The Virgin Bride

Zafar, Tahmed, PM, Temporal, Upman

Zafar Mian,

Actually I have just the article for you - (in response to what does it mean to be a Muslim and live in a non-Muslim majority environment - it the same as living in a Musling majority enironment) - The article or discussion is again, Soroush - suprise! It`s called ``Truth, Reason, Salvation`` (www.seraj.org/pluralism.pdf)

Be warned it`s about 50 or some pages and thick - but rewarding. It open up simply vast fields for exploration and discussion. Please give me some input when you get a chance, so that I can better understand it.

``The journey is the destination``

Please visit the website www.seraj.org - it is dedicated to the work of Soroush and contains many aticles and discussions and interviews. Just a world of discussion, every question , openning up even more questions.

I`m given to understand that this V. Subramanium is very famous and everybody loves his music in India -

Reply Hobbyty #218

Hobbyty

“Do you really believe that I engage in personal abuses?”

Calling me a “house Muslim” is pretty personal. No? What about “juvernile”?

“Hobbyty. I have never called your ideas “hooey”, so I don’t appreciate your responding to an imaginary statement from me”

The trick was your responding to a “statement” from me which I never made. (Shades of your quote fr Ms Rao.) Geddit?

“ Are you willing to post them without indulging in implied or overt character assassination of people that you assume don’t agree with you? – More of the “did you beat your wife today” questions!. Zafar, this is juvenile and not worthy of you.”

Yes, true. But richly deserved. (Or at least provoked.) Sorry. Muaf?

“On submitting articles – You know, I do not think of myself as being generally well read on this subject – I think I have a crude understanding – so much work needs to be done, because the field is so vast. However; perhaps I should give it serious thought or at least try to contribute in some way to others articles.”

Don’t underestimate yourself. Most of us are “amateur” commentators here on Chowk. I’m sure we’d learn a lot. Generally the ideas you spelled out seemed very reasonable starting points to me – but I’d be interested in seeing them debated (if not resolved) – especially if people had the knowledge intention to do some proper ijtehad. (TAhmed!!!!!!!)

A possible discussion point. What would an Islamist standpoint mean for Muslims who live in a country which is predominantly not Muslim (like India)? Another: how would atheists fare in Islamia?

“May I ask you two favors: 1. Please read the Robin Wright article again. 2. On an entirely different vein, do you know of an artist by the name of V. Subramanium? Where I can learn more about this person and his/her work?”

I shall do so. V Subramanium? No idea.

As for Hindutva debate – so far Stuka seems (??) to be the only person to be willing to enter into this dialogue with you. So that’s started.

Looking forward to reading your articles (and posts)

Zafar

Well Sadna, Upman and Zafar, lemme just say you guys have given me much to think about. As I said earlier, I know I am not communal, therefore it is /was easy for me to reject those who are blatantly communal. I guess I`ll have to go back and do a lot more reading and thinking about the RSS, BECAUSE IN MY MIND IT WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE REST.

Anyway, I think this discussion has been quite fruitful. Now, back to HobbyTy....

Zafar

Thanks for the responses. Now some objections:

``I was not silent Hobbyty. I told you: if you don’t like it being done to you, don’t do it to other people first. Why is that seen as silence, and why is that hard to understand?``

Do you really believe that I engage in personal abuses? I think I challenge positions and not persons. Anyway, Does this change the fact that you were conspicuous by your silence – I think not.

“Hobbyty. I have never called your ideas “hooey”, so I don’t appreciate your responding to an imaginary statement from me” The idea here was not that you think the idea was hooey but that YOU said, it was a “trick”.

“ Are you willing to post them without indulging in implied or overt character assassination of people that you assume don’t agree with you? – More of the “did you beat your wife today”

questions!. Zafar, this is juvenile and not worthy of you.

Am I alone in being unclear about what you mean by “Islamism”? Reading your posts has not given me any clear definition,” I think that is a fair thing to say. There is a lot of confusion on this account because the “Islamism” is just a vast field of intellectual endeavor and the word “I slamist” also has numerous connotations, not all positive. Zafar, If you will have followed my posts from the very beginning of my interaction on Chowk, I believe Muslims should give a great deal more credence to concepts of Ijtehad and Ijma. Like the majority of persons who have a modicum of education, I believe the challenge for most Muslims and Islam in general, is to turn away from reactionary and ultra conservative interpretations, towards debates, with a view to leading the Ummah back towards an interpretation that can be defended and one with which a majority of Muslims tend to agree. In earlier posts on this board, I have suggested that our ethics no longer support our morality. I meant to say that while our ethical teachings support a very reactionary and backward worldview, our morality does not. I had presented the work of Wright about A. K. Soroush and Al-Ghannouchi, to suggest a worldview, not only I, but a very large number of Muslims are coming to see as more correct, more true, more Islamic.

