Keeping Babari alive

[rcscwc]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

That is the title of an article in Hindustan Times, Delhi, 20 Sept 2010.

I emailed Sh/Thiru [got it right?] Vinod Sharma, [email protected] .

I do not expect any reply. But if I do get it, I shall post the same too. Meantimes, the learned ones may please give the opinions. I promise to email all of them, but members may directly contact vinodsharma. Members may kindly try to answer the questions. Please do raise additional questions if they have any.

***

Sir,
I am a Sharma, but unlike Dixit and you, I am not apologetic. I am not going to explain anything to Pakistanis. Why do you try it? Will they accept your rxplanations?

Now Ram Mandir. The case was brought to court in 1885. In 1886 judgement, the court agreed that the masjid was built after demolishing the mandir, but was unable to give relief to Hindus. Keep this fact in mind and never repeat that the issue is only 60 years old. In fact, British had Regulation dating back to 1772, in which if a complainant was a Hindu and defendent a muslim, then the case would be decided by SHARIAT. Had Hindus any chance of judicial relief?

Who is keeping it alive? SECULAR BRIGADE. A few questions, since you are a SECULARIST:

1. Can a masjid be rebuilt?

2. Can a Ram mandir be built?

3. Who has given a categorical assurance to muslims that the Masjid SHALL BE REBUILT? Any names? Any party? Mulayam, Laloo, CPI, CPM, Agnivesh? Who? NONE.

4. Who has given a categorical promise of a Mandir? Sangh Parivar, BJP.
Sangh is at least honest about its stand, and everyone knows it. What is the stand of secular brigade? Are they courageous enough tp promise a masjid?

You can obstruct the mandir till you have an Islamic Republc of India, but till then you cannot build a masjid there. Do the muslims want a masjid? Oh, yes. Do they think it would be rebuilt? NO. So the Hindu not want a mandir? Yes, if you are in a fool's paradise. Any surveys? NO. Majority Hindus are satified with make shift temple, but all have a faith in Ram Lalla Mandir of Ayodhya.

It is foolish to ask if Ram was actually born, or born in Ayodhya what to talk of the exact spot. Will the secular brigade demand that haj subsidy be cancelled till muslims prove that Kaba is actually the house of their god? Can they prove it? Will anyone even dare to ask? NO. After all, fatwas can be SO REAL!!

A scenerio, realistic too. Suppose 50,000 muslims converge in Ayodhya at mandir site and forcibly offer namaz. Who shall stop the, Sharmaji? Will you go and reason with them? Will babri masjid committe or our PM [of muslims have the first claim] do it?  AND it can happen and most likely going to happen.

The question is of faith, Sharmaji, not of secularism, which anyway should be a two way street.

*Shantih

 

[R. Ramanujan]

Well give that piece of land to Mayawati and let her built a statue of her own sitting on a big elephant. ha ha.

 

[sangom]

Shri rcscwc,

Your stand on the Babri Masjid (BM) issue is not clear to me atleast from your post. Even then I give mine.

The BJP or RSS, whoever, demolished the old mosque lacked political wisdom. It did not know the lay of the land and was perhaps desperate to come to power somehow. But they could rule for one full term only after two slips from 1999. This more than ten-year period should have had given them enough time to introspect and bring about an ameliorative policy so that the BM problem did not fester, but it was not done. So now, it is for the court to give a pronouncement and all of us will have to abide by it. That would be in the best interests of the nation.

 

[rcscwc]

It is not for BJP or RSS to introspect. It is for you or me to do it. BJP stand is crystal clear. It has not changed over the decades, not an iota.

Question is about the realties. It is about real politics, not arm chair pontifications like yours.

If it is a festering issue, then it came up back in 1949, when the idols were installed. It was not done by RSS, then accused of Gandhi's murder, Jan Sangh was not even born.

The questions are irrespective of if you are a hindu, muslim, brahmin etc. they are independent of your political thinking. It is for every one to search for the answers, not Vinod Sharma alone. Although I know VN has no answers.

To what extent can courts pronounce on matters of faith? Did everyone abide by the SC verdict on Shah Bano case even though it was pro women? Was it not nullified by an act of parliament?

Finally, what is national interest? Please don't be vague. No meaningless cliches please.

