Pakistan as a country is not a credible part of Arab lands, it is more a sub continent along with India a Hindu land (Sindh, Mohanjodaro Harappan Civillization)
As it was a conduit for Mongols and Afghans to invade India, it was on their root maps and logistics. It got identified by the arabs only after the Brits earmarked it as a Muslim country to satisfy Md. Ali Jinnah who in turn vouchsafed for the welfare of Hindu Pakis.
It is religion that attracts concern of Arabs for the Islamic nation Pakistan, not the topographic location.
The Malaysian, Indonesian Muslims have retained their individual ethnicity and worked towards affluence.
Whereas Pakistan has to please the Islamic countries because of it's psychological distance with asian countries and proximity with the Arab countries.
A samjautha will definitly build two good neighbours towards happier days.......But understanding the intricacies of Religion and Humanity makes a gigantic difference !
Mr. Subranayam, you are wrong this time. Pakistan does not need peace. If there is peace, there is no reason for Pakistan to exist. It was not created to be a troublemonger.
RE:Why Pak needs to keep the peace process going
by zhxjfl on Feb 28, 2007 01:41 PM Permalink
%u6CA1%u6709%u56FD%u5BB6%u4E0D%u60F3%u8981%u548C%u5E73%uFF0C%u89E3%u51B3%u597D%u514B%u4EC0%u7C73%u5C14%u95EE%u9898%u5C31%u597 D%u4E86%uFF01
Akash>> we can do well being core-secular rather than being feudal-secular(I don't prefer to call it pseudo-secular, that term is simply nonsensical).
Islamists do not recognise Secularism, Democracy, nationalism, anything man-made construct outside their holy book. So, the thinking that Islamo-Facists can be stopped using 'core-secularism' (Hindu bashing, but glossing over Islamic atrocities) is nothing but a wishful thinking.
Sarat Chandra Chatterjee, preeminet Indian Novelist wrote in mid 1920s (seeing futility of Congress's support of Khilafat and its eventual perils):
"Hindu Muslim problem can be solved in a day, when Hindus become UNITED."
However, a section of our leaders are still pursing appeasement (which is emboldeing Islamists) and dividng Hindus along caste and language.
The more India, its core values, vital interests come under threat - we will see huge rise of BJP. Its anything but natural.
India is the ONLY country in the world which was created based on division. And its the only country which talks about 'secularism" (which would have been better over Psuedo-Secularism which is followed today).
RE:How to handle Islamists?
by Vishvaksenah E on Feb 26, 2007 03:31 PM Permalink
Well said. Thanks for the quote by Sarat Chandra Chatterjee.I didn't know much about him. Now I'll try to know more about this great person.
1. Pakistan's real problem is, it believes that Muslims are Superior to Hindus. And that's why they(Muslims) could rule India for many many centuries. This is Islamic nationalism which was born in Aligarh Muslim University during 1920s-1940s. They also believe, Britian should have given India back to the Muslim hand when they left India in 1947, as British took India from Mughals.
These are bizzare history, because muslims were hardly in control in whole of India for long. However the MYTH continues.
2. This can be called "Andulous Syndrome", when a group of people start believing in past glory and starting living on that. Little realizing the time has changed.
3. The real reason for this Hindu-Muslim problem is, Muslims didn't accept modern education (like Hindus) and thus left behind in the new economy. The more they started loosing their share in Brit India, the more they raised their voice for special rights, job reservation etc etc.
Pakistan was basically created so Educated muslims don't have to compete with Hindus in Job. So, it was an economic issue, which was given a religious color.
4. Pakistan is in deep problem today. It has to decide whether it belongs to Indian Sub-continent and its cultural sphere. After all, Indian Muslims are mostly Hindu converts and Islam has a 1000 years history in India.
As Pak is unable to engage with India, which is much large size (economy, demography, size) India, its using Oil Money from Midle East. In the process, its loosing its Indian Islamic root and becoming more radicalised, more Wahabi, more Deobondi fundamentalists.
5. Till the time Pakis have made that decision, whether they belong to Indian Subcontinent or Arab World - guess they will continue to spawn more islamic facism, terrorism. Its a brutal cultural re-orientation going on. 1000 years of historic, cultural legacy is being undone.
