On Hate
Godot April 14, 2002
#282 Posted by tahmed321 on April 27, 2002 2:20:00 pm
Zafar #284 That has to be the funniest sikh joke I have heard in a long time (Kitthay Pacific). Heh! heh!
And coming to airlines, you must know that PIA stands for ``Please Inform Allah``, BOAC (ancient name for British Air) was ``Better on a Camel``, SAS for ``Sex and Sandwiches``
And coming to airlines, you must know that PIA stands for ``Please Inform Allah``, BOAC (ancient name for British Air) was ``Better on a Camel``, SAS for ``Sex and Sandwiches``
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#281 Posted by Prem on April 27, 2002 2:20:00 pm
re: hobbyty # 277
There are so many issues that one has to choose but just one or two.
1. ``Indian`` is a relatively new construct - Hindu, is not. The peoples of ``India,`` in languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish and even English, are HINDU or HINDOU, the land ``us par`` of the Sindh, AKA, HIND.``
This is startling news. It goes to show that one of us is living a world of make-believe knowledge, of manufactured ignorance, an ignornace that makes communication naturally difficult. That ignorant person could well be me, since I don`t usually focus on the geographical area currently falling under Pakistan.
Where can I find a reliable reference that informs us that Hindus were people known to be living ``us par`` (a phrase made famous by Bhutto?) of the Sindh, and not in and around Sindh, near the river Indus?
I could be grossly mistaken but I thought Hindus lived over an extensive part of the land currently known as Pakistan, even beyond. Many Hindus, I am told, continue to live in Sindh. Our literature makes references to Peshawar, Taxila, and ofcourse Gandhara (Afghanistan), whose kings were said to be in close marital alliances with kings living in and around what is now Haryana and Punjab. Perhaps it is all a figment of our fertile imagination, and may be Hindus only lived ``iss paar`` of Sindh. But then Chinese pilgrims visiting Gandhar noticed a declining Hindu civilization and temples some fourteen hundred years ago. That means a stronger civilization must have flourished even before that. After all, a civilization didn`t grow out of nowhere, built temples and forts overnight. There are these temples that been found in Punjab, even NWFP and (delightfully named) kafirkot areas. Besides, there is equally generously names HinduKush to deal with.
So, the question arises - Did Hindus really live ``iss paar`` of Sindh, is that how outsiders referred to Hindus, or is that a product of your imagination? It does seem like an extremely convenient finessing of History and geography, far more blatant than accusations you have levelled against those poor archeologists following their interests in ancient civilizations. Am I wrong?
2. It is curious that you bring in history to make your points but object to the same tactic used by Hindutva vadis. If we keep focusing history to make judgements about today, then you, Hobbyty have to face the terrible fact that you are a Hindu (of course, you could be an Arab as well, merely living in the ancient land of the Hindus).
In any case, Hobbyty, I think it is very important that you help us understand some issues you repeatedly raise as elements of your stock explanations to all problems. As of now, I would request you to just tell us how you view one aspect of reality.
What are the differences between the ``ethoses`` (Zafar mian, I blame you for creating this monster of a word) of Indian Hinduism and Indian Islam? If you are not clear about Indian Islam, you could tell us something about the differences between Pakistani Islam, or (what you may prefer, being an Islamist and a believer in one Ummah) Islam in general? These differences in ethoses can be expected to shape the current reality (as opposed to our ambition), right?
Please help us understand how you see this reality?
PS: You conspiratorial fulminations against the massing of Indian army, and of course, those of romair many times earlier, were a treat to read. It is clear the hawks in the Indian government are having some effect on the hawk in Pakistani establishment. Yes, it IS very expensive to keep the army ready to attack or to defend. But then this whole business of terrorism has its costs, which you can`t always expect to avoid.
In any case, please do tell us about the differences between the ``two ethoses`` as you see them.
There are so many issues that one has to choose but just one or two.
1. ``Indian`` is a relatively new construct - Hindu, is not. The peoples of ``India,`` in languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish and even English, are HINDU or HINDOU, the land ``us par`` of the Sindh, AKA, HIND.``
This is startling news. It goes to show that one of us is living a world of make-believe knowledge, of manufactured ignorance, an ignornace that makes communication naturally difficult. That ignorant person could well be me, since I don`t usually focus on the geographical area currently falling under Pakistan.
Where can I find a reliable reference that informs us that Hindus were people known to be living ``us par`` (a phrase made famous by Bhutto?) of the Sindh, and not in and around Sindh, near the river Indus?
I could be grossly mistaken but I thought Hindus lived over an extensive part of the land currently known as Pakistan, even beyond. Many Hindus, I am told, continue to live in Sindh. Our literature makes references to Peshawar, Taxila, and ofcourse Gandhara (Afghanistan), whose kings were said to be in close marital alliances with kings living in and around what is now Haryana and Punjab. Perhaps it is all a figment of our fertile imagination, and may be Hindus only lived ``iss paar`` of Sindh. But then Chinese pilgrims visiting Gandhar noticed a declining Hindu civilization and temples some fourteen hundred years ago. That means a stronger civilization must have flourished even before that. After all, a civilization didn`t grow out of nowhere, built temples and forts overnight. There are these temples that been found in Punjab, even NWFP and (delightfully named) kafirkot areas. Besides, there is equally generously names HinduKush to deal with.