 

[Brahmanyan]

It was Emporer Babur's General Mir Baqui who built the Mosque in 1528, on the site where Lord Rama's Temple was situated. Before the 1940s, the mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan ("mosque of the birthplace") acknowledging the site as the birthplace of the Lord Rama. Hindus placed an idol of Lord Rama in that place in 1949, immediately after this incident Mosque premises was closed. Though on a petition of one Hari Shanker Dubey, a judge directed the masjid gates be unlocked to allow darshan in 1986, it was history that the Congress government under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi that unwittingly opened the Pandora's box by unlocking of the Masjid gates in 1986, and Rajiv Gandhi started his 1989 election campaign from Ayodhya with the promise of Ram Rajya. After this the issue fell into the hands of Politicians.

Many legal battles have been fought by Hindus and Muslims since 1885. But no concrete solution was found. The present suit was to decide the ownership of a parcel of 90ftX110ft land in Ayodhya, on which stood the Babri mosque. Since the issue is based on one's faith, It is almost certain that the losing side will go on appeal to Supreme Court. The legal battle will continue for years to come.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[sangom]

It is not for BJP or RSS to introspect. It is for you or me to do it. BJP stand is crystal clear. It has not changed over the decades, not an iota.

Question is about the realties. It is about real politics, not arm chair pontifications like yours.

If it is a festering issue, then it came up back in 1949, when the idols were installed. It was not done by RSS, then accused of Gandhi's murder, Jan Sangh was not even born.

The questions are irrespective of if you are a hindu, muslim, brahmin etc. they are independent of your political thinking. It is for every one to search for the answers, not Vinod Sharma alone. Although I know VN has no answers.

To what extent can courts pronounce on matters of faith? Did everyone abide by the SC verdict on Shah Bano case even though it was pro women? Was it not nullified by an act of parliament?

Finally, what is national interest? Please don't be vague. No meaningless cliches please.

Shri rcscwc,

Your reaction which is sliding to personal insinuations like "not arm chair pontifications like yours", "meaningless cliches" etc., are not in good taste. Pl. learn to counter opinions, not accuse, deride or pass snide remarks against others.

I find that your remarks revealing intolerance, arise probably because you have already lost hope of a court verdict favourable to your views, even before it has come out, thus revealing the weakness of the side you claim to represent. I, for one, still have hope of getting an impartial verdict. That is all the difference between you and me. Anyway, I suppose you will not rest being a mere "arm-chair pontiff" (as you accuse me of being one) and go out into the open and act. My best wishes to you.

 

[suresoo]

I think September 24th (The Judgment day) will be a significant day in Indian history (sort of).

The losing side will surely approach the higher court to drag the case.

The suit will decide the following: 1) whether there was a temple at the disputed site, prior to 1538.
2) whether the suit filed by the Babri committee in 1961 is barred by limitation.
3) whether Muslims perfected their title through adverse possession.

w.r.t to case 1, the HC asked ASI in 2003 to study the site and submit a report on the existence of a Hindu temple.
The ASI has submitted the report and it looks like their study had shown existence of additional Pillars underneath. These pillars are in no way associated to the Building of the Mosque. The mosque itself stands on few such pillars.
Did the pillars support a temple?
Is there a conclusive evidence?
We have to wait to know if what the ASI team decided.

A similar ASI study in 1975 came to the conclusion that a temple existed before. But in a politically charged atm can ASI make a bold judgment one way or another?



The congress government seems confused on how to handle the fallout of the verdict.
Quite an interesting situation!!

 

[ashtavakra]

We are a funny country.
Historical and Engineering problems being decided by court-appointed or govt-appointed committees.
Instead, it is the aggrieved parties for any issue who should sit first together and identify the experts historian / engineers, respectable citizens of the country. Only such people know and will make others learn how to conduct a dialogue without fraying tempers. They sit with "records" not just hearsay of the present generation.

Only if the dispute persists should law makers, law interpreters and law dispensers should get in.

(Like Ayodhya between 2 followers of religions (that is what the politicians say; there is a safety of a dam issue between 2 states iss being looked at by a single retired engineer +others)

 

[sangom]

We are a funny country.

Shri Ashtavakara,

IMO, we are a peculiar country!

