Intermarriage is beautiful when the Muslim partner reciprocates and shares in Hindu culture and ritual. When it runs only one way, it is conversion dressed up as romance. We did however find the above rather droll.
We don’t want to take away from Dr. Datta’s excellent piece on Why Caste Formed In India and how the heck it could have been maintained! – A Structural Model
In a free society, women only date up. If you know, you know.
Don’t be a free society and the love-jihad issue is resolved.
My mother’s cousin married a Muslim woman. They both perform Satyanarayana Puja and my uncle has no problem going to a Mosque.
I think the problem is typically Male Muslim and Non-Muslim female. Given that Islam is rigidly male centric, I can see why this types of marriages are seen as LJ.
As Buddha and Sam Harris have stated it, essentially ignorance is the root cause of all problems.
Islamic law doesn’t allow Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men. In order for a nikaah to be conducted, the man has to convert to Islam.
A Muslim man can only marry a Christian or Jewish woman (a “person of the book”) without the woman converting.
Frankly the phrase “love jihad” is a right-wing Hindu one. It implies that the only reason for a Muslim man to marry a Hindu woman is to convert her to Islam. It denies the very fact that two people from different communities can fall in love. Is Saif Ali Khan’s marriage to Kareena Kapoor “love jihad”? Was the Nawab of Pataudi’s marriage to Sharmila Tagore “love jihad”? Of course, Sharmila Tagore converted to Islam while Kareena Kapoor didn’t.
The notion of “love jihad” also denies any agency to women. Thus it’s inherently misogynistic. Why is it assumed that a Hindu woman cannot marry a Muslim man of her own free will?
This is what the cartoon that XTM has linked seems to be critiquing.
Also, the percentage of Muslim male-Hindu female marriages in India is an empirical one. I’m willing to bet that it’s not very high. Thus “love jihad” as a concept is greatly exaggerated.
Kabir, you always fall to the ragebait. They all know this but you always try to explain patiently.
Mostly, I just wanted to put on record my objection to the term “Love Jihad”. I think it’s only used by right-wing Hindus. I actually think the whole concept is offensive.
Let people marry who they wish.
Kabir, with all due respect. All of this (LJ and your assertions and statements about Islam and other Abrahamic faiths)sounds very childish and immature. I will leave at this. I like you as a fellow pundit and I don’t want to drag this.
I’m just telling you what Islamic law says. There are very good reasons why no nikaah can be conducted with a woman who is not a “person of the book” without the woman converting.
“LJ” is a right-wing and Islamophobic conspiracy theory. You don’t have to agree with me. This is according to Wikipedia.
Anytime anyone says “With all due respect”, it’s a sign that what is coming next is going to be disrespectful.
Don’t condescend to me. You are no one to call me “childish” etc. You are a random person on the internet. I am a published intellectual writing under my own name.
I truly meant all the respect to you. I didn’t mean that you’re being childish but just the beliefs on both the sides are sounding immature.
I dont think that I am a nobody, I have patents and I am published in prestigious journals in the hottest field right now.
I appreciate your clarification. I would advise you to be more careful in the future when using words like “childish” and “immature”. I don’t appreciate being condescended to.
I’m sure you’re very accomplished. What I meant was that as far as I am concerned, you’re a random person. I don’t even know if you’re using your real name here. In contrast, my academic credentials are in the public domain.
Islam is the first religion to give women property rights, inheritance rights, even human rights so I don’t think it’s that male centric.
Western post modern feminism and liberalism is a rejection of cultural norms and is genuinely destructive for society within a few generations, and its stark results are starting to be noticed now in the third generation. I think many of you have abandoned your own religions in favor of adopting western liberalism. This has created a problem for you.
There was no love jihad anxiety before Indians adopted western culture, but there is one now. Why is that? Simply because society has allowed women to choose their partners, de-stigmatized pre-marital dating for women, this is what is going to happen. Women will always choose the foreigner over the familiar when it comes to short term mating strategy, whereas the choice will be more varied for long term mating strategy (marriage). The foriegner signifies danger and danger evokes lust in the female brain, it’s not surprising why vampires and serial killers do well with women. The only counter to that is to impose heavy social costs that they cannot even think about doing that. Muslims still do that (although this has declined as well with modernity) but outside of some NW regions, Indians have abandoned imposing social costs on girls dating and outmarrying.