So, the question arises - Did Hindus really live ``iss paar`` of Sindh, is that how outsiders referred to Hindus, or is that a product of your imagination? It does seem like an extremely convenient finessing of History and geography, far more blatant than accusations you have levelled against those poor archeologists following their interests in ancient civilizations. Am I wrong?
2. It is curious that you bring in history to make your points but object to the same tactic used by Hindutva vadis. If we keep focusing history to make judgements about today, then you, Hobbyty have to face the terrible fact that you are a Hindu (of course, you could be an Arab as well, merely living in the ancient land of the Hindus).
In any case, Hobbyty, I think it is very important that you help us understand some issues you repeatedly raise as elements of your stock explanations to all problems. As of now, I would request you to just tell us how you view one aspect of reality.
What are the differences between the ``ethoses`` (Zafar mian, I blame you for creating this monster of a word) of Indian Hinduism and Indian Islam? If you are not clear about Indian Islam, you could tell us something about the differences between Pakistani Islam, or (what you may prefer, being an Islamist and a believer in one Ummah) Islam in general? These differences in ethoses can be expected to shape the current reality (as opposed to our ambition), right?
Please help us understand how you see this reality?
PS: You conspiratorial fulminations against the massing of Indian army, and of course, those of romair many times earlier, were a treat to read. It is clear the hawks in the Indian government are having some effect on the hawk in Pakistani establishment. Yes, it IS very expensive to keep the army ready to attack or to defend. But then this whole business of terrorism has its costs, which you can`t always expect to avoid.
In any case, please do tell us about the differences between the ``two ethoses`` as you see them.
#280 Posted by Harpreet on April 27, 2002 2:20:00 pm
Dost-Mittar:
India was great, as usual. I was in Punjab when Godhra happened, I have penned an article and submitted it to Chowk.
India was great, as usual. I was in Punjab when Godhra happened, I have penned an article and submitted it to Chowk.
#279 Posted by Prem on April 27, 2002 2:20:00 pm
re: Dost-Mittar # 281
May be I can share my gripe as well. I am less offended by Hobbyty`s utter ignorance of Hinduism (though it does kind of shock one - after all our countries are not that far apart and we HAVE known each other before), but more by his enthusiasm to (1) blame his own problems on Hinduism - again, a tradition that he simply can not tell from the Martian religion, and (2) deploy his ignorance of Hinduism to offer solutions to the problems of India! And these are not even solutions he accepts for himself, nor are these solutions designed to promote peace and understanding among Indians.
All that constitutes an amazing feat indeed.
May be I can share my gripe as well. I am less offended by Hobbyty`s utter ignorance of Hinduism (though it does kind of shock one - after all our countries are not that far apart and we HAVE known each other before), but more by his enthusiasm to (1) blame his own problems on Hinduism - again, a tradition that he simply can not tell from the Martian religion, and (2) deploy his ignorance of Hinduism to offer solutions to the problems of India! And these are not even solutions he accepts for himself, nor are these solutions designed to promote peace and understanding among Indians.
All that constitutes an amazing feat indeed.
#278 Posted by Prem on April 27, 2002 2:20:00 pm
re: ylh # 282
``true Multiethnic secular democracies always start of as homogenous countries with no tension..``
Ylh, are you sure your historical observation is correct? Secularism did NOT develop out of the homogeneity of Europe. Just the reverse, it developed out of the need to integrate people belonging to sharply divergent religious persuasions. In this the secularist movement was given a fillip by the rising tide of rationalist egalitarianism that argued that the state must not be in the business of sanctioning religious discrimination in favor of some religous thought over others.
Don`t let the fact that Europe was largely Christian and Jewish mislead you. Christian persecution of Jews had been horrendous. But the real divergence lay within Christianity ITSELF. The singling out and persecution of Catholics and Protestants by each other; as well as the persecution by Christians of those whose beliefs did not meet the tenets of being good Christians (a term Hobbyty uses and that always scares me) convinced the more rational human beings that there was just NO alternative to secularism in any society whose members differ from one another in important religious/cultural ways. Progressive, rational people simply did not want the state to have the power, or the moral incentive, to persecute some or more of members of society merely because of their religion. Thus sustained religious PERSECUTION, not a history of religious amity led to the need to remove religion from matters of the state.
Today, almost every society is multi-ethnic and multicultural. There are two approaches to integrating diverse communities. One is to structurally reduce all but one to the level second class citizens, guranteeing them peace and security in return for their acceptance of second class status. This is the model many Islamic countries follow, and the model that RSS types in India wish to implement. The other is to aim for a secular order. This second route is riskier as well as more promising for minorities. It also is the only system that appeals morally to any any half decent man or woman. There is no third way.