RE:Real problem of Pakistan are manifold
by S Kiran on Feb 27, 2007 10:08 AM Permalink
Good analysis. You have mentioned in one of your points that Pakistan was created for educated Muslims. We are all witness to what the educated Muslims have dont for the last 60 years. Nothing but hatred and terrorism. Thank god that educated Muslims went to Pakistan and did not stay back in India.
RE:Real problem of Pakistan are manifold
by ravi prakash on Feb 26, 2007 11:07 AM Permalink
It is unnatural for Pakistan to opt for any other ethnicity such as the Turk,the Afghan, the Iraqi Arab or the Irani Muslim or the Kurd or the Armenian. It is quite silly if they decide to cast their lot with these ethnic groups. Like the proverbial fox who fell into a vat of indigo dye and thought himself the King of the beasts, it would be foolish for the Pakistani to claim any other ethicity other than the sub-continent simply because the Persian, Arabs and Mongols and Afghans invaded India and ruled over it. The earlier they discard this mindset the better it for their own economy.It was one thing for the British to partition this country and quite another to continue based on the some lines as if it were something natural. The two nation theory on which Pakistan is premised is unnatural. It is far easier for the elite Muslims to succeed in the Indian economy as the example of Mr Hashim Premji illustrates so vividly.
What you say is correct. However, Islamist Fundoos (they are called Fundoo in Pakistan!) have a different way of seeing things.
Its indeed correct, that a fundamentalist section of Pakis are trying to further Arabize Urdu which though is written in Perso-Arabic script, its 70-80% words are still of Sanskritic Origin.
Basic Goal is to deny/erase Pre-Islamic past of their existance. Recently MMA, religious paries in Paki land opposed teaching Pre-Islamic history in Pakistan.
Our Secularists are directly courting them when they also oppose anything prior to pre-Islamic India. Our Secular fundamentalists term those as "Communal".
This is NOT what even Nehru said. In a speech before Aligarh Students few months after partition he said: Indian achieved many great things in the past and that belongs to ALL of Indians. COME FORWARD AND PROCLAIM IT.
Fact of the matter is: Indian Secular Fundoos are blissfully unaware of the Islamism and its root, direction, Goal.
RE:RE:Real problem of Pakistan are manifold
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 26, 2007 10:11 PM Permalink
Pre-Islamic History of Bangladesh is now almost erased from Bangladesh Schools/College Syllabus.
Teesta Javed Khan Seetalvad et al should be asked, why they don't talk about Sayyid Qutb. People should read Qutb's seminal work "Milestones" to understand what these Islamo-Facists want.
They are NOT for democracy, secularism. Neother they accept Nationalism. They accept nothing but Allah's rule and purge everything what is not written in their holy book.
The simple logic is: Allah is Supreme. And they accept nothing but Allah's law. No man made law can surpass that - that's what they say.
This is the real reason why we have separate Civic code in India. No secularists will ever be able to enact one since UCC, as there will be street violence.
2. Islamic Jihad is NOT new, neither it started with US's Afgan policy or India's control of Kashmir.
Islamic Jihad in India traces its routes from medieval Islamists, terrorists like Shah Wahiullah who invited Ahmed Shah Abdali to attack India as Mughal Empire was being protected by Marathas.
Or even prior that Shah Wahiullah, there were Ideologies, ideologues who wanted to establish Islamic rule in India starting from Sultanate period. Very few people know these, because these are whitewashed by Islamo-friendly Secular Historians. Like Irphan Habib denied that Wahiullah invited Abdali to attack India.
Wahabism and later on Deobond took up these Islamic fundamentalist strains.
With Oil money in Middle East, Wahabism is being exported to all over the world to indoctrinate local Muslims, thus erasing their shared existance with local people, custom and make them fundamentalists.
In India, our psuedo-Sec Elite, English Press are in denial. They never look into these issues. Rather accuses whoever questions as "Hindu Fundamentalists".
Communists should see that none of 55 odd Islamic countries are Secular. Malaysia, having just 55% Muslim pop has announced itself as Islamic nation where non-Muslims are second class citizen.
Commies should see that all central asian countries, even Afghanistan threw away Commies as soon as they came out of clutches of USSR's 80 year rule.
No wonder, we hardly see any communist movement in neighboring Bangladesh, pakistan, or even in Indian J&K.