From My point of view, what is called political Islam has no more claim than any other to the loyalty of citizenry – what I seek to reject is the call of both, a government by and for clerics, and a worldview that not only denies the role of religious faiths in public organization, but seems specific to rejecting any role for Islam in public organization. I remain open as I said to Nasah, to any space that allows for the validity and free competition of ideas in the political arena and remain open to secularist as well as Islamist ideas sharing such a space without coersion or overt hostility.

On submitting articles – You know, I do not think of myself as being generally well read on this subject – I think I have a crude understanding – so much work needs to be done, because the field is so vast. However; perhaps I should give it serious thought or at least try to contribute in some way to others articles.

May I ask you two favors: 1. Please read the Robin Wright article again. 2. On an entirely different vein, do you know of an artist by the name of V. Subramanium? Where I can learn more about this person and his/her work?

On economy/economics - I could not agree with you more of the undesirablity of government control of the economy - on the other hand, in a paradigm such as Pakistan, where businessmen are called ``Traders`` and officials, elected representatives and politicians are called ``Rulers`` - it would be disasterous for the majority to have an economy without some measure of Governmental control of productive resources.

Stuka

Many times our difficulty has been speaking past one another because we have not agreed to a definition of out terms - And as long as you going to respond and it is your responsibility to respond – because Islamism or political Islam is going effect your life, it already is – it effects the lives of all of us – therefore it is not enough to simply say one rejects the role of any religiously based view in the shaping of society – one has to engage intelligently. This is an opportunity to shape the debate inside and outside Islamia – saying one rejects such a debate is not going to make the debate go away. Please give this some serious thought.

Many Muslims and non-Muslims are deeply concerned by reactionary elements within political Islam or Islamism – there is no point is rejecting the entire debate – that would be the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

Getting back to the definition of terms, am I mistaken that the way you understand “secularism” includes the participation of all persons and ideologies in the civil political process? By suggesting that we can not include certain groups or ideologies, we can not deny the pressure on the system, we cannot deny that such ideas have grown within a context, that they maintain a legitimacy for large numbers – you follow? By one argues that they should be or can be rejected, one should accept the responsibilty of the response that may follow. It’s not a valid response to say I will not participate in the debate – it is the equivalent of saying I’m not going to take responsibility for ideas and events that will influence my life in a major way. So, please do give this serious thought. Please do not fall into the trap of ``do it to them before they do it to us`` - because this cuts of any further discussion and ensures that all sides ``do it to the other first``. We must guard against this logic/anti logic.

The events in central Asia are going to effect the lives of Indians and the economic well being of the Indian State. Some clear and responsible thinking is required. Islamist and Islamism is being cultivated in the West for some reason, isn’t it? Are Western intellectuals less secular, less democratic, etc? If intellectuals in the West are allowing for space for these ideas, can we afford to be rejectionist only?

We are not only neighbors, we are blood relations with one another and Central Asians. We have to educate ourselves about the issue and engage in a responsible manner. It’s important to note that this is an opportunity to shape the debate. When denied legitimate space, Islam, Islamism, islamists have gone underground and are armed; the stability of the State, national and regional economies is threatened – are these the kind of consequences we seek to develop?



Now that after 3 weeks on banging my head to promote a debate on Hindutva ideas and being called bigot, hypocrite and shamelesse - and after youse guys not engaging in this - now you decide it`s time to talk - What clearer example of Indian conspiracy is required. A pox on you.

And tell me if you know of this V. Subramanium.

Stuka, upman
Small snapshots of 3 generations(actually 2 1/2) impressions of RSS grassroots. Two are based in the `old city` area of a NIndian city. May I emphasize grassroots? This is beside and quite unconnected to what the leadership was upto.