Even logically, it is difficult to see the social dynamic that will lead a peaceful homogeneous society into a secular state. What significant advantages does secularism bring to a completely homogeneous society, advantages that will more than offset significant costs that secularism invariably entails? If we think in evolutionary terms, what is the survival value of secularism? Is it the fear that nonsecular societies will invariably lose out to secular societies in free-market competitions? Even if one accepts that (and that is true), societies that became secular in the West were actually the biggest winners of their times. They were NOT competing against other secular states.
BTW, do you buy into the argument that religion is the only source of tension, or invariably the major source of tension, among different communities? Also, is your support for a secular order a moral one (sanctioning of religious discrimination being morally repugnant) or an efficiency-based one (say, a state that forces all its people to engage in various religious dogamtic rituals is less productive and hence less competitive)?
``true Multiethnic secular democracies always start of as homogenous countries with no tension..``
Ylh, are you sure your historical observation is correct? Secularism did NOT develop out of the homogeneity of Europe. Just the reverse, it developed out of the need to integrate people belonging to sharply divergent religious persuasions. In this the secularist movement was given a fillip by the rising tide of rationalist egalitarianism that argued that the state must not be in the business of sanctioning religious discrimination in favor of some religous thought over others.
Don`t let the fact that Europe was largely Christian and Jewish mislead you. Christian persecution of Jews had been horrendous. But the real divergence lay within Christianity ITSELF. The singling out and persecution of Catholics and Protestants by each other; as well as the persecution by Christians of those whose beliefs did not meet the tenets of being good Christians (a term Hobbyty uses and that always scares me) convinced the more rational human beings that there was just NO alternative to secularism in any society whose members differ from one another in important religious/cultural ways. Progressive, rational people simply did not want the state to have the power, or the moral incentive, to persecute some or more of members of society merely because of their religion. Thus sustained religious PERSECUTION, not a history of religious amity led to the need to remove religion from matters of the state.
Today, almost every society is multi-ethnic and multicultural. There are two approaches to integrating diverse communities. One is to structurally reduce all but one to the level second class citizens, guranteeing them peace and security in return for their acceptance of second class status. This is the model many Islamic countries follow, and the model that RSS types in India wish to implement. The other is to aim for a secular order. This second route is riskier as well as more promising for minorities. It also is the only system that appeals morally to any any half decent man or woman. There is no third way.
Even logically, it is difficult to see the social dynamic that will lead a peaceful homogeneous society into a secular state. What significant advantages does secularism bring to a completely homogeneous society, advantages that will more than offset significant costs that secularism invariably entails? If we think in evolutionary terms, what is the survival value of secularism? Is it the fear that nonsecular societies will invariably lose out to secular societies in free-market competitions? Even if one accepts that (and that is true), societies that became secular in the West were actually the biggest winners of their times. They were NOT competing against other secular states.
BTW, do you buy into the argument that religion is the only source of tension, or invariably the major source of tension, among different communities? Also, is your support for a secular order a moral one (sanctioning of religious discrimination being morally repugnant) or an efficiency-based one (say, a state that forces all its people to engage in various religious dogamtic rituals is less productive and hence less competitive)?
#277 Posted by hobbyty on April 27, 2002 2:20:00 pm
Zafar Al-Talib
``Can morality only be framed, or defined, through religion in this day and age?``
Not necessarily. I`m in complete agreement with you on this point - and also this is an open universe and it is also a diverse universe (duh! I couldn`t think of putting it another way). But, please, please be real for just a minute - most people DO frame ethics and morality in a religious framework.
``I agree that Hindutva can only be countered by the majority of Indians asking themselves what it means to be a decent human being - surely a prerequisite to being a good Hindu or a good Muslim - and then acting on it.``
No, for me it`s not being a decent human being that allows one to a good Muslim or Hindu or whatever - in fact, being a good Muslim or a good Hindu, allows one, teaches one, what a decent human being is and how to be one. If one already knows what ``decent`` is and is acting on it - why be a Muslim or a Hindu or a whatever?
``In Pakistan countering sectarianism can also only be done if the majority of the population asks themselves what it means to be a decent human being, which is a prerequisite to being a good Muslim, no?``
Absolutely NO! In Pakistan or anywhere else, in my opinion, sectarianism can only be countered by being a better Muslim - sectarianism is not so much a political problem as much as it is a problem of religious understanding, of ethics and morality - this is it`s proper, correct, framework. The failure of state does not, should not mean failure of an individual Muslim or Hindu or whatever. The state is the embodiment of coersive power, where as religious faith and understanding is the Reason for the doing of the good.
``Divorcing common decency from definitions of a good Hindu or Muslim makes no sense``
OK, I agree it`s nonsense - but you sure are making the same ideological point repeatedly in this post, it`s almost as if you are uncomfortable agreeing or lambs to the slaughter; No sweat, the feelings mutual.