RE:Islamic Jihad is NOT new, neither it started with US's Afgan policy or India's control of Kashmir.
by Akash on Feb 25, 2007 11:19 PM Permalink
No communist movement in Islamic Countries? I thought Yemen has a fairly socialist regime that's why the gulf cooperation council i.e. GCC is not including Yemen in its club. G.C.C. comprises of Arab Islamic Emirates of Saudi Arabia,Kuwait,Bahrain,U.A.E.,Oman and Qatar and even though Yemen is in the Gulf region it's not included. Same is with Syria having Baah't Socialist Party at its helm. Turkey has Kemalist Secularism, even Burqa in public places is banned over there and its seeking E.U. membership leaving aside it's Ottoman turkish past. Bangladesh has a surge of local bengali maoist organisations recently though they are not so powerful. Uzbekistan is secular that's why there was so much ruckus about it launching a massive attack on opposition parties who were calling for a islamic republic in the state,this was last year and all over the BBC world news telecast. There indeed are communist movements in the Islamic world as far as I know.Outside the Islamic World real communist countries are just 5 out of 192 recognized countries of the U.N.-People's Republic of China,Democratic Republic of Korea,Vietnam,Laos and Cuba. Venezuela , Bolivia and Nicaragua are somewhere near communism though not communist totally. I don't know what u r trying to signify over here. I believe both Communists and Islamic Fundamentalist pose a threat- are u saying one threat should replace the other? and if you are saying something else then I believe we neither want stalin or hitler as our leader i.e. far-left and far-right sitting on our heads. we can do well being core-secular rather than being feudal-secular(I don't prefer to call it pseudo-secular, that term is simply nonsensical).
RE:RE:Islamic Jihad is NOT new, neither it started with US's Afgan policy or India's control of Kashmir.
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 25, 2007 11:55 PM Permalink
We also can't forget that Bin Laden is originally of Yemeni descent. The Present Saudi Royal family as well is of Yemeni descent. And Laden has biggest support base in Yemen.
Saudi Govt didn't recognise the nominally Communist Yemen Govt for many many years. And they used to arm those who oppsed them.
However, even the Saudi regime is under threat from laden & CO today. Many Royal family members keep good contact with Laden, help him. In fact, present Saudi regime is competing with Laden by buying religious leaders whose stake in the society are only increasing.
RE:RE:Islamic Jihad is NOT new, neither it started with US's Afgan policy or India's control of Kashmir.
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 26, 2007 12:13 AM Permalink
Nobody today spend time on Communism, except we Indians:)-
After the fall of USSR and China following market economy, Communism's fate is sealed forever.
RE:RE:Islamic Jihad is NOT new, neither it started with US's Afgan policy or India's control of Kashmir.
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 25, 2007 11:50 PM Permalink
Dear Akash,
Yemen is an Islam Country . You may like to consult Wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen).
Yes, a brief Communist regime was in place, but that's more so because it was used an on outpost of USSR rather than Communists own power in the society. It was associated with Nasser's Egypt. Today, see the fate of Egypt: If an open election takes place in Egypt, its Muslim brotherhood who will capture power. That's why nominally Communist regime of Yemen collapsed within years of fall of USSR/
Most hilarious is your example of Yemen! What's its population? Barely few millions. Not even 1% of world Muslim pop lives there. Rather look at Malaysia which is touted as an ideal 'modern islamic state'! It proclaimed as an Islamic country even if it has mus pop of barely 55%.
Uzbekistan ? Its a defacto Islamic country. Karimov is thrusted from outside, and don't have his authority much in the courty. If an open election is arranged, obviously the power will be captured by the cleric. There is no question about that.
The whole of Central Asia became Islamic countries. It proves even 80 years long rule of USSR couldn't achieve much as far as "secularism" goes.
RE:RE:Islamic Jihad is NOT new, neither it started with US's Afgan policy or India's control of Kashmir.
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 25, 2007 11:57 PM Permalink
Dear Akash,
Akash>> I believe both Communists and Islamic Fundamentalist pose a threat- are u saying one threat should replace the other?
See, everybody pampered Islamists to suit their interest. British did that to divide India. Then Americans did When Afghanistan was invaded by USSR. Prior to that Germany tried to pamper Islamists prior to WWII.