Well, 40-50 years ago, according to a family member, the grassroots activities were simple : `charitra nirman`. To avoid bad habits like smoking, drinking gambling, to spend time engaging in sports and groups activity, to think of something beyond oneself, of desh, in short. Pre-independence, some of the more active grassroots members courted arrest in local noncooperation events. These were individuals taking initiative for self- and general awareness and improvement, taking as loose basis, already-held-and-valued precepts from their own personal religious tradition.


When the question was raised then(and it was), why are only Hindus to get together for `charitranirman` in RSS, the answer was that role models one took inspiration from were mainly from Hindu tradition, Muslims maynot be able to empathise. Such an explanation maynot have created too much of a stir among common people back then because apparently H-M communal riots were a serious and endemic problem. I am guessing its hard for us now to appreciate that the ideas of multireligious Indian identity and self-aware citizenry we subscribe to without second thought now, were moot questions and unproven in their validity back then. Even the viability of India as we think of it today was not a given, I can extrapolate. Nehru and the Congress looked down on the RSS/ Jan Sangh almost as outcastes, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya died mysteriously, but some acknowledged RSS cadres `discipline` had come into its own during some crises.

OK then we come to about 20-25 years ago. Same location, same shaakhaa activities(generally), another family member had a serious altercation with the local shaakha on the subject of why Muslims were excluded, and on the RSS emphasis on religion an emphasis which seemed retrogressive in the age of science. Then one heard of RSS functionaries being jailed during the Emergency.

Now, to my own `exposure`. Deep down South, not so many years ago, the warden of my college`s hostels was a RSS member. There was a local ABVP chapter, indulging in the same thuggery that the other organisations did, but the warden was something else. Any male student who refused to join the ABVP was refused accomodation in the hostel by the warden and I am talking of a Government college here. Well, the warden was hated for it but what could be done except file complaints(perhaps)? There were many who stayed in city lodges during their education. Another `insight` one got was the news of RSS/CPM grassroots workers like headload workers, and shopkeepers who have kept murdering each other over the last many years, I cannot explain why.

The conclusion I reach is, no so-called `ideology` retains its pristine purity of intention down at the grassroots level. Though the current `secular` ideologies espouse inclusion at the conceptual level, at the working level, their adherents are as heinous as everyone else and often escape the consequences of their actions by using their pious and professed beliefs as a convenient cover. Witness the many incidents of incitement to violence and crocodile tears about the same by of the Congress/leftist parties over the years.

However, ideologies even smelling of any sort of exclusion at the conceptual level, even through `semantics` which can whitewashed with great energy and contortionism, are much much worse in todays world. An insistence on a `Hindu` validation on every sphere of public activity as the RSS seems to insist, is firstly totally unacceptable. Such an insistence invites automatic alienation of many, as upman says, even Hindus.

There is no good case that can be made in a multireligious free society for setting up a conceptual superstructure for what is at `best`, nothing but an artifical RSS-defined scale of `Hinduness` to judge Hindus and others and at worst, explicit exclusion of groups based on religion.

IMO, lets be clear, the best is horrible and the worst is horrible.

Moreoever, selected bits of RSS ideology and workings may result in `sincere, positive and disciplined` grassroots activity within its own limited scope, but the much worse and inevitable consequence of fructification of this ideology is the mainstreaming of intimidation solely based on religion at the street level.

I donot see how this does Hinduism or Indians ANY good, the reverse! So take away those smooth talkers and lock them up thats where they deserve to be! (I donot mean you Stuka)

HobbyTy:

The article in point reflects the fear that secular governments have of ANY religion based fundamentalist governement. Basically, the fear that secularists have is that if you allow free elections, and the Islamists win, they will invoke the sharia, and will never allow elections again. Its a catch 22 situation. Allow the fundamentalists to take over now, and see democracy raped later, or rape democracy now and keep the fundamentalists at bay. Your reference to Central Asia is equally relevant to ALgeria, Turkey and to some extent Egypt. Also, the Waco action, although not national in nature, was a similar assault on Christian fundamentalists. The Key is not islam, it is fundamentalism.

Pakistan MAY face a similar situation too. Keep this in mind. The Taliban government has refused to recognize the Durand line. Let us assume they sort out the Northern Alliance in 5 years. What next? They may decide to inflict their brand of islam on Pakistan. You may face a situation of competing islamic ideologies, and I do not beieve that the competing ideologies on something as abstract and personal as religion, any religion, can be sorted out by dialogue.

