India, Pakistan and the Pain of 1947

It still irks when people today that I encounter don’t realize that India and Pakistan (as well as Bangladesh) all used to be the same country.  Partition tore India into two to become India and Pakistan in 1947.  Bangladesh later separated from Pakistan in 1971.

While I do not think we should ever forget the violence that ensued, the bloodshed, the migrations, broken homes, the pain, and the suffering (all tensions that were aggravated by the British presence who used the "divide and rule" strategy), I also do not think that we should let such events tear us apart from one another as people.  Obviously yes, we are still divided as countries.  Yet to constantly create further distinctions and divisions between ourselves is to forget that we were all once living together in peace and that our cultures are the same.  Our languages are the same.  (Many people are confused about the whole Urdu/Hindi issue – they are in fact the same language but Pakistan uses the Arabic-influenced Urdu script, whereas India uses the Sanskrit-influenced Hindi script; spoken, they are the same). 

In our parents’ generation, the pain is still quite fresh.  After all, their parents and elders were directly affected.  Grandparents were lost as well as countless friends and relatives.  Entire families were forced to leave their homes and go where it may be safer for them – for instance, Muslims living in India no longer felt safe there and left their homes of generations to relocate to Pakistan and start all over again.  The same can be said of Hindus living in the area that was now to be Pakistan.  Truckloads of the bodies of the massacred were on both sides of the border. I once heard a horror story from a family friend that many people would rush onto trains to quickly escape and yet those people would become targeted somehow anyway; so then sometimes a train would arrive, only to find that all of the people inside of it, men, women, boys, girls, the elderly, were slaughtered inside.  In fact, this was one of the only truly horrific things I was told by anyone, because they told me I would rather not hear the true extent of the horrific events that occurred in 1947. It seems entirely reasonable to me that our parents may still hold resentment, anger, and sadness over these events. 

But it seems to me that it is our parents that are the most forgiving.  Places where South Asians are many seem to show that Indians and Pakistanis live in peace with one another, and make good friends with each other also.

Rather, I have seen more open hatred between the younger generations.  Once when I was in class a friend of mine asked the girl next to me if she was Pakistani.  She curtly replied, “No of course not.  I’m Indian.  Pakistanis are stupid.”  I was totally enraged and asked her how she could make such a comment.  “You’re the same people,” I said.  “No,” she said.  “We’re completely different.  Look at them and their backwards country.  They don’t know what they’re doing.  And those Muslim people are crazy.”  I don’t need to mention that India is corrupt as well, though it is an economically-booming country.  And I’m also going to point out that violence between Hindus and Muslims back home is equal.  It is not just Muslims that dislike Hindus, but Hindus that dislike Muslims (I’m referring to when things do occur; I’m not saying all Muslims hate all Hindus or the reverse). 

Obviously comments like the one this girl made are not always out in the open.  You can have two friends that have known each other for years but when something happens to again highlight that “difference” between them – that one is Pakistani and Muslim, and one is Indian and Hindu, there are divisions. 

For instance, to illustrate this, I will talk very briefly about the aftermath of 9/11.  In the old neighborhood I used to live in, the majority of people were Indians and Pakistanis.  The stores were all Indian and Pakistani.  The people made friends, everybody was friendly to one another.  After 9/11, the comments started to create divisions between people that had known each other for 20-30 years.  A store we frequented run by an Indian Hindu family was heard saying that “those extreme Muslims” [she was referring to all Muslims] “are the reason for these attacks and that’s why I never liked them in the first place.”  Another Indian Sikh family said “Muslims were not to be trusted.”  Then when these comments were circulated, and others like them, the Muslims in the area began to hear of them and also became enraged.  Some said “It was obvious that those Indians never liked us in the first place.”  Others said “I’m so tired of them thinking they are so much better than us.”  Some people I knew began to only support businesses and only talk to those who were the same religion as themselves, and from the same country, out of spite and anger over these comments. 