Historical and Engineering problems being decided by court-appointed or govt-appointed committees.
Instead, it is the aggrieved parties for any issue who should sit first together and identify the experts historian / engineers, respectable citizens of the country. Only such people know and will make others learn how to conduct a dialogue without fraying tempers. They sit with "records" not just hearsay of the present generation.

Only if the dispute persists should law makers, law interpreters and law dispensers should get in.

In the case of Ayodhya, it is more a question of the prestige of two religious groups and not basically a dispute of the type you project. For the Hindus it is the undisputed birth place of Rama and the temple on it should be rebuilt exactly on the same spot; they will not countenance the question as to how the Hindus managed, without any problem, from the day Babar destroyed the temple and built the mosque (masjid). For the Muslims it is an open attack, insult and provocation which was done by destroying the masjid. Hence it is an issue powered more by religious sentiments. than territorial or border dispute, on either side.

(Like Ayodhya between 2 followers of religions (that is what the politicians say; there is a safety of a dam issue between 2 states iss being looked at by a single retired engineer +others)

We are a funny country.

In the case of the dam, luckily religion does not play a part.

 

[aramakrishnan1]

An interesting view point of the Babri Masjid demolition is presented in the link below :

Babri Masjid demolition ? Symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity ? Agniveer

Babri Masjid demolition – Symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity

I do not view the Ram Mandir issue as wholly religious issue. Lord Rama is the icon of Dharma in Bharatvarsha and Babar represents an Invader belonging to another country. Looking from my national perspective, I do not feel proud to keep a structure built by the invader Babar and I would prefer to erase it to bring a temple adoring the icon Lord Rama.
Babar is just equivalent to Robert Clive and General Dyer and I am sure we won't need to keep the remaining memories of these invaders after attaining independence.

 

[v.lalithakumar]

NAMASKARS.it is quiet interesting.either of the two would certainly be going to knock the doors of supreme court or probably both.ones again it may drag on.as long as secularism( not in the true sense)is our tharaka manthram of our country(that of our governing missionary)we can rest assure that the solution is far from our sight( like these problems).tending to solution may be the motto but never to be reached is the requirement of pandits the so called leaders.namaskars.v.lalithakumar

 

[rcscwc]

An interesting view point of the Babri Masjid demolition is presented in the link below :

Babri Masjid demolition ? Symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity ? Agniveer

Babri Masjid demolition – Symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity

I do not view the Ram Mandir issue as wholly religious issue. Lord Rama is the icon of Dharma in Bharatvarsha and Babar represents an Invader belonging to another country. Looking from my national perspective, I do not feel proud to keep a structure built by the invader Babar and I would prefer to erase it to bring a temple adoring the icon Lord Rama.
Babar is just equivalent to Robert Clive and General Dyer and I am sure we won't need to keep the remaining memories of these invaders after attaining independence.

Hindu Muslim unity is a myth created and propaged by the pseoudo secularists. Bluntly, there is no suvh unity. Unity in what respect? The heroes of Hindus like Rana Pratap and Shivaji are muslim's villains. Hindus villains like Ghoi, babaur, Aurangzeb etc are their heroes. Remember, in 1946 elections, every muslim candidate of congress was defeated, including Maulana Azad. Muslims dress differently. A Begali muslim says pani, never jal.

 

[Nara]

Hindu Muslim unity is a myth created and propaged by the pseoudo secularists.

Is there any other kind of secularists, they all are "pseudo" isn't? Muslims dress differently, so must be hated, nice! You know something, in the south, the Brahmins dress differently, using your logic, we can go on hating Brahmins. Even EVR did bnot hate Brahmins -- I know, not many will agree with me on this, but he only hated Brahminism. Even otherwise, hating Muslims because they dress differently is even worse than the caricature of EVR that Brahmnists like to conjure up.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

Hindu Muslim unity is a myth created and propaged by the pseoudo secularists. Bluntly, there is no suvh unity. Unity in what respect? The heroes of Hindus like Rana Pratap and Shivaji are muslim's villains. Hindus villains like Ghoi, babaur, Aurangzeb etc are their heroes. Remember, in 1946 elections, every muslim candidate of congress was defeated, including Maulana Azad. Muslims dress differently. A Begali muslim says pani, never jal.