By the way, your point about democracy and secularism being reduced to voting - was a gem. I could not agree more.
dost-mittar
Dost, I read, with disgust, in the Tribune, an opinion piece where the author pointed out that most Gujratis, he interviewed were of the opinion that Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence planned the events in Gujrat, that`s right, the all knowing, the all powerful, DISI; Boo! He cautioned that these events are a portend for what is to follow on a national level. Your critical faculties fail you when you make statements that state planning could not be possible - have you not come across reports that state officials had to have been a part of this, that police colluded with the rioters? That Indian Muslim civil servants are seeking transfer out of Gujrat and that others have resigned? Since when are these published reports, my theory???? Well, I suppose time will tell. What I find baffling is that few seem interested to know definitively, what happened and why - maybe it`s too embarrassing right now - maybe investigations will have wait for more enlightened times.
In so far as the people who you mentioned, these are persons of conscience, with whom I differ in the kinds of ideas we find compelling. Sometimes, it takes a 2 by 4 between the eyes to begin to see things in their proper light; it will now be SEVEN, let me repeat, SEVEN weeks that riots and killings are going on. I know you are disturbed, you may view it as an injury to your sense of self - it`s actually worse than that - the power, the will to stop it, seems not to exist or be exercised.
Recall that I had alerted you to the danger of Hindutva last year and for my efforts, the label, bigot was my reward and my warning worthy of dismissal - but it could not be otherwise - the persons you have mentioned could not, in their wildest imagination, conceive that such a thing was possible in India, anymore. Such is the power, appeal of ideas - we can over look or pretend not to see or understand the things we find objectionable. BJP, VHP, RSS, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal, etc., have never been secret about their vsion for India and the proper role of ``minorities`` in such an India. They have enjoyed showing the ``minorities`` their place in Hindu but secular India. Yes Hindu and secular seem contradictory today but did not seem contradictory before the riots, it is only confirmation that ``people can change their minds about things``. But the events of Gujrat were not just one day of recklessness or lawlessness, it is now SEVEN weeks. Christian Science Monitor reports that it has become entertainment - people come in cars to see the burning and killing, as if an Indian version of ``drive-in``.
#256
``In all fairness, you have never attacked me personally. And I do not mind criticism whether personal or of my views. But our difference is not just of views but of basic premise. Although you never quite say it in so many words, the implicit premise of your posts is that Casteism is the defining characteristic of Hindus and Hinduism is the defining characteristic of India;``
I won`t let this one pass - Forget the personal stuff, we don`t know one another, we are in no way ``personal`` however; I do enjoy conversing with you - ``Our difference is not just views but basic premises`` - how many rioters have been telling themselves this - as basic as Muslim and Hindu? Different basic premises should not find common ground? What if the answer to that is, no? is there any more justifcation you need to understand that you do not fully appreciate what Liberty, Pluralism, Tolerance and Secularism in society are about? Agree with my basic premises or else? Clearly we agree on some basic premises, that`s what this exchange is about, right?
Are you saying that all the books, authors, scholars are wrong when they posit that
Casteism is a defining, a unique characteristic of Hinduism? - Do you know of any other, can you cite any other religion that involves a social and religious organization of human society, where in persons are organized by caste?
Hinduism is not the defining characteristic of India? I`m sure that`s news to Hindus. Hindus are the overwhelming majority of India, also know in circles with some small familiarity with history, as HINDUstan - ring a bell?
``Hindus hate Muslims because of their caste system and therefore Muslims have no
alternative but to fight to break India into several pieces.``
Are you having a problem with ``Hindus hate Muslims`` or are you disagreeing with ``because of their caste system`` or are you disagreeing with ``therefore Muslims have no...`` - if you are having a problem with the entire statement - don`t assert it.
Caste is a justification of inequality in society based on Zaat/Jaat, that is, on a biological basis, persons who do not see each other as biological equals are not likely to see persons outside the framework of Hinduism, as biological equals. This is the primary reason Hinduism has the appeal it does around the world. Hinduism had spread to Java and Kampuchea - do these people have caste system???? Isn`t it unique to Hinduism in India????
As to alternatives available to Muslims - well, would I be wrong in pointing out that British India/Hindustan, already exist in several pieces, as does Pakistan - would it be not PC of me to say if events of Gujrat are followed by similar events elsewhere in India - a more permanent solution to prevent these outrages will be sought? Imagine the shoe was on the other foot, If it were not Muslims but Hindus who were suffering these outrages, how might they react? would it be acceptable to ask them to continue to sacrifice their lives and property, so someone else`s ideology would not have to be reevaluated?
``Sorry, with that premise, no discussion is possible, especially with someone whose
knowledge of Hinduism and India seems to be limited to some vague notion of what caste was, is and/or will be.``
OK, but what`s the ``sorry`` for? If no discussion is possible, why be sorry? Things are what they are, right? right?
``Can morality only be framed, or defined, through religion in this day and age?``
Not necessarily. I`m in complete agreement with you on this point - and also this is an open universe and it is also a diverse universe (duh! I couldn`t think of putting it another way). But, please, please be real for just a minute - most people DO frame ethics and morality in a religious framework.