I think the whole concept of “Love Jihad” is a post Partition phenomenon and that this has been increasingly been used as a cynical ploy as India becomes increasingly majoritarian.
The data will bear out the fact that the vast majority of people marry within their own religion and–in the case of Hindus–within their own caste.
//Women will always choose the foreigner over the familiar when it comes to short term mating strategy, whereas the choice will be more varied for long term mating strategy//
Except the muslims here are neither foreigner, nor are really any more desirable than others no matter what the non-muslim proponents of Love Jihad say.
I forgot to add to my previous comment.
You want to drag other societies down with your own ? In that case it seems more like marrying down and not really up.. 🤔
What? You really think marrying muslims is dating up?
I believe there is something larger to caste that exists beyond mere material conditions, instead their is a complex underlying philosophical side. I am just going to enter a complex diatribe trying to explain a specific philosophical divergence that exists between Shankara and Abhinavagupta. This relates to caste, but it takes some time to explain, and I hope you can bear with me as I try to poorly explain philosophical concepts.
So, Shankara is remembered today as the main figure in the formation of the present-day Advaita. In his philosophical text, the main central idea goes as follows: “The self is a part of Brahman, any difference that one sees between the Self and Brahman is a production of Maya/Illusion”. Shankara basically argues that Maya or Illusion is the main reason why the difference that appears between the self and the absolute; he makes the argument that this illusion is a result of Avidya. Now, Avidya literally means ” not (“a”) knowledge/education “Vidya”, which means a lack of knowledge or the more accurate translation: flawed knowledge. This limitation in information is produced by Maya, and through a complex process of scholastic study of literature (Vedas in his case), one will gain the crucial information to overcome Maya and experience the true unity of reality. Shankara favored a system of Scholasticism, while later figures like Ramanuja introduced devotionalism.
Now, this argument indirectly produces a complex interpretation because Shankara fundamentally argues that the world is a singular entity and that the divergences that we see within our world are a product of our own ignorance, mostly stemming from our lack of knowledge. From his perspective, broader education allows us to understand the commonalities that bind all of us together as part of a singular world. Naturally, this presents the notion that the differences that we see in the world around is an illusion, including broader identities of Caste, religion, gender, etc. These objects do not have value in and of themselves; rather, they simply cease to exist once we are educated. It’s the old argument about how if people become educated and economically better off, most of these complex inequalities and differences will vanish as we all recognize that we are basically the same and have the same human experience. He basically takes this argument to the extreme by saying these Identities will cease to exist with enough education since they meaning and are a product of illusions.
On the opposite side of this argument, you have the father of Kashmiri Shaivism/Trika, Abhinavagupta. In his worldview, the primordial godhead/Brahman-like thing is composed of two distinct entities: Purusha (literally “Man”, representing consciousness) and Prakriti (literally “Nature”, representing material that makes the physical world). Purusha observes Prakriti and reflects upon himself, producing multiple consciousness that form the world. From Abhinavagupta’s perspective, there is no distinction between Dual and Non-dual since such a distinction goes against the rules of Non-dualism, which means both exist at the same time. He goes further to say that the notion of Maya found within Advaita is fundamentally wrong since it was the intention of Godhead (Shiva in this case) to make the pluralistic differences that form our reality.
From Abhinavagupta’s view, the differences of the world are intentions rather than an Illusory product of human ignorance. His view was similar to a mosaic found in a cathedral; every piece of glass has a unique shape that is distinct from other pieces, nonetheless they all come together to produce a singular image of the divine through their distinct structure. Shankara’s view is more like a painting composed of multiple colours all blended in an indistinguishable gradient, one where the colours lose their individual identity to form a new shade and produce a continuous image.