I wonder maybe the people who glorified blood-shed in puranas, bible, quran were mentally sick or what (???)..Wonder what makes ppl fight over wasteful social identities..

It is easy to say the things you have. The world can certainly do without heros and heroism, of the kind you have mentioned.. There are many enemies ppl can fight against - germs, diseases, corruption, etc..

As for humans, hope we can first see an other person as a human, with trust, instead of anything else..

 

[rcscwc]

I wonder maybe the people who glorified blood-shed in puranas, bible, quran were mentally sick or what (???)..Wonder what makes ppl fight over wasteful social identities..

It is easy to say the things you have. The world can certainly do without heros and heroism, of the kind you have mentioned.. There are many enemies ppl can fight against - germs, diseases, corruption, etc..

As for humans, hope we can first see an other person as a human, with trust, instead of anything else..

Pious words apart, we live in a real world. Heroes are there, so are villains.

Btw, which puranas has glorified violence? They are chrinicles and presented as it is.

A valiant hero once attacked his enemies, and conqured them. Then he ordered the slaughter of all males, even little children, and all females who were not virgins. He was left with 32,000 virgins.

Qs.
Which purana has this account?
Who is the hero?
What was done to the 32,000 virgins.

Come on, tell us.

 

[happyhindu]

Pious words apart, we live in a real world. Heroes are there, so are villains.

That's pretty individualistic. A hero to one may not be a hero to another even if is within hinduism. Ravan is not a villan to some folks who worship him in Madhya Pradesh.

Btw, which puranas has glorified violence? They are chrinicles and presented as it is.

Sure they are chronicles (of sorts). Perhaps you do not feel anything when reading graphic descriptions. But each one's thinking is not the same. But yes, in comparison to quran and bible (which are far too worse when it comes to violence factor), the puranas sound simpler.

A valiant hero once attacked his enemies, and conqured them. Then he ordered the slaughter of all males, even little children, and all females who were not virgins. He was left with 32,000 virgins.

Qs.
Which purana has this account?
Who is the hero?
What was done to the 32,000 virgins.

Come on, tell us.

Sorry RCSCWC, this is not some sort of a quiz show. Dunno, but i suppose you wish to bring Moses into the pic. To me, all these characters that go around doing all sorts of nonsense are nothing 'holy'.

 

[sangom]

That's pretty individualistic. A hero to one may not be a hero to another even if is within hinduism. Ravan is not a villan to some folks who worship him in Madhya Pradesh.

Sure they are chronicles (of sorts). Perhaps you do not feel anything when reading graphic descriptions. But each one's thinking is not the same. But yes, in comparison to quran and bible (which are far too worse when it comes to violence factor), the puranas sound simpler.

Sorry RCSCWC, this is not some sort of a quiz show. Dunno, but i suppose you wish to bring Moses into the pic. To me, all these characters that go around doing all sorts of nonsense are nothing 'holy'.

HH,

A very apt response, I would say. I was also wondering why the Moses' account is being called "purana"; it is misleading.

 

[rcscwc]

That's pretty individualistic. A hero to one may not be a hero to another even if is within hinduism. Ravan is not a villan to some folks who worship him in Madhya Pradesh.

Sure they are chronicles (of sorts). Perhaps you do not feel anything when reading graphic descriptions. But each one's thinking is not the same. But yes, in comparison to quran and bible (which are far too worse when it comes to violence factor), the puranas sound simpler.

Sorry RCSCWC, this is not some sort of a quiz show. Dunno, but i suppose you wish to bring Moses into the pic. To me, all these characters that go around doing all sorts of nonsense are nothing 'holy'.

Ravan'a valiance and fighting skills are not insulted too. It was a war, and Ravana did not shy away, whatever he was.

Do you know, on Dussehra morning we worship Ravana for his scholarship? His Shiv Stotra is sung even today and is a beatiful poetry too. You can even find Ravana Niti too.

And no purana extolls pure violence.

 

[rcscwc]

That's pretty individualistic. A hero to one may not be a hero to another even if is within hinduism. Ravan is not a villan to some folks who worship him in Madhya Pradesh.

Sure they are chronicles (of sorts). Perhaps you do not feel anything when reading graphic descriptions. But each one's thinking is not the same. But yes, in comparison to quran and bible (which are far too worse when it comes to violence factor), the puranas sound simpler.

