Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / General Topics / September 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Parting the veil of appearances - M V Kamath - Book review

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Dr. Jai Maharaj - 28 Sep 2004 21:41 GMT
Parting the veil of appearances - M V Kamath - Book review

Facts about terrorist Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

Forwarded message from "Gopal Ashtekar" <gva@vsnl.com>

[ Subject: Parting the veil of appearances - M. V. Kamath - Book review
[ From: "Gopal Ashtekar" <gva@vsnl.com>
[ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004

Parting the veil of appearances

By M. V. Kamath
Free Press Journal
Sunday, September 26, 2004

Book Review of

Indian Muslims
Where have they gone wrong?
By Rafiq Zakaria
566 pp. Mumbai: Bhavans Rs.494

To say that Dr Rafiq Zakaria is one of the staunchest of
nationalist Muslims is to under-rate his contribution to
the integration of his country.  He has, as an Indian to
the last drop of his blood, braved the wrath of many of
his co-religionists I publicly oozing the two-nation
theory and the creation of Pakistan.  He has never minced
words.  He has been sorely unhappy over the growing
distance between Hindus and Muslims and over the years he
has written extensively on the subject.  This volume is
an edited collection of all his articles, talks and
papers and deserves the fullest attention of all Indian
citizens irrespective of their religious affiliation.

For all one knows this is first full attempt to analyze
what went wrong in Hindu-Muslim relations - and why.  Dr
Zakaria's analysis may not necessarily earn him kudos
from the community.  There may even be some who will
question his line of reasoning.  On some issues he may be
challenged both by his own co-religionists as well as by
Hindus.  He may be charged on occasions with suppressing
the truth and suggesting what is false as its
replacement.

But knowing him as one does that would be coincidental.
At one stage Zakaria asks why should today's Muslims have
to be held responsible for what their ancestors
generations past had done.  And why should one forget the
contribution that Islam has made to enrich India's
cultural heritage.  To that Shakespeare gave an answer
centuries ago.  The evil that men do, he wrote, lives
after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.
So it was with Caesar; so it has been with Muslim rulers
in India.  What people remember with anger in their
hearts is the demolition of temples, the efforts at
conversion and the evil deeds perpetrated not only by the
rulers but also by their ardent followers at lower
levels.

Babar may not have been responsible for the demolition of
temple in Ayodhya but Mir Baqi was.  Dr Zakaria says that
what rulers like Ghazni Mohammad, Allahuddin Khilji or
Aurangzeb did hundreds of years ago should be judged "in
the context of what used to happen all over the world in
the Medieval Ages". Hindus may well ask: Did Hindu rulers
go abroad to demolish mosques and impose their religion
on others forcibly? Dr Zakaria quotes chapter and verse
to show that Islam does not encourage and destruction of
idols, nor does the Quaran permit the destruction of the
places of worship of other religions.  It is nobody's
case that Qumran is anti-Hindu.  It is not what the
Quaran says, but what the followers of the Quaran did
that has been the subject of much Hindu angst.

It is true that Islamic religious leaders from the Chief
Mufti of Arabia and Rector of Al-Azhar University of
Cairo to the pontiffs of Malaysia and Indonesia have all
condemned the "horrendous bombing" of the World Trade
Centre Towers and the Pentagon, but the fact remains that
those who did it are associated with Islam and the
perpetrators of that folly even if Dr Zakaria calls them
"deranged and unbalanced persons" have won the acclaim of
large numbers of Muslims.  What is the explanation? One
explanation Dr Zakaria gives is that "these days Islam
has been distorted by Muslims themselves" and that
Islam's "noble values are openly violated by its own
votaries for selfish purposes".

So how should Hindus react to that? There are many
questions that Dr Zakaria needs to answer which he still
might, depending on how this book has been received.  The
most touching thing about this work is its obvious
fairness.  Dr Zakaria is critical of Veer Savarkar but he
also concedes that in his youth Savarkar was a strong
supporter of Hindu-Muslim collaboration, that he was "a
fearless fighter against the British and went through the
severest hardships at their hands".  His assessment of
why Savarkar felt that Muslims "were the cause of the
degradation of Hindus" merits better analysis.

Too often Dr Zakaria raises an issue but fails to go
full-throat at it. If he does not spare his co-
religionists, he does not hesitate to pin blame on Hindus
where it is called for.  In the matter of partition, he
concedes that Jinnah was the main culprit but adds were
Nehru and Patel less guilty? They should have referred
civil war to the shameful surrender which has done the
greatest harm to generations of both Hindus and Muslims".
That is more said.

Under Abraham Lincoln, the United States might have
preferred a civil war to continue acceptance of black
slavery but a civil war in India in 1945-47, would have
ruined the subcontinent for decades.