This represents a broader divide in the notion of identity: monistic unity vs. dualistic plurality. Is identity real and has value in and of itself, or is Identity merely a product of human ignorance, i.e., social constructs? Caste is centred around this notion of preserving cultural practices and forms the basis of a given group’s identity. Caste stems at its core from a desire to preserve a specific identity that forms from within the confines of ritual, clan, and belief. The broader fear of its decline stems from being subsumed within the absolute, as Shankara would have it. On the other hand, people reject caste as it is merely a social construct used to cause suffering with no meaning in itself, but does that mean the self and identity are a falsehood, or would some other new entity, like religion, race, etc., take its place? Caste is a broader extension of this broader debate about identity that exists at the base of Indian philosophy and forms within this context.
As a sidenote, Indo-Islamic philosophy is a major part of these discussions, and all the above issues would apply to this tradition. I remember reading a study that stated the Indo-Islamic philosophical tradition puts heavy emphasis on the topic of pluralism as the main point of discussion in an Islamic discussion set within South Asia. In fact, Ibn Arabi (the Andalusian philosopher/theologian) was quite popular in historic South Asia due to his extensive discussion of pluralism in his work. Kinda the reason even the Deobandis, who are critical of Ibn Arabi, don’t outright reject him completely.
yes Sai Baba is a Muslim mystic completely integrated into Hinduism?
I don’t think that Sai Baba was really a Muslim Mystic as much as he was a Hindu mystic who practiced a degree of syncretism that had aspects of Islamic practices. I say this for a very complicated reason, and I am going to go a slight tangent. So I heard about this Marathi Bhakti saint named Ekantha a long time ago, and I specifically remember someone making an argument about how he tried to bridge the gap between Hindus and Muslims. Everyone specifically refers to a Vada or “debate” text by Ekanatha, which was a work that showed a debate between a muslim and a Hindu character about different issues until they hug and recognize we are all the same people at the end of the day.
Of course, that was until I read the upcoming analysis by the academic who did the translation pointed out a very fact: Ekanatha did not talk about actual issues between the two groups, rather the whole point of the “debate” in the text was to show the philosophy of Advaita. Basically, if you (a believer of Advaita, like Ekanatha) believe that difference is a product of illusion, then you would logically argue that other religions (like Islam) are also an illusion. The point of the vada was to show non-dual monism; Ekanatha was trying to explain the existence of Islam and religious differences within an Advaitan framework.
Sai Baba (like Kabir and Prannath) at his base is a Vaishnava trying to integrate Islam into a Vaishnavite Hindu frame. The reverse Islamic version of this was Ras Khan. I believe it might have been Aditya Behl who talked about this in his work. Specifically, he stated that Ras Khan’s “base religion” (if you will) was Islam and that his ode to Krishna in Braj was his attempt at integrating Vaishnavism within an Islamic context using the idea of the Divine beloved. Most people thing thought he converted to Vaishnavism because of these writings, but he never really did. There was also this Vaishnava figure who served in the Awadh state and wrote a set of couplets praising Shiaism (about how he is swimming in the river of Allah’s grace, something like that). You would think he converted to Shiaism. Nope, he remained a Vaishnavite; in fact, he composed poems for Krishna later on. This was just a bit of religious syncretism.
The actual figure, who tried to integrate Hinduism into an Islamic framework, was everyone’s favourite prince: Dara Shikoh, through his translations of the Vedas and his writings in Mahjma Al-Bahrain (Meeting of two Oceans). In fact, he liked Shankara’s works and believed the Vedas to be an earlier revelation of the Quran that Allah sent beforehand. If I were to split all the writers I know into Shankara like position vs Abhinavagupta like positions, it would go as follows. Shankara position similarity: Dara Shikoh, since he was supportive of Ibn Arabi’s position, Nagarjuna (Madhyamaka Mahayana Buddhism), all the Vedanta schools except Madhava’s Dvaita, the Qadri sufi silsila, potentially the Chisti sufi sisila as well, since Ibn Arabi was a major part of both groups’ theology. For Abhinavagupta’s position: Raghunatha Siromani and Gangesa from the Navya Nyaya (new logic school), Purva Mimamsa (Hemeuretic school), figures like Kumarila, Dvaita’s Madhava, the Naqshbandhi sufi silsila with figures like Sirhind that opposed ideas of Ibn Arabi extensively, the Deoband might fall into this position since they were influenced by the Naqshbandhis. Mind you, I am not saying this is some definite position since there is more nuance to these schools and more aspects to them. This is an opinion I made based on my personal readings on South Asian, more specifically Indian philosophy.