``I agree that Hindutva can only be countered by the majority of Indians asking themselves what it means to be a decent human being - surely a prerequisite to being a good Hindu or a good Muslim - and then acting on it.``
No, for me it`s not being a decent human being that allows one to a good Muslim or Hindu or whatever - in fact, being a good Muslim or a good Hindu, allows one, teaches one, what a decent human being is and how to be one. If one already knows what ``decent`` is and is acting on it - why be a Muslim or a Hindu or a whatever?
``In Pakistan countering sectarianism can also only be done if the majority of the population asks themselves what it means to be a decent human being, which is a prerequisite to being a good Muslim, no?``
Absolutely NO! In Pakistan or anywhere else, in my opinion, sectarianism can only be countered by being a better Muslim - sectarianism is not so much a political problem as much as it is a problem of religious understanding, of ethics and morality - this is it`s proper, correct, framework. The failure of state does not, should not mean failure of an individual Muslim or Hindu or whatever. The state is the embodiment of coersive power, where as religious faith and understanding is the Reason for the doing of the good.
``Divorcing common decency from definitions of a good Hindu or Muslim makes no sense``
OK, I agree it`s nonsense - but you sure are making the same ideological point repeatedly in this post, it`s almost as if you are uncomfortable agreeing or lambs to the slaughter; No sweat, the feelings mutual.
By the way, your point about democracy and secularism being reduced to voting - was a gem. I could not agree more.
dost-mittar
Dost, I read, with disgust, in the Tribune, an opinion piece where the author pointed out that most Gujratis, he interviewed were of the opinion that Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence planned the events in Gujrat, that`s right, the all knowing, the all powerful, DISI; Boo! He cautioned that these events are a portend for what is to follow on a national level. Your critical faculties fail you when you make statements that state planning could not be possible - have you not come across reports that state officials had to have been a part of this, that police colluded with the rioters? That Indian Muslim civil servants are seeking transfer out of Gujrat and that others have resigned? Since when are these published reports, my theory???? Well, I suppose time will tell. What I find baffling is that few seem interested to know definitively, what happened and why - maybe it`s too embarrassing right now - maybe investigations will have wait for more enlightened times.
In so far as the people who you mentioned, these are persons of conscience, with whom I differ in the kinds of ideas we find compelling. Sometimes, it takes a 2 by 4 between the eyes to begin to see things in their proper light; it will now be SEVEN, let me repeat, SEVEN weeks that riots and killings are going on. I know you are disturbed, you may view it as an injury to your sense of self - it`s actually worse than that - the power, the will to stop it, seems not to exist or be exercised.
Recall that I had alerted you to the danger of Hindutva last year and for my efforts, the label, bigot was my reward and my warning worthy of dismissal - but it could not be otherwise - the persons you have mentioned could not, in their wildest imagination, conceive that such a thing was possible in India, anymore. Such is the power, appeal of ideas - we can over look or pretend not to see or understand the things we find objectionable. BJP, VHP, RSS, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal, etc., have never been secret about their vsion for India and the proper role of ``minorities`` in such an India. They have enjoyed showing the ``minorities`` their place in Hindu but secular India. Yes Hindu and secular seem contradictory today but did not seem contradictory before the riots, it is only confirmation that ``people can change their minds about things``. But the events of Gujrat were not just one day of recklessness or lawlessness, it is now SEVEN weeks. Christian Science Monitor reports that it has become entertainment - people come in cars to see the burning and killing, as if an Indian version of ``drive-in``.
#256
``In all fairness, you have never attacked me personally. And I do not mind criticism whether personal or of my views. But our difference is not just of views but of basic premise. Although you never quite say it in so many words, the implicit premise of your posts is that Casteism is the defining characteristic of Hindus and Hinduism is the defining characteristic of India;``
I won`t let this one pass - Forget the personal stuff, we don`t know one another, we are in no way ``personal`` however; I do enjoy conversing with you - ``Our difference is not just views but basic premises`` - how many rioters have been telling themselves this - as basic as Muslim and Hindu? Different basic premises should not find common ground? What if the answer to that is, no? is there any more justifcation you need to understand that you do not fully appreciate what Liberty, Pluralism, Tolerance and Secularism in society are about? Agree with my basic premises or else? Clearly we agree on some basic premises, that`s what this exchange is about, right?
Are you saying that all the books, authors, scholars are wrong when they posit that
Casteism is a defining, a unique characteristic of Hinduism? - Do you know of any other, can you cite any other religion that involves a social and religious organization of human society, where in persons are organized by caste?
Hinduism is not the defining characteristic of India? I`m sure that`s news to Hindus. Hindus are the overwhelming majority of India, also know in circles with some small familiarity with history, as HINDUstan - ring a bell?
``Hindus hate Muslims because of their caste system and therefore Muslims have no
alternative but to fight to break India into several pieces.``
Are you having a problem with ``Hindus hate Muslims`` or are you disagreeing with ``because of their caste system`` or are you disagreeing with ``therefore Muslims have no...`` - if you are having a problem with the entire statement - don`t assert it.