HobbyTy, you have many times pointed out the faults in the Hindutva movement. Notwithstanding my views about your right to make those criticisms, I have often seen the truth your statements contain. I look at the ISM of Hindutva and not the implementation on the street and I defend it. Look at my conversation with Upman about the RSS. I know that I see the truth in his interacts. However, his truths reflect upon the implementation of the RSS agenda on the street, and I choose to ignore the implementation while feeling good about the ideology and ISM.

I think you are in the same boat as me, just on different sides of the river. I may choose nationalism, and you may choose religion, but ultimately both are ideologies, sounding good on paper and in discourse, but a whole different ball game, when combined with politics, human nature and all that good stuff.

Reply Stuka #210



Stuka

“Are you talking about the riots of Moradabad which took place in 1980 and 1981? Fron what I have heard, it was a one sided massacre of Hindus. In fact, what we were told is that in every riot from 1947 to 1989, since the Congress always supported Muslim organizations, it was the Himdus that got killed in much larger numbers. I am not saying that is true, but I`m saying that it does sound plausible.”

Generally speaking, minorities do not start riots. The numbers don’t add up. Especially when the police force in UP is overwhelmingly Hindu.

The riots in Moradabad had a definite economic basis – or at least this was an important factor. Traditionally the brass workers in Moradabad have been Muslim, while the middlemen are Hindus. Friction between them, and the attempt by some groups of brass workers to sell directly to retailers, was said to be what set off the riot. This seems to make sense – going by the feeling one got reading the newspaper Moradabad seemed to spend months at a time with some sort of curfew in operation. Generally communally motivated riots are short spasms of madness – economic (even class) conflict might take much longer to work itself out since the roots of this conflict are more concrete.

Zafar

Reply Hobbyty #209

Hobbyty

“My champion of fairness - you were silent on the an intellectual lyching (``they pose the questions, the decide the content of the answers...``)”

I was not silent Hobbyty. I told you: if you don’t like it being done to you, don’t do it to other people first. Why is that seen as silence, and why is that hard to understand?

(Also – I tend not to log onto Chowk over the weekend. Hence my response didn’t happen till the week started. Kya karen? But I like being called CoF - please continue to do so with my blessing.)

“Please do not imagine that we are unfamiliar with what ``secularism`` means or that we have not studied these ideas or that we have not held them before some others even became aware of these.”

Have I ever tried to explain secularism to you? I think you’ll find not. Defending why I think it is a better way to order heterogeneous societies than any other is not the same thing.

“Whereas you see statements such as ``now you, hamidm... maybe right that these ideas are hooey`` as a ``trick`` - many others will see it as an attempt to be fair, to be open that ideas of others may have merit, which ofcourse they do.”

Hobbyty. I have never called your ideas “hooey”, so I don’t appreciate your responding to an imaginary statement from me where I do just that. Hamidm can speak for himself (and does, generally very well).

“Please do not be convinced by any position I hold or assert, but at least be open to their validity to others. If you are going to say you are a secularist, then acknowledge that tolerance is basic to such an idea, otherwise a trap awaits you, one in which you may find yourself arguing that ``we did it to them because we are convinced that they would do it us, if they got the chance``.

Hobbs, I am happy (in fact keen) to respond to any IDEAS you post – and I would be very interested in knowing what you feel are Islamist ideas. Are you willing to post them without indulging in implied or overt character assasination of people that you assume don’t agree with you? If you do this I think you’ll find a far more rational and respectful response than you’ve managed to elicit so far from people who disagree with you.

(As for what I MAY find myself arguing, well I equally well MAY NOT. After all, you MAY find yourself arguing in favour of the religious tolerance the Taleban have been showing in Afghanistan….possibilities are infinite. See the point above, it’s related.)

Am I alone in being unclear about what you mean by “Islamism”? Reading your posts has not given me any clear definition. Perhaps an article by yourself on this subject might be a good one to submit to Chowk.

Another good subject would be (related to your post #211) the relationship between democratic freedom and political Islam. I think it would be hard for people to argue with the basic premise that people organising themselves by anything they chose is a fundamental democratic right. There are, however, a lot of interesting issues regarding differences of opinion on what an Islamic polity is and should be, the scope of political Islam in heterogeneous societies (take Ahmadiyas in Pakistan, for example, or Baha’is in Iran) and peaceful change of Government when at least part of the Governing elite might claim to speak for the Almighty (so why should they listen to the people?).