Sorry RCSCWC, this is not some sort of a quiz show. Dunno, but i suppose you wish to bring Moses into the pic. To me, all these characters that go around doing all sorts of nonsense are nothing 'holy'.

Sorry, happyhindu. You brought in puranas, bible and koran.

Don't try to be politically correct and lump all of them together.

 

[hoover]

One important fact unnoticed,
the BM was not so imporant mosque like AL aksa or kaba or like jama masjid. It was an mosque like millions of other, for Muslim.
On the other hand for Hindus it is the most important place of their most important god. it is my observation that muslims do not take a single step back. whether it is ground zero mosque or BM. they alway say how they are right. there are 40 proclaimed islamic coutries. but secularist always bash Israel which is only Jewish state of the minority Jewish community. an analogy to brahmin bashing.
In addition i want to add that though these are the realities Brahmin should not speak loudly for it. Brahmin should improve relations with muslim. shouldnt become target of the muslim world which is now 1/3 of the worlds population. It is not affordable and good for us. I repeatedly mention that only Brhamin did not have taken contract of patriotism, social service and dharma. our mad zeal of these things is an important cause of our conditions. we have lost so much and so many men for this unnecessarily. we will have to be pragmatic, cautious and practical in these things.
there are nb groups working to insite muslim aginst particularly brhamin we should not let them succeed. nb now are more nbs and less hindus. I bet that nearly 20%of them will choose reservation if they are given only choice among reservations and dharma. though up to some extent muslim also respect brahmin because of righteousness of ours. i.e. Neki. one of most important dictate of their religion. some even said to me that in reality brahmin are the real Allah ke bande. people walking path of righteousness.
we must improve relations with muslim.

 

[sangom]

One important fact unnoticed,
the BM was not so imporant mosque like AL aksa or kaba or like jama masjid. It was an mosque like millions of other, for Muslim.
On the other hand for Hindus it is the most important place of their most important god. it is my observation that muslims do not take a single step back. whether it is ground zero mosque or BM. they alway say how they are right. there are 40 proclaimed islamic coutries. but secularist always bash Israel which is only Jewish state of the minority Jewish community. an analogy to brahmin bashing.
In addition i want to add that though these are the realities Brahmin should not speak loudly for it. Brahmin should improve relations with muslim. shouldnt become target of the muslim world which is now 1/3 of the worlds population. It is not affordable and good for us. I repeatedly mention that only Brhamin did not have taken contract of patriotism, social service and dharma. our mad zeal of these things is an important cause of our conditions. we have lost so much and so many men for this unnecessarily. we will have to be pragmatic, cautious and practical in these things.
there are nb groups working to insite muslim aginst particularly brhamin we should not let them succeed. nb now are more nbs and less hindus. I bet that nearly 20%of them will choose reservation if they are given only choice among reservations and dharma. though up to some extent muslim also respect brahmin because of righteousness of ours. i.e. Neki. one of most important dictate of their religion. some even said to me that in reality brahmin are the real Allah ke bande. people walking path of righteousness.
we must improve relations with muslim.

Shri Hoover,

While some of the observations in the above post may be correct, it is not true to say that NBs may incite Muslims against particularly brahmins. It looks to me a very far-fetched, baseless fear. In the case of the Ayodhya issue, I feel the NBs and more particularly, the OBCs/MBCs/SCs in TN are as exercised and emotional as perhaps the TBs are. It may not be because of their "Ramabhakti" but due to politics. They are least likely to use this issue to incite Muslims against TBs.

 

[rcscwc]

One important fact unnoticed,
the BM was not so imporant mosque like AL aksa or kaba or like jama masjid. It was an mosque like millions of other, for Muslim.
On the other hand for Hindus it is the most important place of their most important god. it is my observation that muslims do not take a single step back. whether it is ground zero mosque or BM. they alway say how they are right. there are 40 proclaimed islamic coutries. but secularist always bash Israel which is only Jewish state of the minority Jewish community. an analogy to brahmin bashing.
In addition i want to add that though these are the realities Brahmin should not speak loudly for it.

In short, they should take it lying down. Good.

Brahmin should improve relations with muslim. shouldnt become target of the muslim world which is now 1/3 of the worlds population. It is not affordable and good for us.