Caste is a justification of inequality in society based on Zaat/Jaat, that is, on a biological basis, persons who do not see each other as biological equals are not likely to see persons outside the framework of Hinduism, as biological equals. This is the primary reason Hinduism has the appeal it does around the world. Hinduism had spread to Java and Kampuchea - do these people have caste system???? Isn`t it unique to Hinduism in India????
As to alternatives available to Muslims - well, would I be wrong in pointing out that British India/Hindustan, already exist in several pieces, as does Pakistan - would it be not PC of me to say if events of Gujrat are followed by similar events elsewhere in India - a more permanent solution to prevent these outrages will be sought? Imagine the shoe was on the other foot, If it were not Muslims but Hindus who were suffering these outrages, how might they react? would it be acceptable to ask them to continue to sacrifice their lives and property, so someone else`s ideology would not have to be reevaluated?
``Sorry, with that premise, no discussion is possible, especially with someone whose
knowledge of Hinduism and India seems to be limited to some vague notion of what caste was, is and/or will be.``
OK, but what`s the ``sorry`` for? If no discussion is possible, why be sorry? Things are what they are, right? right?
#276 Posted by Shah on April 27, 2002 2:20:00 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#275 Posted by ZafarA on April 27, 2002 1:48:35 am
Reply Subroto
okay, okay, inspite of your parsi money I will be generous with my gujuben joke (single):
Q: What did Gujuben say when her car`s radiator sprung a leak?
A: Maruti Susuki.
And I know that Khalistan jokes are very passe, but I enjoyed them so much:
Q: What is Khalistan`s national airline?
A: Kiththay Pacific?
Q: What does a Khalistani mechanic do?
A: Car seva.
Q: What do you call a Khalistani who lives in the water?
A: Jullandar Singh.
Q: What do you call the same Khalistani after he has adapted to his environment?
A: Jullandar Singh Gill.
And my personal fave:
Q: What is Khalistan`s national bird?
A: Tandoori Chicken.
And that`s all folks, except for an endorsement for Maratha Airways where you travel in style with our kashta draped apsaras plying you with Shivaji Regal as they sell you duty free cartons of Benson and Hegde.
You, Subroto, are Roachistan`s answer to Roseanne Barr AND UK`s French & Saunders rolled into one! I salute you.
Jai Roachistan!
okay, okay, inspite of your parsi money I will be generous with my gujuben joke (single):
Q: What did Gujuben say when her car`s radiator sprung a leak?
A: Maruti Susuki.
And I know that Khalistan jokes are very passe, but I enjoyed them so much:
Q: What is Khalistan`s national airline?
A: Kiththay Pacific?
Q: What does a Khalistani mechanic do?
A: Car seva.
Q: What do you call a Khalistani who lives in the water?
A: Jullandar Singh.
Q: What do you call the same Khalistani after he has adapted to his environment?
A: Jullandar Singh Gill.
And my personal fave:
Q: What is Khalistan`s national bird?
A: Tandoori Chicken.
And that`s all folks, except for an endorsement for Maratha Airways where you travel in style with our kashta draped apsaras plying you with Shivaji Regal as they sell you duty free cartons of Benson and Hegde.
You, Subroto, are Roachistan`s answer to Roseanne Barr AND UK`s French & Saunders rolled into one! I salute you.
Jai Roachistan!
#274 Posted by ZafarA on April 27, 2002 1:48:35 am
Reply Hobbyty #277
Can morality only be framed, or defined, through religion in this day and age?
I agree that Hindutva can only be countered by the majority of Indians asking themselves what it means to be a decent human being - surely a prerequisite to being a good Hindu or a good Muslim - and then acting on it.
(In Pakistan countering sectarianism can also only be done if the majority of the population asks themselves what it means to be a decent human being, which is a prerequisite to being a good Muslim, no?)
Divorcing common decency from definitions of a good Hindu or Muslim makes no sense - and is not condoned by these religions either. It could be argued that divorcing common decency from the popular understanding of what it means to be a good Hindu or a good Muslim is what has allowed Hindutva or Islamism (for want of a better word, but if you can think of one to describe our version of Hindutvawadis let me know) to have their current positions in the subcontinent.
So yes - the issue IS a moral one, and it includes religion though it is not limited to it.
Regards
Can morality only be framed, or defined, through religion in this day and age?
I agree that Hindutva can only be countered by the majority of Indians asking themselves what it means to be a decent human being - surely a prerequisite to being a good Hindu or a good Muslim - and then acting on it.
(In Pakistan countering sectarianism can also only be done if the majority of the population asks themselves what it means to be a decent human being, which is a prerequisite to being a good Muslim, no?)
Divorcing common decency from definitions of a good Hindu or Muslim makes no sense - and is not condoned by these religions either. It could be argued that divorcing common decency from the popular understanding of what it means to be a good Hindu or a good Muslim is what has allowed Hindutva or Islamism (for want of a better word, but if you can think of one to describe our version of Hindutvawadis let me know) to have their current positions in the subcontinent.
So yes - the issue IS a moral one, and it includes religion though it is not limited to it.