Wasn’t Kabir born into a Muslim weaver community? He seems to have believed in a monotheistic god (though he called this god “Ram”).
During my ethnomusicology coursework, I wrote an essay about Kabir oral traditions in the Indian subcontinent
https://kabiraltaf.substack.com/p/kabir-oral-traditions-in-the-indian
Wasn’t Kabir born into a Muslim weaver community?
I don’t think there is any authoritative source that can make that claim – or counter it either. A commonly held or at least propagated idea is that he was found as an orphan by a Muslim weaver who presumably brought him up in the ways of Islam. Wikipedia claims that Persian sources describe him as a Vaishnava Yogi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabir
Yes, I was referring to the fact that he was supposedly brought up by Muslim weavers. Thank you for correcting me that he was not their biological son.
A clue that he was raised Muslim is in his name. Al-Kabeer (The Great One) is one of the 99 Names of Allah.
Incidentally, I’m named after Bhagat Kabir.
Wiki does note that he was a disciple of Swami Ramananda. But he also seems to have been a monotheist (perhaps the Muslim influence).
I have recorded a Kabir bhajan which is on the theme of God being neither in the temple nor in the mosque, neither in the idol nor in pilgrimage. He ends by saying that God is in faith.
My brother published a review of Arvind Krishna Mehrotra’s Songs of Kabir:
https://uddari.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/not-your-fathers-kabir-by-hasan-altaf/
See, Kabir isn’t the heterodox figure you think he is, at least in relation to Hinduism. There is context you are missing here from the pre-12th-century religious situation in South Asia at the time. There were a lot of anti-Caste movements alongside more monotheistic forms of worship that emerged during this time period. Even Rammanuja was talking about how Bhakti was important to the extent that it transcends caste divisions, even though he fell within an orthodox tradition.
Also, you have the massively heterodox groups like the Veersaiva/Lingayat movement, which opposed idol worship extremely and absolute monotheism. They were heterodox enough that figure Somanantha Pulkariki in his Basava Purana straight up called for the killing of brahmins and persecution of rich Jains. They once carved a Jain idol into a Shaiva linga to prove their radical devotionalism, and they are singlehandedly the reason why groups like the Reddys, for example, were able to rise above their original caste/varna positions. The main reason for this behaviour had to do with the fact that they were significantly influenced by Kalamukha and Tamil Shaiva Siddhanta, both of which were more heterodox in worldview and veered away from Brahmanical practices.
Keeping all of that in mind, Kabir doesn’t seem to be moving away from Hindu religious orthodoxy, which is another thing to talk about. Historically, the most orthodox group in Hinduism was the school of Hemeuretics; Mimamsa, and (from my readings) the most heterodox group is the Kaula sect. Mimamsa gradually split into two schools: Purva and Uttara Mimamsa, of which the Uttara morphed into Vedanta after being influenced by schools like Vyakarna (school of linguistics/speech). The Purva Mimamsa declined in most places, except Kerala (albeit with a few changes). Vedanta gradually went on to become the more conventional “orthodox” branch of Hinduism. Hindu Orthodox gradually shifted from Vedic ritualism into practices of aesthetic monasticism, Vegetarianism, and alcohol avoidance, as well as general rejection of non-reproduction-related sexual activity (also they don’t like abortion) and a few other things.
Heterodoxy in this context was defined by matrimony, householder life, meat consumption, alcohol consumption, reverence for menstrual blood (in opposition to orthodox beliefs), sexual activity without the procreation or pleasure aspects, and a few other things. The orthodox position initially held onto many positions that actively promoted Varna/caste differences, but that changed with time as theology development and competition from the more open heterodox groups. The Kaula exemplify heterodox practices quite well since meat alongside alcohol was a part of their religious rituals; they tended to oppose all normative practices, including caste and gender beliefs. They often have a parallel religious path (i.e., Agama/Tantra) that existed alongside the Vedic stream as a distinct entity until it was gradually subsumed within the orthodox structure.