I think it’s a fascinating subject – I also get the feeling that you have read widely on it, and perhaps an article (or two, or three) might be a good way to get your core ideas across without the distraction of ongoing immediate debate. Good ideas can only get stronger when questioned, because the process clarifies them – especially if one’s approach is flexible.

“By the way, did you get a chance to read the article about reformist ideas of Soroush and Al-Ghannouchi - what are your thoughts?”

I did, quickly. On first squiz I like Soroush better. Some boards ago I was enthusing about Fatima Mernissi. What do you think of her? (I got a mixed response. Some liked. Some didn’t.)

I find it frustrating that we often seem to be speaking past each other in these exchanges we have. I do think that I’d gain from a deeper understanding of what your views are (if only to understand why I don’t agree with you or – horror of horrors – why I do – no, no that seems unrealistic). And I must say that your saying that you had changed your thinking on the “speaking for Indian Muslims” thing, as well as your consistent speaking up for women’s issues (when they occur) speak well of you.

Write those bloody articles! Or you and I may start copping some flak because we’re cluttering up so many boards with our aggar maggar etc.

Zafar

PS Ref #211 – I would give Iran a mixed review. On one hand it is more democratic than it has ever been in its history, and there are some really exciting social programs current there which leave the rest of the Muslim world for dead, especially re: literacy and birth control/family planning. On the other hand the consequences of letting mullahs run the economy have been pretty dire, and their answerability to the people in the form of elections remains limited.

Hey Upman, Stuka - enough already - I`m supposed to be the bad guy here and I want some comments on the editorial I posted - you hear me? Ok , then, now give me some input, what do think?

Stuka # 204:

* i think its acknowledged that Godse was an RSS member but at the time of the assassination he was editing some other newspaper, and this argument was used by RSS to deny a then current connection....no membership records at that time, so no legal link...like i said, same old trick..

*``the RSS actively shuns politics``

..are you serious?..it comments on everything from economic policy to the tehelka episode!..and of course its favourite topic- indigenisation of minorities...and what about RSS sangchalaks `on loan` to the BJP?..Swadeshi jagran Manch?

*``the RSS and the VHP / Bajrang Dal do not have transfers etc``

i dont have names now but i distinctly remember reading several VHP and bajrang dal leaders` CVs showing middle-level sangchalak roles in the RSS...also wasnt Dattopant thengdi of BMS a senior RSS functionary..

*``In any case, Gandhi was not, and never will be an RSS icon.``

..i quote from the RSS website:

[RSS IS THE TRUE TOUCH-BEARER OF MAHATMA GANDHI`S LEGACY

By. Dr. Dinesh Agrawal

In RSS Mahatma Gandhi is revered very highly, a great soul (MAHATMA), one of the greatest son of mother India, a humanist par excellence, and a real saint (Sant). He is remembered each morning at RSS shakhas in its Pratah Smaran (morning prayers) and among hundreds of great men who are revered by RSS, he has been placed,even at much higher order than the founder of RSS,Dr. Hedgewar.]

http://www.rss.org/gandhi-torch.htm

...between the two of your quotes, i know you are being more truthful..however truth has never been an impediment to an RSS on the glorious road of Hindu revivalism...there is much i can write about your comments on gandhi, but some other time (my professor already suspects that much of the furious typing i`m doing is not related to coursework)

*``I personally feel that it is a very unfortunate choice of words because it will alienate non Hindu minorities I am not going to defend what I myself am not comfortable with.``

..maybe you are not aware of what `alienate` means..its implications and ramifications..at the personal and social level..your use of the word unfortunate above is symptomatic of that uncomfortable space many majorities before you have found themselves in when allowing and appeasing bigotry...you do not have to defend the RSS but may have to defend your support for it someday..

...but the India RSS today finds itself in is no pushover that it might have been in the 30s or 40s..certain institutions have developed and entrenched, and that is why i am confident India will prevail over its shallow, divisive, instant-nationalism..

... i appreciate your open-mindednes...i am aware of that lilting effect the RSS has in their highly cultured Hindi when they talk about maryada, sanskriti and sanskaran..about sanatan dharma and all other nice and inclusive things about india..about the scourge of casteism and corruption..about the need for discipline and ideology in life...everything good and reasoneable..

