims. I am not denying that fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Rahamanji for your discussion on this point. For your information "Bali was empowered by Blessed that any one will fight with him,His half energy will divert and combine with Bali power. So if Ram enormous power would divided may be it could be happened negative result. So it is something beyond our logic and concept. Reality is that I am asking about if A emperor had broken a many temples by utilise his power but resulted what ever the ideology{Sufism @ din e illahi} used by Akbar to make unity by Hindu and Muslim ,Aurangzeb completely destroy it and the dynasty had been vanished otherwise probably today we the Hindu and Muslim would stat in one home or thoughts and question would not arise to divide this Nation. Probably the friction would not happened between two religion on Babri Masque.
      if u want the example today Two county in Bangladesh and Pakistan The Hindus are not safe rather they already destroyed where in India Majority of Muslim are staying with respect as well as with Esteem in Bollywood( salman, saharuk, Amir, saifali)and In politics they are also doing vital role. So compare to that in pak and Bangladesh it is rubbish. So Islam world should aware for this issue practically.

      Delete
  68. @Manoranjan Mishra

    <6) Is Koran not allow to read other religion books like Beda,Gita or Bible? If not then is there any right to criticize to others believe? >

    What’s Beda? You mean Veda? Qur’an doesn’t explicitly say what you can read or not. Muslims do read other religious books. I have read Mali Ramayana & Mali Mahabharat myself. Please understand that we aren’t criticizing. You are free to believe in what ever you want. No compulsion in faith, remember?

    But, can I ask you the same? Have you EVER read a Qur’an? Do you know what it means? Most Hindus that I know believe that Muhammad was a God man who started Islam. Lol !

    <7) To whom you are calling "Hindu"do know reality is what? >

    The word Hindu is derived from the British name for India, Hindustan (which also became the name of a region later during the British Raj), which is itself taken from India's namesake, the Indus River. The Brihaspati Agama (dated?)says:

    हिमालयं समारभ्य यावदिंदुसरोवरम् ।
    तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिंदुस्थानं प्रचक्ष्यते ।।

    "The land created by the gods which stretched from the Himalayas to the Indu (i.e. Southern) ocean is called Hindusthan."[3][4]

    The Persian term was further loaned into Arabic as al-Hind referring to the land of the people who live across river Indus, and into Greek as Indos, whence ultimately English India.[5] By the 13th century, Hindustān emerged as a popular alternative name of India, meaning the "land of Hindus"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu

    Do you want to add anything else?

    -Rahman, Texas, USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely wrong Rahamanji. Reality is the "Hindu" is derived from Arabic language. In Arabic alphabet there was no pronouns "Sha'.So the Aryan or the Sanatan believer were spread from Sinddhu river to kanyakumari. so they call "Hindu" which is corrupt version of Sindhu and the India is derived from Indus river and at the time of king Derayas of Iran{parasya}.

      Delete
  69. @Manoranjan Mishra

    <8) "Is Islam is not permit to respect mother and mother land if yes, then what is the problem with "VandeMaataram"?Ok Islam is not allowed to pray to human shaped statue, as there is some line compose about deity Durga and Bharat Mata.But Do you know Beda also not allowed to make worship to murty or human statue God. But why this tradition stated is there any interest taken by any Muslim?>

    Worship is different from respect. As Muslims, we respect our mothers, but we don’t worship them. Only Allah (Al-Ilah, Arabic for “The God”) is worthy of worship.

    Yes, we know that Vedas don’t allow worshipping murty or human statue Gods. See below:

    "Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam."
    "His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye."
    (Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20)
    "shudhama poapvidham"
    "He is bodyless and pure."
    (Yajurveda 40:8)
    "Na tasya Pratima asti"
    "There is no image of Him."
    (Yajurveda 32:3)

    This is exactly what even Qur’an says and Muslims practice. So when the Vedas explictly say this, how do you justify pouring milk over Shivlings? Not that I am against your right to do so but just curious. That milk could’ve been used to feed millions of poor. Wouldn’t that be a real Godly thing to do?

    A little bit of history is necessary to understand the Bande Matarm issue. Anandamath was a novel with sannyasi rebellion as backdrop during the end of last century. The novel depicts basically Hindu struggle against Muslim rule and welcomes advent of the British rule. Muslims hated the idea of losing power to the British and later the fear of being subjugated by Hindus haunted them. This is the historical reason for opposing the song that hail motherland by comparing her to Durga Devi in poetic language and indirectly welcomes the British.
    Muslims are not in power now. Is there any reason to further antogonize a huge section of the population by singing songs that were meant to be a war cry against them during pre-independence? Don’t we have ENOUGH problems already? I mean, NONE of our neighbours are friendly with us. China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal or Myammar. Not one is a friendly nation who will stand by us in case of any issue. If we have a huge number of minorities hating India wouldn’t that be the worst thing you can ask for? Where would happen to our famous “Unity in diversity” slogan then?