Regards
#273 Posted by ylh on April 27, 2002 1:48:35 am
Zafar,
If you don`t mind my butting in?... have you wondered why historically Secularism has always emerged out of previously homogenous states? You know like Europe... etc? Even America started out as a Homogenously protestant country...
Whereas in artificial countries where warring communities are brought together by force, it has failed disastrously.. ofcourse you know the country I have in mind, but for the sake of balanced argument I will keep it out.. how about Yugoslavia? Czechoslovakia?
In my opinion, true Multiethnic secular democracies always start of as homogenous countries with no tension.. then overtime by virtue of secularism and education they acquire tolerance becoming multicultural and multiethnic.. ok I can`t help myself.. otherwise Gujurats happen!
-YLH
If you don`t mind my butting in?... have you wondered why historically Secularism has always emerged out of previously homogenous states? You know like Europe... etc? Even America started out as a Homogenously protestant country...
Whereas in artificial countries where warring communities are brought together by force, it has failed disastrously.. ofcourse you know the country I have in mind, but for the sake of balanced argument I will keep it out.. how about Yugoslavia? Czechoslovakia?
In my opinion, true Multiethnic secular democracies always start of as homogenous countries with no tension.. then overtime by virtue of secularism and education they acquire tolerance becoming multicultural and multiethnic.. ok I can`t help myself.. otherwise Gujurats happen!
-YLH
#269 Posted by tahmed321 on April 26, 2002 10:00:38 pm
Subroto #264 I enjoyed those jokes that you posted. Looks like the gujjus and mallus and the bongs and (sorry prem) the bhayias are giving the sardars tough competition. Here is one from the most popular topic (among some) on chowk: In Kashmir, the jehadi tries to escape capture by pretending to be dead. Indian soldier kicks him on the side to see if he is really dead. Jehadi angrily tells him ``baywaqoofa, tooN naiN janNa kay shaheedaN nooN tang nai karday naiN?`` (you fool, dont you know that martyrs should not be bothered?).
#268 Posted by hobbyty on April 26, 2002 10:00:38 pm
Zafar Al-Talib
``This implies that secularism is only valid in situations where there are no communal tensions.``
Not at all - It ``implies`` nothing of the sort. What it says clearly is that ``objective secularism`` - the specialization/differentiation of the institutionsof religion and governance, can be said to have been accomplished, only if the institutions of governance are truly differentiated from that of governance. In the case of present day India, such an argument, that institutions of governance in India are differentiated from institutions of religion, is a difficult case to make. It is difficult simply because BJP and other organized units of Hindtva, promote one religion above others.
``I would say that secularism is even MORE necessary in these situations than in
those where communal tensions are minimal or nonexistent.``
The existence of communal violence is partly because the lack of ``objective secularism`` - that is, institutions of governance have promote the interests of a particular religion, as a narrow group in both the institutions of religion and governance, see those interests. In present day India, the discourse on religion has become infused with one that includes history and psychology. Hinduism is no longer just another religion, nor is Islam or is Christianity; Hindutva argues a historical ``injustice`` suffered at the hands of another religion, a religion of ``invaders,`` of non-Indians. Hindutva argues that a ``pacifism`` which it also refers to as ``cowardice`` has been partially responsible for the imposition and sufferance of historic ``injustices.`` So long as such ideas have legitimacy among the majority, there can be little chance that objective secularism can be achieved - because, remember, the ethos of the majority are reflected in the public institutions.
``Where I disagree with you (correct me if I’m wrong) is the assumption that meaningful
categorisation of a population is always by religion...``
I want to remind you, again, ``Indian`` is a relatively new construct - Hindu, is not. The peoples of ``India,`` in languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish and even English, are HINDU or HINDOU, the land ``us par`` of the Sindh, AKA, HIND. You have a valid point, meaningful categorization of a population is not always by religion - however; you fail to acknowledge that such a characterization is meaningful and is in wide spread usage. Our ideal is to not characterize persons by religion - however; Hindus want to be Hindus, Muslims want to Muslims, Catholics want to be Catholics, etc., should these characterizations be denied because some find such characterization, does not fit in with their ideological commitment? - Is that not changing the results of our observation, instead of our theory? After all, are the victims calling themselves Muslims, is the rest of the world calling them Muslims - Are the perpetrators calling themselves Hindu? is the rest of the world calling them Hindu? Shall we not acknowledge reality? How much PC language is enough? If You or others do not wish to be characterized by your religion or lack of it or whatever - please do understand that these are units of organization - they help us organize information - no offense is intended.
``and that the ethoses (yeh lafz hai?) of Indian Hinduism and Indian Islam are
fundamentally different when it comes to basic issues like justice, education, law and order, etc.``
Yet again, an unwillingness to acknowledge reality - I suggest that we keep our eyes on the ball, in this case, the events in Gujrat - The loss of life and property, the surrender of the state`s will to protect rights, life, liberty and property - as a manifestation of a political struggle of a religio-political movement is meaningful. Clearly those doing the killing and those supporting them have different notions of ``Justice`` - wouldn`t you agree? The argument that ``their people started it`` is also reflective of different notions of, ``law and order,`` wouldn`t you agree? The ``big deal`` here, is that the state is a party to the conflict - any suggestion that such a behavior is ``secularism`` is obscenity.