USSR, Stalin also try to do that in their days. Aswan Dam was opened by the then USSR president and was attended by 3 Arab head of state.
However fact remains, if free and fair election takes place today, Islamists, Clergy will capture power in almost all Islamic countries. We Indians are however blissfully unware of this.
Firstly, K Subrahmanyam is a respected strategic analyst. What he wrote here is largely true. But would like to add few more points:
1. India under UPA made a gigantic mistake by signing Havana Deal, thus equating victims (India) perpetrators (Paki Civic society, ISI, Army, Paki Govt to a large degree). We lost vital internal opinion moulded in favor of India as a victim of viscious Islamic Jehad done by previous 6 years of NDA rule.
Pak's current predicament will only be broken once regime change is successfully achieved in the Whitehouse. Islamic world, Europeans, Leftists are all waiting for the ouster of the Republicans from the Whitehouse in the next elections. In the meantime, they are just trying to wait things out, in a survival strategy. So Musharraf will keep toeing the US line for the next couple of years, trying hard not to offend anybody too much, including India. But once Bush is gone, then Musharraf will try to seize the initiative once again, and go on the offensive to make gains against his enemies.
RE:Once a Mush, Always a Mush
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 25, 2007 08:31 PM Permalink
Brezensky, the famous ideologue, who listed Mujahids for fighting against USSR was a democract. It was all planned during carter Administration/ Should Democrats fully exert their policy, Pakistan (and specially Sunnis) will be a HUGE RECEIVING end.
If US troops is wthdrawn from Iraq today, Sunnis will be slaughtered like anoything. OIC and many Sunni countries have already spoke about that. What US will do is: make the Shia-Sunni divide grow, and put one grup against another. Everybody does that. They will also do it.
peace would alwaz help two warring nations develop into a good economy-friendly attitude-interexchange of cultures by promoting cross border student exchanges and tourism,will alwaz help soldiers form not dying and actually living for their families...peace alwaz helps.
RE:peace is always beneficial
by desijohn on Feb 25, 2007 03:38 AM Permalink
History is very important. What you are stating is theory. Everyone would like it that way, but the practice over the ages is very different.
Knowing ones history is extremely important. We were taught in schools that Moghul rulers were so considerate and peace loving bla bla. That was medeival times i.e. brutal, barbaric etc. Todays world with internet, newspapers, TVs etc. clearly shows that brulality and barbaric behavior and extreme intolerance exists all over the islamic world.
It is hard to believe that peace and quiet existed during Moghul rule.
Be realistic. Be peace loving but carry a big stick as a famous leader once said. India should have a very very strong deterrent and then preach all the peace it wants. Look around the world and see what the countries are doing, saying etc. over the last 50 years.Every country says that it loves peace and bla bla bla. Each has a strategy and its vision of the world.
India has had enough of the Ghori, Ghazni and the lousy British. Enough. No more such bull. Talk peace but kick ass when required. Got it?
RE:Pakis have no other choice
by vaibhav rajpal on Feb 24, 2007 02:33 PM Permalink
nothing for or against what you said, but please quote a source before you try to make ur opinion a fact..
RE:RE:Pakis have no other choice
by Deepak Srivastava on Feb 25, 2007 02:46 AM Permalink
what source you need.... before those Muslim attacks ppl in the region we Buddhists or Hindus, by hook or by crook they were converted to islam.
Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan
"In 712 CE, the Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim[10] conquered Sindh and Multan in southern Punjab, setting the stage for several successive Muslim empires including the Ghaznavid Empire, the Ghorid Kingdom, the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. During this period Sufi missionaries played a pivotal role in converting a majority of the regional Buddhist and Hindu population to Islam. "
RE:Pakis have no other choice
by desijohn on Feb 25, 2007 03:23 AM Permalink
Well said Baba Bengali. It is indeed true that ALL people in the entire Indian Sub Continent extending from Afghanistan,Pakistan to Combodia and Indonesia were Hindus since time immemorial. Most muslims in this region are converts - forcibly in most cases. Islamic rulers who invaded a fragmented India, raped, plundered and forcibly converted thousands. Chandini Chowk in Delhi was one place that witnessed the conversions during Moghul era. There are several sources but if you can think, you will figure this truth.