Another less expected example was that the area I grew up in was officially called “The Indian Bazaar”; when it was suggested that they change it to “The Pakistani-Indian Bazaar” to more accurately reflect the great variety and diversity of the stores and restaurants, as well as the people, there was a huge uproar.  Again, people that had been friends for 20-30 years were divided.  Many of the Indians said that they would not support putting both country names in the title and would not even want to live there anymore.  The Indian people were the majority, and so the name was never changed.  Pakistanis felt the sting and held quiet resentment.

But I think that some of that resentment is misplaced.  Some of, (or most of) that resentment should be aimed at the British monarchy which tore us apart from one another.  This is why I have never taken part in any celebration of Victoria Day.  This is why I refuse to subscribe to views such as the British made us “more civilized” or “organized”; the British made us more “technologically advanced”; the British with their light skin and light eyes and “eloquent” speak are, basically “better than us”; no.  The British monarchy was actually arbitrary, careless, and threw us out of order.  They sparked violence and hatred; they created divisions that now feel like they are irreversible.

With the independence days of both countries fast-approaching all I can say is that the remembrance of 1947 is more a painful reminder of the people we could have been and used to be.  The achievements of our great people are scattered across both of our nations and it feels odd to me for them to be arbitrarily divided between us.  I do have pride as a citizen of my country but I have more pride knowing the greatness of all of our people together. And I have hope that one day we can bury these hurts and come together once again.

image source http://www.indianchild.com/images/indiaflagbig.gif 

image source http://flagspot.net/images/p/pk.gif

More on this later.

-My Name is Not Raj

EXTREMISM HAS NO RELIGION - What The Oslo Terrorist Attacks Teach Us About the World We Are Living in Today

I am not going to provide a summary for what happened in Oslo because it was all over the news.  I would like to call attention to some of the comments that were made by media in wake of these terrorist attacks:

“This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists. [...] Some irresponsible lawmakers on both sides of the aisle…would have us believe that enormous defense cuts would not affect our national security. Obama would have us believe that al-Qaeda is almost caput and that we can wrap up things in Afghanistan. All of these are rationalizations for doing something very rash, namely curbing our ability to defend the United States and our allies in a very dangerous world.”

“…in jihadist eyes, [Norway] will always remain guilty of being what it is: a liberal nation committed to freedom of speech and conscience, equality between the sexes, representative democracy, and every other freedom that defines the West. For being true to those ideals, Norwegians have now been asked to pay a terrible price.“

           
“Norway also drew the ire of al Qaeda for publishing the controversial political cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that appeared in a Danish newspaper and sparked outrage in the militant Islamic community.”

 “I think the betting is on terrorism. We don't know for sure, yet. But you've only got to look at the sort of blast that occurred. You've only got to look at the target - prime minister's office, the headquarters of the major newspaper group next door.

Why would that be relevant? Because the Norwegian newspapers republished the cartoons of Prophet Mohammad that caused such offense in the Muslim world. When that happened, the Norwegian telecoms offices in Pakistan were attacked and ransacked. The Norwegian embassy in Damascus was attacked. That is an issue that still rankles amongst Islamist militants the world over. So, that fact that Norwegian newspapers did that makes them a target.”

According to the article by Gharib and Waldron for ThinkProgress (found here: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/23/277310/wapos-jen-rubin-wsj-right-wing-pundits-jumped-to-blame-muslims-and-jihadists-for-norway-attacks/) the second comment was initially in the Wall Street Journal but was promptly re-written when news of the real attacker was discovered.


As everybody is aware now, the terrorist is actually one that no one would have thought –

32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, who is apparently a right-wing extremist and not anti-Western but anti-Muslim.

Since the world has learned of this, there has been little usage of the words “terrorist”, “fundamentalism”, or “extremism”.  Why not? He committed acts of terrorism; he was an extremist, and a fundamentalist.  But no; instead of calling his attacks what they were, we seem to have a special group of people for whom these labels are reserved for – regardless of if they have done anything or not.