    Bande Mataram has no significance now, unless you welcome a British rule. It is not even in Hindi, which is our National language. Most of the words used in it are not even in usage now. Not sure why Hindus need symbols all over the place to feel patriotic. Can’t we come up with a National Song that is acceptable to ALL? What happened BEFORE Bande Mataram was written? Were the Hindus who lived here then NOT patriotic? I mean Shiv Sainiks portray Shivaji as the biggest patriot ever. By this “new” patriot definition, he wouldn’t have been a patriot at all. You are trivializing the concept of patriotism by this.

    -Rahman, Texas, USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really I salute to your collection and If u or particularly u will start a episode no doubt the friction of Hindu and muslim will be stopped . But the non sense politician are very anxious for this that if it will happen than their divide and rule will be stopped . very nice..

      Delete
  70. @Manoranjan Mishra

    <9) “Except Muslim Are all persons Caper to whom Koran allow to slay or kill? >

    You are very wrong about this. Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. It ONLY supports defensive warfare. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran chapter “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.” 2:191) And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away - for oppression is even worse than killing.”

    These verses are clearly talking about fighting BACK not starting the fight. The injunction "slay them wherever you may come upon them" is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that "those who wage war against you" are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war "in God's cause"). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as "oppression" is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisan al-'Arab).

    -Rahman, Texas, USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are enormous example if you find the history of world that Muslim and also Christ both religion are spread their Emperor and present by blood and sword and as invader Muslim religion spread which is not seen in Sanatan religion to which u know Hinduism. As their Many proof .Like CRUSADE war is best example.

      Delete
  71. @Manoranjan Mishra

    <10) “If any one give you milk like mother, whose stool is major thing for your land , alternative to LPG gas, which urine is a great part of Ayurved that is cow and it’s meat is known as beef. Probably the Islam is start from Arab country where there is no value , but in India more then 60% people ae depend upon cow ,bull and cow dung and here kill to cow mean kill to Mother. Is Koran allow to kill mother? Untill Islam will keep away all Muslims from the believe of Hindu(known as Santana Dharma )I feel for them Saudi Arab or all Islamic country is best place As with out unity No nation will be become powerfull.

    For your kind information I am a Brahmin to whom you said higher cast Hindu, but I also read Koran with deeply as well as Geeta and Bible as I know for you there is a Allah not God.But with narrow tic notion can you see or feel Allah?>

    First it is NOT Koran. It is Qur’an. All these questions are answered pretty well in Qur’an. Again, we respect our mothers, but we don’t worship them. My mother is not a cow, for heaven sakes. It is really offensive to speak of your own mother’s stool, urine or gas.

    Qur’an allows certain foods and prohibits certain others. Islam doesn’t say that you NEED to eat non veg or beef. Far from it. Beef is allowed, that’s all. Since we don’t consider cows as our mothers, question of killing your own mother doesn’t even arise. If cow is your mother and country is your mother, then how many mothers do you have besides your OWN mother? If they are just symbols, then, again, why do you NEED so many symbols to live?

    Btw, what about dads? Just one, right?

    Glad you told us that you are a Brahmin. Regarding meat eating by Brahmins read this. It was mentioned by none other than the Great Indian Guru, Swami Vivekananda: "The Brâhmin of Southern India, for instance, would shrink in horror at the sight of another Brahmin eating meat; a Brahmin in the North thinks it a most glorious and holy thing to do — he kills goats by the hundred in sacrifice."

    "There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sannyasin, a king, or a great man came into a house, the best bullock was killed; how in time it was found that as we were an agricultural race, killing the best bulls meant annihilation of the race. Therefore the practice was stopped, and a voice was raised against the killing of cows."

    Swami Vivekananda

    http://www.vivekananda.net/Lectures/LecturesColomboAlmora/7.html

    So killing of cows was permitted in India earlier and was discontinued ONLY because we were an agricultural race then and NOT because it was against Hindu beliefs. But we, as a country, are a far more advanced and industrilaized nation now. So there's no need to practise this anymore.

    http://beef.sabhlokcity.com/

    Allah is NOT the name of God of Muslims. It just means “The One and Only God”. Al in Arabic means “The”. Ilah means “God”. Put together it means Al-Ilah or Allah for short. It stands for “The God”. Bible is sometimes referred as “The Book”. The word “The” is placed to stress the importance of the next word. Similarly “The God” signifies “The One and Only God”.