..then the slightly unpleasant stuff comes in- we just want muslims and x`ians to be proud indians first! -now how could anyone find anything objectionable in that!-..thats how these things work..it carries the assumption that a muslim or x`ian cannot be a proud indian- it Generalizes, labels, stereotypes..then will come sermons on pre-independence and post-independence injustices on hindus...hindus have endured all this as if we were napunsaks..that shift in tenor and imagery to primal emotions......

..anyway dont have the time for the rest..later...it may or may not surprise you that fundamentalists of every hue sound like this- muslim, christian, marxist, whatever to their admirers...perfectly reasonable and fighting against a hostile world out to decimate them..

..wouldnt mind hearing a differing view...have been converted before...but then about the RSS i think i`ve heard more than whats healthy...

Nasah, Hamidm, Zafar, Stuka, Upman, Ali1, Tahmed,Gohwardan

Below is a reproduction of an editorial from the NYT - I have continuously argued that Islam is the single most important context in Islamia and that personal and pulic distinctions must be developed within that context - please comment on this editorial:

`` From NYT

August 16, 2001

Islam in Central Asia

The people of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have always lived under despots. Their history is so dismal that Communism for them was a time of relative prosperity. Now, 10 years after they became independent nations, they have once again become sultanates, ruled by tyrants who maintain tight control of political and economic activity.

While the governments claim they are a steadying force, their repression is creating instability. Uzbekistan is leading a regionwide crackdown on all forms of Islam that are not state-controlled — repression that is driving entire villages into opposition and forcing religion underground. An Islamic guerrilla movement seeks to establish an Islamic state in Uzbekistan, but its 1,000 or so fighters are mainly active when the snows blocking the mountain passes between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan melt each August. Far more dangerous is the crushing response of Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan`s authoritarian president. If a Taliban-style threat arises in Central Asia, it will be because the dictatorships inadvertently helped to create it.

When the Soviet empire broke up, millions of people in Central Asia began to practice Islam. Unfortunately, local governments saw religion that was independent of the state as a threat. In Uzbekistan, the most populous of the Central Asian nations, with 25 million people, the government has arrested thousands of religious Muslims and sentenced hundreds of them to long jail terms, even though they were not accused of violent acts. Thousands of villagers in Islamic areas have been forcibly resettled.

The current guerrilla movement arose in part because of government actions. When the mass arrest of Muslims began in 1997, young religious men went underground or fled to safety in Afghanistan or Tajikistan, where they made contact with more militant movements. Mr. Karimov has used an unsolved February 1999 bombing, which some believe was carried out by the security forces, as a justification for an even wider crackdown.

While American officials talk about human rights when they meet with their Central Asian counterparts, Washington`s interest in the region`s oil and gas reserves and fear of another Afghanistan limit American criticism. Washington has never counted Uzbekistan among the nations that violate religious freedom. It richly deserves to make the list in September. The military and economic cooperation given in the name of assuring stability may in fact be helping to brew dangerous instability. The real parallel for Central Asia could be Iran under the Shah, who suffocated his nation into revolution.``

Imagine, if we can institutionalize the debate and the ideas A. K. Soroush and R. Al-Ghannouchi should gain ground, which you know, will gain ground, as the experience in Iran shows - Imagine the service performed to the hundreds of millions, imagine the prosperity, the stability - please comment.

Ali 1

Are you talking about the riots of Moradabad which took place in 1980 and 1981? Fron what I have heard, it was a one sided massacre of Hindus. In fact, what we were told is that in every riot from 1947 to 1989, since the Congress always supported Muslim organizations, it was the Himdus that got killed in much larger numbers. I am not saying that is true, but I`m saying that it does sound plausible.

Let me give you a sense of perspective. Back in 1990-91, I used to be an ABVP member. This was in my lukha 1st year college days, where student politics are basically a license to get away from attendance hassles. All this stuff that I`m regurgitating now is from back then. I only tried to explain to HobbyTy, the world view of these organizations, AS THEY SEE IT.

Don`t get me wrong. I`m not a Hindu fanatic, though yes, I`ve admitted it before, I used to be. Whereas I have seen and heard enough of the VHP and Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena to condemn all these organizations, in my own heart I am not yet ready to put the RSS in the same category. Be it family background, nostalgia, or a sense of idealism, I would like to give the RSS the benfit of doubt. There are no doubt individuals who misuse the RSS name to serve their own twisted ends. But, as a national service oriented organization, I will not put the RSS in the same basket as VHP, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal.

The most important thing is that I am a thinking individual, and if I see that the RSS puts more importance to religion than nationality, then I will unhesitatingly condemn it. There is no question about that.

