>
>>I mean the BJP would have to ban Indian
>>classical music if they wanted to establish the true Hindu
>>Swaraj considering the tremendous Islamic influence on that
>>genre of music and others.
>
>really? i had no idea that carnatic music had so much
>islamic influence. oh wait, you mean hindustani music.
>well, i think banning hindustani music would probably a
>kindness to humanity, considering how very loathesome it is,
>but that said, i don't think the hindu right's objection is
>to islamic cultural influence so much as actual real live
>muslims with questionable loyalties.
>
>hindu swaraj doesn't require banning hindustani any more
>than hind swaraj required banning western education: it just
>requires removing the foreigners from power, and/or removing
>the foreigners.
Aight but in doing that, they revise a lot of history, pre-British,to make it seem as if Muslims have been raping Hindu women from the moment they came here. Just because some ruthless Turks came to conquer India supposedly under the guise of Islam doesnt mean that Gujurati Muslims, the majority of whom have no Turkish blood and can't even identify with Asia Minor should be slaughtered. Their idea of what constitutes a "foreigner" then I would say is not consistent with reality. But they are using tactics to make their idea true. Hence this is what I was trying to get at with the Afrikan question. I have a feeling that the same type of revisioning of who is truly Afrikan or who is not is happening when they talk abotu Muslim/Christians in Africa.




As for your hindustani/carnatic music differentiation, its understood but I wonder if there hasnt been any Islamic (read:Middle Eastern)influence on Carnatic music considering Hyderabad was a Muslim kingom in the South. But thats for me to research.