Another thing was the emergence of a new religious community structure: the merchantile religious communities. Basically, the period near the 12th century gradually saw the weakening of the state and the shift of religious authority from the hands of the Brahmanical groups into the hands of the Merchantile groups. Many of the devotional movements centred around artisans and craftsmen, like Smonatha (writer of the Basava Purana), who was a goldsmith, and Kabir was a weaver. Many Vaishnavite groups (especially in the North) were part of complex trader communities, and this led to a greater break in traditional caste practices as the priestly class needed the support of non-Brahmanical groups to ensure their movement’s survival, especially post 12th century.
Based on all this information, Kabir fits somewhat perfectly into the Hindu Vaishnavite category. A lot of these sayings are reminiscent of orthodox Vaishnavite beliefs, especially one steeped in orthodox Advaitan theological framework. He kinda represented a norm in religious practices, at least within the Hindu orthodox frame, and his specific points about caste or monotheism were kinda becoming the norm in that time period. Even during his time, other communities took these arguments to an even more heterodox extreme than Kabir ever actually did in his life.
The point is that–unlike his contemporaries like Surdas and Meera– Kabir cannot be placed squarely in the Hindu fold. Meera’s bhajans are clearly addressed to Krishna. Meanwhile, Kabir’s “Ram” is a monotheistic god, not the Ram of the Ramayana.
He rejected the rituals of both Hinduism and Islam. I mentioned the bhajan I sing “Mo ko kahan dhunday banday”. He clearly says God is not found in pilgrimage or in idol worship. God is not found in yoga or in fasting. God is in faith (vishwaas).
What is unique about Kabir is that he is palatable to Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. Someone like Meerabai–with all due respect to her– is not palatable to Muslims since she was clearly engaged in idol worship.
For what it’s worth, I sing Meera bhajans as well.
Yeah, but I don’t really think that makes Kabir any more or less palatable here. I mean, Muslims in the Deccan have a close relationship with the Lingayat community to this day. I mean, both communities engage in complex social rituals at the mausoleum of a Bahman sultan. You see the same thing with Al Hallaj and Satyanarayana’s business in Bengal. All of the people involved in this thing have not moved beyond the constraints of the religious fold; often, they remain within the orthodox fold.
Also, what do we define as Idol worship since people seem to use this term vaguely in every discussion here? Do you mean that people believe that Idols are actual deities, or that idols being used as religious icons make them idol worshippers? What exactly definition here for this term?
Kabir is different from Meera (for example) in that his poetry is sung by Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. In Pakistan, famous qawwals sing Kabir. They wouldn’t sing Meera. I have discussed all this in detail in my essay that I linked above.
On idol worship: For most Muslims, idols being used as religious icons (whether or not someone believes that they are actual deities) is idol worship. Muslims have an incredibly strong aversion to praying before images.
Meera believed in a sagun deity. She clearly thought Krishna was God. Kabir believed in a nirgun deity. That’s what makes him acceptable to Muslims while Meera is not.
Okay, there are a few points here. Firstly, you do understand that specifically defintion of idol worship, then every religion except Judaism would be incompatible with Islam since Icons are a major part of every world religion at this point.
Secondly, Nirgun or Parabrahmam, as it is normally called in texts, and Saguna Brahman (usually Ishvara) have a unique meaning. A major thing to note in Hindu cosmology would be the fact that time is not linear, as it would be within Islam, Christianity, and Judaism; it is circular. In this cosmology, reality (i.e., parabrahmam) is eternal without a beginning or end. Ishvara or Sagun Brahman arises from this eternal reality to become the all-powerful from which the entire material world is created. This material world goes through cycles, decays, and is reabsorbed into the Ishvara, who makes the world all over again and restarts the cycle.