Rsridhar

I am not supporting secularism, I am suggesting that so many of the Indian secularist are not either.

Zafar

I know of no other on Chowk, who would accept, besides myself, that they are Islamist but I bet you will see a great many more in the near future.

My champion of fairness - you were silent on the an intellectual lyching (``they pose the questions, the decide the content of the answers...``) All this did was reveal the shallowness and malevolence of would be lynchers, as was my purpose in responding to Gohwardan. I wonder now, If he and others here, will review their notions of fairness and the tolerance of ideas that differ from one`s own; in this case mine coming from an Islamist world view, a presentation of which is also posted on this board.

Please do not imagine that we are unfamiliar with what ``secularism`` means or that we have not studied these ideas or that we have not held them before some others even became aware of these. I contend we have a deeper understanding of these ideas than many of our Indian and some pakistani ``secularists``. It is for these reasons you will see a good many more ``Islamist`` on Chowk. Whereas you see statements such as ``now you, hamidm... maybe right that these ideas are hooey`` as a ``trick`` - many others will see it as an attempt to be fair, to be open that ideas of others may have merit, which ofcourse they do.

On the ``Why I am leaving board``, I had said to Nasah, that if a position can exist wherein both the secularist and views such as mine my share space, I would support such a space.

Please do not be convinced by any position I hold or assert, but at least be open to their validity to others. If you are going to say you are a secularist, then acknowledge that tolerance is basic to such an idea, otherwise a trap awaits you, one in which you may find yourself arguing that ``we did it to them because we are convinced that they would do it us, if they got the chance``.

By the way, did you get a chance to read the article about reformist ideas of Soroush and Al-Ghannouchi - what are your thoughts?

Reply Hobbyty #185

Hobbyty

“As to whether I learned something or not? Yes, I did. Recall my contention that Pakistan will be voice for Muslims in India - to a degree this is true, but from reading your posts with devkant and also Stuka and Narain`s I do now realize why my position was objectionable to you and others, and that my position needs to rethought, it`s basic assumption reexamined.”

I’ve learned a lot too. My first reaction to your posts was disbelief in your integrity. Now I see that you may not have been motivated by malice but by your own assumptions of what was true in the world. My assumption pre-Chowk was that Indians and Pakistanis really are the same. Now I’m questioning that – I still think we are more like each other than anybody else, but the differences are significant. Not necessarily bad or good, just significant.

“Yet others suggest that I, who brought this [anti-Islamism growing in India] in to discussion am the very same as the VHP, RSS, etc.”

I wouldn’t say that Hobbyty. I do think, however, that some of your assumptions about who “us” and “them” are are close to views held by the VHP, RSS etc. – in that you see religious differences between people as signficant, and rightly so, at the level of public life.

For example, you say:

“No, I do not promote a ``Us versus Them`` thinking. Quite the opposite. But I acknowledge it`s existence, that is when I am confronted with that kind of thinking. When confronted by a ``us versus them`` thinking, I do suggest that we should pay back in the same coin.”

Either us/them based on religion is morally acceptable, or it is not. For me the question is: what is moral and healthy for Indian society? If us/them based on religion is a bad idea this week, it’s a bad idea next week too – regardless of what happens in Pakistani or Bangladeshi or Nepali society. I would imagine you might feel the same way about society in Pakistan.

Anyway, looking forward to your next post.

Zafar

PS Is it significant that the majority of my posts these days consist of interactions with Islamists and (perhaps) Hindutvawadis?

PPS Ref # 196

“You pose the questions, You chose the content of the answers! You summarize the answers!, you come to conclusions not warranted by the answers - And you are fair and open to inquiry? - You Indian nationalist, sorry, secularist are a very fair bunch. Where is my champion, Zafar - He of ethical responsibility? Where is Dehko na Neptune, Dehko?”

If you don’t like it happening to you, don’t do it to other people first.

Reply Upman #193

Beautifully put.

Reply Hobbyty #200

Hobbyty

You made a lot of interesting points here. But you ended with:

“Now you, Hamidm, gohwardan, Zafar, et al - may be absoluteley right that these ideas are hooey…”

Arre – phhir vahi baath. And after complaining that others are putting words in your mouth not so long ago? In my opinion you have plenty to say, and resorting to these tricks takes away from, rather than supporting, your arguments.

Zafar