Also, don't rely on the Aryan theory. Indian civilization is the oldest in the world, and people migrated out of India. Not the other way. Max Mueller who promulgated the Aryan theory confessed and stated that that was incorrect. Many modern Historians and anthropologists have written books and widely acclaimed papers that shoot down the Aryan theory.
Some folks on this forum seem to think that peace can exist between India and Pakistan. I don't think so. Its a clash of the cultures. Hindus are not known historically to go looting, raping and killing. Hopefully Pakis will be sensible and not make Hindus start now.
RE:RE:Pakis have no other choice
by on Feb 25, 2007 10:24 AM Permalink
Hi all - the Kabba in Mecca, is basically a Shiva Linga (Shiva Temple), prophet mohahamed was a follower of Lord Shiva, This is a secret, which is known to the Saudi Kingdom for centuries. Hence if they disclose this then no one would be going for Hajj, and saudis will loose money. See no one had seen what is inside Kabba, they all give you stories. And they talk of koran, Allah and all these crap !!! Islam is a religion based on brutality, bloodshed and hatred. Hence you cannot expect anything more. Today the world had just 1.5 billion muslims, it is 25% of the world's population today, let it grow to 2 billion we will have more problems in this world. All Pakis and Bangladeshis are converted hindus, they need to be converted back to the religion of their choice, not what is forced upon them. Where ever there are Muslims you see problems. You go to kashmir, Hindus had left their homeland, you go to Bangladesh you see Hindus migrating to India or elsewhere. Let the sunnis and Shias fight a bitter battle, and it would wipe out Islam from this world. Atleast the ppl from other religion could live in peace and harmony.
RE:RE:RE:Pakis have no other choice
by Ibrahim Sheik on Feb 25, 2007 03:31 PM Permalink
The Last Kalki Autar (Messenger) that the Veda has foretold and who is waited on by Hindus is the Prophet Muhammed ibn Abdullah (saw) * A recently published book in Hindi has raised a lot of hue and cry all over India. In the event of the author being Muslim, he would have been jailed and a strict ban would have certainly been imposed on the printing and the publishing of the book. The author of this important research work "Kalki Autar" i.e. "guide and Prophet of whole universe" comes of a Bengali race and holds an important portfolio at Ilahabad University. Pundit Vaid Parkash is a Brahman Hindu and a well known Sanskrit scholar and research worker. Pundit Vaid Parkash, after a great deal of toil and hard-work, presented the work to as many as eight great Pundits who are themselves very well known in the field of research in India, and are amongst the learned religious leaders. Their Pundits, after thorough study of the book, have acknowledged this to be true and authentic research work. Important religious books of India mention the guide and prophet by the specific name of "Kalki Autar" it denotes the great man Muhammed (saw) who was born in Makkah. Hence, all Hindus where-ever they may be, should wait no longer for any other 'kalki autar' but to embrace Islam and follow in the footsteps of the last Messenger of Allah (swt) who was sent in the world about fourteen hundred years ago with a mission from Him and after accmplishing it has long ago departed this world. As an argument to prove the authenticity of his research, Pundit Vaid Parkash quotes from the Veda, a sacred book among Hindus: 1. Veda mentions that 'kalki autar' will be the last Messenger / Prophet of Bhagwan (Allah) to guide the whole world. Afer quoting this reference the Pundit Parkash says that this comes true only in the case of Muhammed (saw). 2. According to a prophecy of Hinduism, 'kalki autar' will be born in an island and that is the Arab territory which is known as 'jazeeratul Arab'. 3. In the 'sacred' book of Hindus the father's name of 'kalki autar' is mentioned as 'Vishnu Bhagat' and his mother's name as 'somanib'. In sanskrit, 'vishnu' stands for Allah (swt) and the literal meaning of 'bhagat' is slave. 'Vishnu Bhagat' therefore, in the Arabic language will mean Allah's slave (Abdullah). 'Somanib' in Sanskrit means peace and tranquilty which in arabic is denoted by the word 'Amina'. Whereas the last Messenger Muhammed's (saw) father and mother's names were Abdullah and Amina respectively. 4. In the big books of Hindus, it is mentioned that 'kalki autar' will live on olive and dates and he will be true to his words and honest. In this regard Pundit Parkash writes, "This is true and established only in the case of Muhammed (saw)". 