Now, Allah as a concept would not make sense from this perspective. Allah has to attributes and epithets that just work with the concept of parabrahman, also Allah intervenes in the world in a manner that parabrahman does not. I would argue that Allah works more with the concept of Saguna brahman/Ishvara since it makes the world, intervenes extensively, but Saguna Brahman has a fixed form that doesn’t align with the Islamic theological structure. Another point here would be the fact that there is a clear beginning in Islamic cosmology, like Allah made the world, and there was nothing before it.
This differs from the Hindu view of things, that reality/world is eternal without beginning or end. Also, parabrahman, specifically within the context of non-duality, i.e., the world itself is within brahman, which is worshipping it directly, was difficult to begin with, since how would one worship the literal actual world around? The distinction between creator and created is blurred in this system, which wouldn’t be acceptable in the Abrahamic framework with its clear dualistic distinction between creator and created. The goal with the Hindu system (according to Advaita) is union with God rather than co-existence with god in the afterlife. Trying to equate Allah with Nirgun Brahman kinda makes it seem deeply confusing since you would be trying to mesh two different (even opposing) religious cosmologies together with very clear underlying differences.
I think at this point we are talking past each other so I’m not sure how productive this discussion is.
It’s a scholarly consensus that Kabir rejected aspects of both Hinduism and Islam. He cannot be so clearly co-opted into Hinduism as Meera and Surdas are. It’s also likely that he was at least raised Muslim.
Another important point to note is that Kabir’s poetry specifically appeals to Dalits–precisely because they were not allowed into temples.
Professor Linda Hess has written about this:
For my own part, I can comfortably sing Kabir and Nanak because there is nothing inherently anti-Islamic in their depictions of God. Both of them are clearly monotheistic. While I do sing Meera bhajans, Meera was unequivocally Hindu. She refers to God as “giridhar”, “Shyam” etc. There is no getting around that.
I am failing to understand your objections. If Kabir’s use of Ram as a stand-in for God is acceptable, why is Meera’s use of another name for what is essentially the same concept and from the vocabulary of the same traditions (Vaishnava) problematic?
I have nothing against Meera personally. I keep saying that my Ustad (who was a Bengali Muslim btw) taught me quite a few Meera bhajans.
But we can’t pretend that there isn’t a difference between Meera and Kabir. Meera was unequivocally Hindu. Her poetry was written to Krishna.
Kabir criticized the rituals of both Hinduism and Islam. He was as much against the Brahmin as he was against the Sheikh. He was clearly monotheistic.
In the Pakistani context, Kabir and Nanak play much better than Meera since there is no explicit mention of Hindu gods.
Here’s a Meera bhajan I recorded:
https://open.spotify.com/track/1HiM55YgqA2RklfApgOMpL
Yeah, I don’t think this discussion is productive and might be a waste of time. I just going to end it here.
For my own part, I can comfortably sing Kabir and Nanak because there is nothing inherently anti-Islamic in their depictions of God. Both of them are clearly monotheistic.
I think this is a mischaracterization. Both Sikhism and Kabir’s Vaishnava (at least inspired) teachings are not monotheistic, they are monist. From outside the Hindu/Dharmic fold they may appear the same but they are very different. And because they are monist, by your logic, they should also be inherently anti-Islamic. I think you and most Muslims find Kabir more palatable because of his origin story and a lack of reverence for “idols” but neither Kabir nor Nanak’s teachings are kosher with Islam because they are philosophically very different.
Wikipedia refers to Sikhism as monotheistic.
I am just telling you my lived experience. Kabir and Nanak’s poetry plays well in Pakistan since it doesn’t explicitly mention Hindu gods.
Meera’s bhajans are far more problematic because they directly mention Krishna.
Apparently Sai Baba was a Brahmin orphan brought up by a Muslim like Kabir lol
I don’t think there is any actual evidence that Kabir was a Brahmin–though this is certainly a popular theory.
Some of his followers believe that he assumed the body of light and incarnated on a lotus flower.
I think the most plausible historical theory is that he was an orphan raised as a Muslim.
Like Sai Baba?
Kabir is a precursor to Guru Nanak if we are not mistaken.
Kabir was most probably an orphan. I don’t think it can be said with certainty that he was Brahmin.