Are trying to frighten them? Someone must stand upto them.

 

[rcscwc]

Is there any other kind of secularists, they all are "pseudo" isn't? Muslims dress differently, so must be hated, nice! You know something, in the south, the Brahmins dress differently, using your logic, we can go on hating Brahmins. Even EVR did bnot hate Brahmins -- I know, not many will agree with me on this, but he only hated Brahminism. Even otherwise, hating Muslims because they dress differently is even worse than the caricature of EVR that Brahmnists like to conjure up.

Cheers!

Don't distort my post, please. I say Hindu muslim unity is a myth. I did not say I hate them for being different. They are different in every respect. That is not Unity of what and in what respect. Don't propagete such myths.

 

[Raghy]

Hindu Muslim unity is a myth created and propaged by the pseoudo secularists. Bluntly, there is no suvh unity. Unity in what respect? The heroes of Hindus like Rana Pratap and Shivaji are muslim's villains. Hindus villains like Ghoi, babaur, Aurangzeb etc are their heroes. Remember, in 1946 elections, every muslim candidate of congress was defeated, including Maulana Azad. Muslims dress differently. A Begali muslim says pani, never jal.

Greetings Sir. Hindu Muslim unity or any unity for that matter, can not be created; such unity should be practised. Sir, there is no villian in the historical charecters. A nation will have heros, such persons who strived for the benefit of the society, country, social advancement etc. Invaders were just invaders;it does not serve any purpose to see them as villians.

Muslim follow a religion different to Hindus (but, are they? IMO, Muslims follow 'Dwaitham'; but that is a different discussion altogether). Dressing differently is not a restricting factor in practicising unity. Let us take only Hindus- Hindus dress, eat, talk and behave differently from state to state. Even within any given state, Hindus have different practices between different castes. Hindus also come in different skin colour - from very fair skinned to very dark skinned and all the shades in between. I have seen fair skinned blue eyed Hindu girls in Chennai. The uniting factor for all these people is the religion 'Hindu'.

The uniting factor for people belonging to various religions in India is being 'Indian'. We have persons amoung Hindus, Muslims and any other religion alike who work against the national interest for personal gains. Any secularist, pseudo or otherwise has nothing to do with this. To stay united or not is the decision for individuals.

Cheers!

 

[rcscwc]

Greetings Sir. Hindu Muslim unity or any unity for that matter, can not be created; such unity should be practised. Sir, there is no villian in the historical charecters. A nation will have heros, such persons who strived for the benefit of the society, country, social advancement etc. Invaders were just invaders;it does not serve any purpose to see them as villians.

Muslim follow a religion different to Hindus (but, are they? IMO, Muslims follow 'Dwaitham'; but that is a different discussion altogether). Dressing differently is not a restricting factor in practicising unity. Let us take only Hindus- Hindus dress, eat, talk and behave differently from state to state. Even within any given state, Hindus have different practices between different castes. Hindus also come in different skin colour - from very fair skinned to very dark skinned and all the shades in between. I have seen fair skinned blue eyed Hindu girls in Chennai. The uniting factor for all these people is the religion 'Hindu'.

The uniting factor for people belonging to various religions in India is being 'Indian'. We have persons amoung Hindus, Muslims and any other religion alike who work against the national interest for personal gains. Any secularist, pseudo or otherwise has nothing to do with this. To stay united or not is the decision for individuals.

Cheers!

Yes. Unity MUST be practised, but by all. It is not a special obligation of Hindus. Hindus have different dresses, and local customs too. Because Hindus are inclusive. Muslims follow a faith which is totally exclusive. If unity is there, then it need not be underlined. I do not shout from the rooftop that KK is my brother. I need not. The special love that I have for KK cannot be given to the others. Others can be like but not exactly brothers. Same way, Hindus consider India as their ONLY homeland, for muslims it is like homeland.

You can shut your eyes. But the only supreme agenda of islam is to establish islamic rule all over the world. Nations do not exist for them. As long as they can can have islamic rule, they are not much concerned with India's integrity. Hindus have a stake in India.

Point me a single muslim who says: Ishwar alla tere naam.

It is not easy to a an Indian if you are a xian or a muslim. Do the Kashmiri muslims call themselves Indian. Never did.