5. Veda mentions that 'kalki autar' will be born in the respected and noble dynasty of his land. And this is also true as regards Muhammed (saw) as he was born in the respected tribe of Quraish who enjoyed great respect and high place in Makkah. 6. 'Kalki Autar' will be taught in the cave by Bhagwan through his own messenger. And it is very true in this matter. Muhammed (saw) was the only one person in Makkah who has taught by Allah's Messenger Gabriel in the cave of Hira. 7. It is written in the books which Hindus believe that Bhagwan will provide 'Kalki autar' with the fastest of a horse and with the help of which he will ride around the world and the seven skies/heavens. The riding on 'Buraq' and 'Meraj' by the Prophet Muhammed (saw) proves what? 8. It is also written in the Hindus' books that 'kalki autar' will be strengthened and heavily helped by Bhagwan. And we know this fact that Muhammed (saw) was aided and reinforced by Allah (swt) through His angels in the battle of Badr. 9. Hindus' books also mention that 'kalki autar' will be an expert in horse riding, arrow shooting, and swordsmanship. What Pundit Vaid Parkash comments in this regard is very important and worth attention and consideration. He writes that the age of horses, swords, and spears is long ago gone and now is the age of modern weapons like tanks, missiles, and guns, and therefore it will be unwise to wait for 'kalki autar' bearing sword and arrows or spears. In reality, the mention in our books of 'kalki autar' is clearly indicative of Muhammed (saw) who was given the heavenly book known as Al-Qur'an
RE:RE:RE:RE:Pakis have no other choice
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 25, 2007 08:16 PM Permalink
Hindus are willing to make Muhamud one new Avataar. But will Muslims treat Hindus (or for that matter anything other than Islam) equally respectfully? Answer is no.
And there lies the rub:)-
Hindus treat all other faiths as equally true. Thus a Hindu could write on Kalki Avatar, similarities with Prophet(sic). However, Muslims don't accept anything other than Islam.
Naturally, Muslims will destroy these Hindus, their literature, or even Kalki Avataar if they wield power in India - as we seen in Bangladesh/Pakistan.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Pakis have no other choice
by Aurijit Sarkar on Feb 27, 2007 02:31 AM Permalink
notice the misinterpretations of sanskrit words in the write up by Ibrahib Sheikh above... people should research their facts before believing propaganda like this. it's obvious, how believable (and hence dangerous) write-ups of this sort can be to the general public!
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pakis have no other choice
by Secular Indian on Mar 02, 2007 06:34 AM Permalink
The real culprit is Dr. Zakir Naik this nonsense is his claim to fame apparently. Do yourself a favor and watch some of his videos on YouTube.com, you will not be disappointed by his ignorance and stupidity.
RE:RE:RE:Pakis have no other choice
by G S on Feb 25, 2007 07:51 PM Permalink
Why History is proof that Muslim religion was imposed by different rulers under one pretext or another. Why Islam or Christianity does needs missionaries or spreader if it is so good. Why do u need brainwashing if it is the eternal way? If you accept that there is one GOD and if you accept that he is kind and benevolent then why don't you guys live peacefully with any other religion in the world? Why there is always fear that Islam is under danger? Have u spread enough lies that it will come out in open or u don't feel u have that strength to stick to it. Any religion which is in perpetual fear or which needs to be defended everywhere is not strong. If you are humble and not abusive then I will believe that u and ur religion have some truth, else all u say has little meaning. if you can not love another human, if you can not pardon others sins, if you can not tolerate other religion then my dear you are at fault.
RE:RE:RE:Pakis have no other choice
by desijohn on Feb 26, 2007 08:04 AM Permalink
Hey Sheik,
Check with learned Hindu scholars about Kalki avatar before you comment and incite Hindus.Respect other religions as you expect them to respect yours. Others are equally powerful or vulnerable. Don't mistake tolerance for timidity.
Whatever applies to a Hindu also applies to everyone else including but not limited to Karma, Dharma and Moksha.
Just like people have different color, different cars(Honda, Toyota etc.) so also there are several beliefs. Each no more equal than the other. No one religion or belief can say its The true belief. If it does, its arrogance. Generally religions that have a need to convert/coerce people need to project that their belief is The true one. We all know that thats not the case. Isn't it?