His poetry is included in the Adi Granth. Apparently, it forms the largest non-Sikh contribution.
On Kabir and Guru Nanak, Wiki notes:
How was his birth parentage figured out?
Thank you Fly Die for your engagement with the piece and to XTM for the kind and generous acknowledgement. You make interesting points about the role of clan and ritual in the formation of endogamous systems within India. I do hope you stay tuned to the future parts I have planned for publishing and you can provide your ideas there for integration in our ongoing discussion.
On a lighter note:
“Pakistanis have a lot to say about Sanam Saeed at Cannes being called ‘South Asian Representation'”
https://images.dawn.com/news/1195308/pakistanis-have-a-lot-to-say-about-sanam-saeed-at-cannes-being-called-south-asian-representation
While she obviously is South Asian, I think the pattern being called out is that when there is something positive about Pakistan, Indians rush to claim it and when there’s something negative about Pakistan, they go out of their way to distinguish between the two countries.
Pakistanis, like Iranians, are isolated from global capital currents and therefore are culturally prolific.
🙂
Both cultures are so symbiotic and so twinned (out of the same Lahore-Hindustani high cultural matrix) that they are constantly appropriating from one another..
I’d say India is more represented by the Mumbai-Dravida Nadu cultural matrix.
The point is that Sanam Saeed is a clearly a Pakistani actress walking the ramp for a Pakistani designer.
The same Indians who usually want to disassociate themselves from Pakistan rush to claim her as “South Asian”. This is frankly hypocritical.
She later went on Insta and made it clear that she was representing Pakistan.
I mean just a couple of days ago we had visuals of aarti and diyas at some elite Punjabi Pakistani wedding being appropriated as South Asian rather than what they actually are.
Intriguing, I missed that. Link please?
Bollywoodiyas are so not classy anyway. Trying so hard to be something they’re not, rather than being comfortable in their own skin.
https://x.com/sabizak/status/2053906599882760558
There is a literally an entire Twitter thread about it.
I don’t particularly care either way. But it is hypocritical of Indians–who otherwise want to distance themselves from Pakistan– to claim our actress who is wearing our designer.
“Never heard of her”– You’re just exposing your own ignorance. Sanam Saeed starred with Fawad Khan in Zindagi Gulzar Hai— a drama which aired on ZEE in India and was incredibly popular there.
The point is that just because you don’t care about something it doesn’t mean that others don’t.
I wouldn’t have known about this whole controversy if I hadn’t seen the article in DAWN. I don’t follow social media.
You can keep acting like you don’t know who Sanam Saeed is (maybe you really don’t). But she is a very famous actress. She and Fawad Khan were also in Barzakh which was made for an Indian streaming channel.
The point remains that it is hypocritical for Indians to claim a Pakistani actress wearing a Pakistani designer as “South Asian”. But hypocrisy is only to be expected from Indians.
Look in a mirror for once.
You are a hateful piece of work.
I’m going back to ignoring you. You are so far below my intellectual level that it’s not even worth my time to engage with you.
Obviously I live rent-free in your head. You have the ability to write your own posts but you aren’t even capable of that. Much easier to just whine in the comment section.
“I choose to contribute posts when I actually have something meaningful to share”– Haha! We all remember the video clip you shared of a Baloch politician calling for secession. What purpose did that serve except to trigger Pakistanis?
You really need to stop whining (or your favorite word “whinging”) about my banning you from my threads. You are an “author”. Create your own threads. I will never allow anti-Pakistan commentary on my threads. This is a clear red line.
yeah. Naah.
Pakistan is a fabricated acronym at the end of the day. Its ‘culture’ is hindustani. It is what it is.
And now we’re back to de-legitimizing Pakistan!
Pakistan is a reality– and a nuclear-armed one at that. There’s nothing you can do about it.
Admin Note: Kabir stop being abusive
@XTM:
Do you not see the blatant provocations on RNJ’s part?
“Pakistan is a fabricated acronym”– This is classic de-legitimization of Pakistan. There was no need for this comment except to trigger Pakistanis.