    Qur’an (112:1) states:
    “Qul huwa Allâhu ahad”
    “Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;”

    I’ll end with a quote from your own scripture Chandogya Upanishad Chapter 6 Section 2 verse 1 which clarifies this:

    “Ekam Evadvitiyam”
    “He is one only without a second.”
    When we are both talking about the ONENESS of God, should we be singing songs that DIVIDE us further or try to patch up our minor differences and remain as ONE nation under ONE God?

    You be the judge, adios amigo! Peace to you and your family.

    -Rahman, Texas, USA.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @Manoranjan Mishra

    <3) "Is it allow to spread violence on the name of the JIHAD"?. >

    Jihad means struggle. Trying to give up smoking is a Jihad. If you are driven out of your homeland and are fighting to re-cpature it, that is also a Jihad. Jihad is never suicide bombing or conducting bomb blasts killing innocent bystanders. Even if the motive for terrorism is religious, Islam bans it explicitly.
    Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”

    <4) "Except Islam are all religion are based on wrong concept"? >

    Qur’an explictly tells the Prophet in Chapter 42:13 “In matters of faith, He has ordained for you that which He had enjoined upon Noah - and into which We gave thee [O Muhammad] insight through revelation - as well as that which We had enjoined upon Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus: Steadfastly uphold the [true] faith, and do not break up your unity therein. [And even though] that [unity of faith] to which thou callest them appears oppressive to those who are wont to ascribe to other beings or forces a share in His divinity, God draws unto Himself everyone who is willing, and guides unto Himself everyone who turns unto Him. “

    In the above verse God confirms that the revelation about ONE True God that was revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) was the same one that was revealed to Abraham, Moses and Jesus and asks them to stand united. God also confirms that for the people who ascribe more partners to God (polytheists) this unity of faith might appear oppressive, but He draws unto Himself everyone who is willing, and guides unto Himself everyone who turns unto Him.

    The Qur’an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims. Quran 5:69 “ for, verily, those who have attained
    to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Sabians, and
    the Christians - all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds - no fear need
    they have, and neither shall they grieve.”

    In other words, the Quran promises Christians, Jews & Sabians along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell – quite the opposite.

    -Rahman, Texas, USA.

    ReplyDelete
  73. The issue popped up again owing to BSP MPs action. For the sake of debate let us accept that muslims have choice no to sing vandemataram.
    This particular MP is attending parl for 4 years by now. He knew Vandemataram will be sung at end of the session. He simple could have gone out before the start of singing. But he deliberately chose to walk out while others are singing. Nobody forced him to respect. At the same time he cannot disrespect it deliberately.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Many of our leaders of independence dreamt of a free and cultural India, where riots dont happen, nor people fight in.the name of religion....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that was possible if there were no Muslims in India

      Delete
    2. but people are rioting for what happening in Myanmar!!! Thank god that gentle man called Jinnah opted for separate nation other wise whole India would have been burning like Kashmir!

      Delete
  75. message to PBUH dudes... we don't need your interpretation of Qur'an!! we are not interested...just keep your shit with you and respect others who believe their shit!!

    ReplyDelete
  76. //The Qur’an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims. Quran 5:69 “ //

    @Rahman,
    what about Eskimos??

    ReplyDelete
  77. so 15% of the people are not trustworthy.
    hmmm ..let me see..
    aren't these same people who do terrorism.
    aren't these same people who destroyed our temples.
    aren't these same people who are responsible for all riots

    aren't these same people who don't are not seen in armu but lots in jails

    lol The Religion of Peace

    ReplyDelete
  78. Religion is a disease. Islam, just its symptom. All ya' believers are carriers of this disease. So, it does not make sense to {fight/argue with} yourselves. Fight your disease. You will know a lot about yourself and the world around you.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Who cares whether they sing or not... I am proud of the song, I shall sing it!

    ReplyDelete
  80. does islam prevent a guy from worshiping his/her mother???

    ReplyDelete

Dear Commenters:
Please identify yourself. At least use a pseudonym. Otherwise there will be too many *Anonymous*; making it confusing.

Do NOT write personal information or whereabouts about the author or other commenters. You are free to write about yourself. Please do not use abusive language. Do not indulge in personal attacks and insults.

Write comments which are relevant and make sense so that the debate remains healthy.