Dr Zakaria criticism of Nehru and Patel is justified but
then one wishes he had given the historical background to
their decision; they had to make a choice.  It became a
question of being damned if one accepted partition and
damned if one did not.  For all one knows there was
certain inevitability about partition and may it be added
that partition may yet become undone as globalization
becomes a reality.  Dr Zakaria insists that he is "a
passionate believer in Hindu-Muslim unity"; that he is.
He has advice to give to his coreligionists, which makes
a lot of sense.  He wants them to shed their old habits,
give us their worn-out attitudes and asks them to think
over such matters as family planning, divorce laws, the
question of Babri Masjid and even joining in the singing
of Vande Mataram.

The book is divided into twelve sections, each one of
them requiring deep study.  They deal with the role of
Muslims in the Freedom Struggle, shattering of Hindu-
Muslim relations, the break-up of Pakistan, Indian
Muslims under partition, the causes of communal discord,
Indian Muslims and Hindutva, need for change in Muslim
outlook, problems of Indian Muslims an important section
on how to face the future.  Dr Zakaria has tried to
present as clear a picture of what Hindu-Muslims
relations were in the past, are today and should be in
the future, sincerely, straightforwardly and guilelessly.

What he has written comes straight from the heart and for
that very reason is to be highly respected.  It should be
prescribed reading not only for politicians and policy-
makers but for students as well One may take exception to
certain conclusions that Dr Zakaria arrives at  - as on
Hindutva - but it is precisely because of that he should
get the widest readership in India at all levels.

End of forwarded message from "Gopal Ashtekar" <gva@vsnl.com>

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

    "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
    "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
    "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

    o  Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
    o  If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
    o  Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Dr. Jai Maharaj - 28 Sep 2004 21:42 GMT
Forwarded message from Vkumar1122@aol.com

[ From: Vkumar1122@aol.com
[ Subject: Re: Parting the veil of appearances - M. V. Kamath - Book review
[ Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004

In a message dated 9/28/2004, gva@vsnl.com writes:

> Babar  may not have been responsible for the demolition
> of temple in Ayodhya but Mir  Baqi was.  Dr Zakaria says
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Quaran did that has been the subject of  much Hindu
> angst.

It seems Mr. Kamath has been completely taken in by
Zakaria. At one stage  he writes "He may be charged on
occasions with suppressing the truth and suggesting what
is false as its replacement."  This in fact is the truth.
Zakaria does both.

Zakaria is a master of suppression of truth -- knowing
fully well that not many Hindus will read the Koran -- he
takes full liberty in suppressing its truths. He also
knows that a few who will read the Koran either will not
be read by most Hindus and those who do, will be hounded
out of  public discourse by his cotravelers and
secularists and declared  "communalists" -- a worse
affliction than leprosy.

Now take the case of temple demolition. Kamath writes:
"Dr Zakaria quotes chapter and verse to show that Islam
does not encourage and destruction of idols, nor does the
Quaran permit the destruction of the places of worship of
other religions."

Read article on Bamiyan Buddhas  

http://vinodkumar.voiceofdharma.com/articles/bamiyan.htm

On how Zakaria distorts, read:

http://vinodkumar.voiceofdharma.com/articles/zakaria.htm
http://vinodkumar.voiceofdharma.com/articles/denial.htm

Kamath writes: At one stage Zakaria asks why should
today's Muslims have to be held responsible for what
their ancestors generations past had done?

Very true, the Muslims of today should not be held
responsible for the acts of Muslims centuries past but if
they regards those people as their heroes and those acts
as acts of glory -- they are responsible for them too.

Kamath quoting Zakaria says "What is the explanation?
One explanation Dr Zakaria gives is that "these days
Islam has been distorted by Muslims  themselves" and that
Islam's "noble values are openly violated by its own
votaries for selfish purposes"

Zakaria continued his distortions. Only he seems to
understand the meaning of the Koran better than the
entire native Arabic speaking Mullahs of the Islamic
world. Actually when Zakaria talks of Islam -- he is not
talking of  what the real Kuran is but what he thinks it
should have been in order to make  it acceptable to the
rest of the world. His book

Certain things Zakaria says might be OK but overall he is
a Muslim apologist.

It is common among the so called Muslim moderates to
blame Nehru and Patel for the partition. But the only
people to be blamed for partition are the Muslims of
India -- in its present boundaries. The decision to
accept partition was taken long before it actually took
place or before Mountbatten came to India. It was taken
on 16 August 1946 when Jinnah showed in Calcutta what
would happen in all across India if Muslims were not
given Pakistan and the Muslims of  Calcutta responded
overwhelmingly to Jinnah's call. After that it was just a
matter of time. Muslims had shown what they really want.,
Rest is simple hogwash.

VK

End of forwarded message from Vkumar1122@aol.com

> Parting the veil of appearances - M V Kamath - Book review
>
[quoted text clipped - 202 lines]
> your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> copyright owner.
harmony - 28 Sep 2004 22:39 GMT
the same old record play by zacharia.
isn't his son fareed zacharia of the newsweek?

> Parting the veil of appearances - M V Kamath - Book review
>
[quoted text clipped - 202 lines]
> your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> copyright owner.
Dr. Jai Maharaj - 28 Sep 2004 22:44 GMT
> the same old record play by zacharia.
> isn't his son fareed zacharia of the newsweek?

I wonder if Newsweek knows that.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.