If someone is disrespectful to me I reserve the right to be disrespectful right back.
You should either tell RNJ to desist from interacting with me or get him to moderate his tone.
It doesn’t matter – doesn’t give you the right to abuse him
And he has the right to constantly be passive aggressive towards me?
We’ve established that that is bullying.
He has to watch his tone with me or be prepared to have what he dishes out be dished back to him. I will not tolerate bullying.
you know the protocol; you can complain and we will review it.
don’t engage in personal abuse
I don’t have the time or energy to “complain” about every instance of passive aggression.
We have a precedent post that passive aggression is bullying.
At this point, he should be told that he cannot reply to me. That is the only solution to this impasse.
I do not want to deal with someone who is not only anti-Pakistan but personally nasty and argumentative towards me.
The ‘K’ of that acronym 🤭.
Rotherham Grooming Gangs were Indian bro!
Look, I do empathize a bit with the Pakistani sentiment on this specific aspect. It has to be grating and difficult to swallow to be the fringe of a cultural King Kong that is Bharat.
This is not just a Pakistani problem, its a Nepali, Lankan – subcontinent wide problem. Must rankle quite a bit when their very identity is just….lost in the shuffle of global perception. As it is, the…choices and mental gymnastics that Pakistanis make in terms of …identity are already schizophrenic.
You gotta be little considerate with the flailing about.
Osama ….bin hidin next to South Asian military base bro!
As Bilawal Baloch famously said at the UN: “Osama Bin Laden is dead but the butcher of Gujarat lives and is the Prime Minister of India”.
Bilawal Bhutto.
But yes, a country where the “butcher of Gujarat” is the PM (elected three times) really has no right to criticize Pakistan on anything.
Lol by that metric every single leader (both civilian and military) of Pakistan is a butcher.
No wonder they got Dracula himself to play “Quaid-e-Azam” in the movie. Truly a bloodsucker.
Which elected leader of Pakistan has presided over a pogrom of minorities?
Do let us know.
On “Love Jihad”, the Wiki article is actually quite interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_jihad_conspiracy_theory
Glad to see Hindu Muslim animosity going strong.
Will make India more “unites”
Interesting choice of map, @XTM
So much for a pro-India bias here lol
this is not a national map btw; it’s apparently majority religious distribution circa 1909
It’s clearly not a national map. It explicitly says “British Indian Empire 1909”.
Wow, not only did India get all of the non-green areas but a decent chunk of the green areas as well. 😎
Not sure if anyone posted about this but yesterday was Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullivaikkal_Remembrance_Day
Today is Tamil Genocide remembrance day. Any members here from Sinhala or Tamil diaspora?
Yes good point we should make a post on that
The civil war ended on May 18th after 30 years.
In Sri Lanka the day is commemorated as the End of the war
The LTTE and Prabakaran were eliminated
I am both Sinhalese and Tami
Look who is preaching. The hypocrite who bombed Libya back to the Stone Age. Then also killed millions in Iraq
May 13, 2009. Seventeen years ago.
As Barack Obama addressed the world for first time on the carnage, the Sri Lankan state was bombing a makeshift hospital. For the second time in just 24 hours.
Hospitals and No Fire Zones had already been struck repeatedly. The bombing did not stop. Thousands more would be killed in the days that followed.
The US still did not intervene. The genocide continued
https://web.facebook.com/reel/1686477549206601
Mass shooting at San Diego mosque, 3 Muslims killed including heroic security guard who helped avert a larger bloodbath. The perps are 2 young white (?) men influenced by far right racial ideologies
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-police-responding-to-reports-of-an-active-shooter-at-the-islamic-center-of-san-diego/4025204/
ICSD is the biggest masjid in the San Diego area.
Shocking
Btw you can get authorship and post open threads
Sure, I’m not sure what the process is but I’m open to it.
check your email
I don’t see any correspondence.
Check ur email .. it would be an auto login otherwise email in to the BP email address
Didn’t get anything and the BP email returns a “account doesn’t exist” error.
brownpundits19@gmail.com
?
Okay, I had emailed the other one listed under the email tab (brown_pundits@gmail.com)