The point of this article is to say that violence, extremism, hatred, and fundamentalism come in all forms.  They are not inherently Muslim; the fact that the media immediately jumped to the conclusion that these acts must have been committed by Muslim terrorists is saddening and offensive to the vast majority of Muslims who are against these violent acts. 

The world hates them.  The world likes to pin every fear, every violent act, every problem on them.  After all, it is because of Muslims we are in Iraq or we are in Afghanistan.  It is because of Muslims that there are problems at the Gaza Strip.  It is because of Muslims that airport and border security has to be more strict. 

But the reverse is actually true.  It is because of stereotypes that they are blamed for every problem.  It is because of these viewpoints that innocent people are being killed and their homelands are destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other places.  It is because of these wars that Muslims are treated as less than people.  It is because of these viewpoints that the prevailing viewpoint is that Palestinians are in the wrong, even though they are denied property, and healthcare, and the actions of a few destitute citizens result in disproportionate violent retaliations from Israel and others.  It is because of these widely-held beliefs of Muslims that when they are completely innocent, they are still nervous to cross the boarder or pass through airport security.  It is because of these viewpoints that time and time again, innocent people are held and tortured in Guantanamo Bay.  Muslims are victimized, searched, questioned, humiliated, and hated. It is because of these viewpoints that regular citizens are afraid of their own government.  They are afraid to say they are Muslim.

President Obama was often “accused” of being Muslim, as if being a Muslim, had he been one, was one of the most offensive things you could say to him.  He even venehemently denied it, because he saw it as such as well.

Many places in the United States have opposed mosques being built (with the ever-famous and incorrectly-named “Ground Zero Mosque”) which was clearly a “slap in the face” for Americans since they were “fighting Islam”; I must have been under the incorrect impression that they were fighting extremism – not the very religion.

And in doing  just that, the West is itself guilty of extremism in the name of Islamaophobia.  Muslims can no longer feel free to say and act how they want. They cannot openly express their religious beliefs through manner, speech, or dress, because they will be victimized and frowned upon. Having just a Muslim name or so-called “Muslim features” (“looking” South Asian or Middle Eastern) immediately labels them as extremists.  Simply attending a mosque becomes evidence against an innocent citizen.

The media consistently discusses the race and religion of suspects in “terrorist acts”; meanwhile, I have yet to hear a news anchor discussing the religion or race of a Christian white man who is committing similarly terroristic acts.

It is interesting that with such new ideas that people so quickly forget that there are Muslims who are citizens of our country. They contribute to the economy. They work hard just like anyone else. They pay their taxes. Muslims are signed up in the army. They also work as police officers, fire fighters, and other “patriotic” occupations.  They have families. They raise their children.  They want a good life.  There are Muslim teachers, professors, scholars,…the list goes on. They were affected by events like 9/11 just like “we” were; many Muslims lost their lives in those attacks as well, and in fact had to deal with a repercussion that most of us are not familiar with.  Following the attacks they were victimized and sought out; many were killed by angry citizens forgetting that the people they were targeting were citizens as well.

It seems that Islamaphobia has spiraled out of control so much that nobody thinks to question it.  Islam is simply bad and we do not want “those people” to express their “crazy” or “backwards” or “violent” religion.  We will do anything to keep them under control and hate them for being in “our” country.

But when I watch the news that tells me another school has been blown up in Afghanistan, or another cab driver was killed for being Muslim, or another person is tortured in Guantanamo, given no trial, or disclosure as to why he is a suspect, before being set free and found to be innocent, I ask myself yet again, “Who are the real terrorists?”

-Nancy L.

Sources           

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/22/blast-rips-through-norways-capital-injuries-reported/

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/22/qa-why-norway/

http://alhittin.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/are-the-anti-islamic-bigots-disappointed-that-the-oslo-bombing-is-not-from-an-islamic-organisation/

 

Herman Cain and Mosque Bans

Hi.  My name is Not Raj, which seems to come as a shock to many.  This is my first post on The Needle in the Haystack, and I hope it will show you what is in store from me.  Let the blogging commence:

Herman Cain of Georgia is aspiring to be a possible presidential candidate for the Republicans.

In response to the events taking place in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, wherein a proposed mosque has resulted in protests, legal challenges, and arson, Cain replied, "Yes, [the people of Tennessee] have the right to do that" and even referred to the proposed mosque as  an “infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion" adding it “isn’t an innocent mosque.” 

I thought it could not get any worse, until I read the rest of the article.  Cain went on to claim that "[The American] Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state…[Opponents] objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws," Cain said of the opponents.

First of all, this mosque is supposedly an “infringement” on freedom of religion, but certainly both denying Muslims the right to establish a mosque and claiming, without basis that they are terrorists is not an infringement at all.  Really Cain?  And you want to run this country?

And further, if simply establishing a mosque means that this goes against rules of “separation of church and state” then maybe Christians should not be allowed to have churches in America either.  Or maybe state-instituted Catholic schools should not be established.  But that is just as ridiculous.  

Just like everyday Muslims do not practice Sharia Law, everyday Christians do not go around stoning adulterers or anything else of the like mentioned in the Bible, which arguably has it’s own “set of laws” that would equally “offend” the separation of church and state.

Additionally, just an afterthought, you would think someone like Cain, whose ancestors and people have faced centuries of oppression, hatred, and stereotyping, you would think he might be more sympathetic to other groups now facing similar struggles and issues.

All I can say is let alone a possible presidential candidate, I cannot understand how someone like this is any position of political power at all.

Fuming,

My Name is Not Raj.

This blog post is written in response to the story found here:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-backs-mosque-bans-152052930.html

Women Who Choose to Cover Themselves Are NOT Backwards

My name is Nancy and I am a liberal woman from a conservative place.

I recently saw an old friend post this picture up onto their Facebook, and this is what sparked the idea to write this post – about Muslim women, and then any other women for that matter, who would rather not show off their bodies.

(Obviously I am not talking about people who are actually are forced to hide their bodies beyond their will. I am talking about the women that choose to do so.)

The Western conception that anybody who does not like to wear (sometimes overly-) revealing clothes  (e.g. short skirts, “booty” shorts, halter tops, tank tops, low necklines, crop tops, leggings, etc.) means that they do not like their body, are ashamed of how they look, are ashamed even, to have the female form, is ridiculous. 

We live in the West assuming we are more forward-thinking than every other culture and country yet we still do not really understand the conception of liberty in so many ways. 

Telling women, or even merely judging them when they cover themselves up is backwards.  Why are we trying to enforce “liberty” on others? Does the phrase itself not sound oxymoronic?

While I agree that women’s faces should be shown for photo identification cards (e.g. faces should be showing, hair is not necessary) I do not see why women have to face both outward scrutiny and informal stigma of those surrounding them in society. I thought living in Western countries meant we were FREE to do as we chose as long as we did not harm others (thank you Mill); judging these women and unfairly calling attention to them in settings such as schools, the workplace, and then in broader ways through the media and in society in general is what causes harm to others.

A woman who chooses to dress modestly has as much right to do so as a woman who chooses to show herself; in fact, the former is not ashamed of herself, rather, this is the look she prefers and there is nothing wrong with that. So to simply assume that such women are “backwards”, “confused”, “too traditional”, “ashamed” and importantly, “forced” to do so, is ignorance. Some women prefer to be this way and some women do not. We cannot tell women how to dress and if that involves allowing them to show their bodies without assuming they are “sluts” then it also means allowing them to cover themselves without assuming they are “old fashioned”.

Yours sincerely,
Nancy.