The other side of the coin is the suggestion that we can create agreement on what ``Justice,`` ``law and order,`` ``education and it`s role in society`` mean - most certainly, others have had success and but for will, it would be possible. Look and see the difference between what can be and what is? - - See, you can get to ``what can be,`` only when you acknowledge ``what is`` -- You and Prem and so many others seem to scared to admit the ``what is`` and seem fixated on ``what can be`` - that`s why I have characterized your attitude as ``Utopian.``
``Whether India’s secular institutions accurately reflect the ethos of the majority of Indians is, however, a valid question – and one which can only be answered by elections. Given the upswing in support for the secular (non-Hindutva) parties in the Hindi heartland and Punjab, there is reason to hope that it does.
Again, some reality, I`m begging - Congress with Sonia as leader is a nonstarter, isn`t it? (what do you think this says about the ethos of the majority of Indians) And is not Mr. Vajpayee on record as saying he is prepared for national elections? And if Congress could challenge BJP, would it not have done so, already? I think, to understand the present situation, one has to begin with Hindutva. If one thinks that Hindutva can be defeated by secularism, in my opinion, it is day dreaming. Hindutva has a strong appeal to the majority - the majority define themselves as Hindus. The only way Hindutva can be over come is for Hindus to ask, ``What does it mean to be a Hindu?`` How Hindus decide to answer this question will determine the course of India and the response of the world.
``In Gujarat, however, there is clearly a large segment (majority?) of the population
whose ethos is NOT reflected in secular institutions.
This a giant giveaway of your ideological commitment and I ask you to revaluate your position. Recall your statement about the ``ethoses`` of Indian Islam and Hinduism? Are they same? your statement above begs if they are the same, why are they not reflected? Can we say that agreement exist as to what ``justice,`` etc., means? Do you know see the concern that those who call themselves ``secularists`` must have? and this concern must begin with the question, ``what went wrong and why?``
``How widespread is this problem? How can we tell?``
Were to be honest, and not defensive, we would have to admit the problem is widespread. But what does wide spread mean in a polity of more than a billion? In my opinion, to suggest that the problem is of such proportions that ``effectively``-Hindutva ideology, is the dominant feature of both governance and attitudes about religion in society.
``I’m not sure I agree with you. In secularism religious INSTITUTIONS do not impact the institutions of Government, but the impact of religion on the consciences (and hence voting decisions) of the electorate is easily accomodated in the system, given the safeguards against discrimination against individuals on the basis of personal belief.``
Please make up your mind - do the ideas of ethics and morality of the majority effect public institutions? I recall you saying, they do. In OBJECTIVE SECULARISM, the institutions of religion are specialized, differentiated, from the institutions of governance - they are subordinate to the institutions of governance, not subservient. Institutions religion most certainly do impact institutions of governments - again, the ethos of the majority are reflected in public institutions. An example: The death penalty, in the US, religious institutions support it - in Europe, the secular humanist prevail on this subject and have co-opted religious authority as well, to withdraw support for the death penalty.
``You seem to imply that freedom of conscience and the electoral choices that informs
for each individual is not compatible with secularism, but I disagree. Secularism is not necessarily atheism, it just is not Mullahism or Panda-raj (however sophisticatedly or crudely these may be presented).``
Please stop engaging in straw man arguments - I have never argued that secularism is atheism and I resent your continued efforts at misrepresentation. Subjective secularism, in which ``profanation,`` the diminishment of religion from culture and conscience, is operational ( as in China, USSR and Europe) is not about Mullahism or such, but rather aimed at creating a system hostile to the practice of traditional organized religions.
``Secularism is the political expression of fairness and equality in multireligious societies, which is indeed an ethical issue.``
I rest my case. Objective secularism is born of ethics of Protestant Christianity - it is related to ethics but only those who argue for Subjective secularism will posit that it is ethics, a new religion displacing the traditional organized religions. I agree that objective secularism is about fairness and equality and assert that such fairness and equality is not possible without the freedom of religion.
``Perhaps we could have a more straightforward interaction if you spelled out what you thought the problems with the Indian version of secularism are (there are many many such, no argument) and also which solutions you see to them (extreme or otherwise).``
It is indeed complex, but in my opinion, Hindutva is a problem for objective secularism in India - and there is precious little the forces of secularism can do about it - Hindutva does not really operate in the framework of a secular framework, so how can secularism effect it unless, by becoming subjective secularism - deny the freedom of religion - something most in India will take exception to. Hindtuva is really a problem for the realm of religion and the realm of governance - yet it effects governance directly. This problem is reflective of the giant debate to come - and be assured it will come - as to what is Indian secularism to be? Objective or Subjective?
But this debate is in my opinion a symptom of a larger problem that governance in India itself has yet to come to grips with (exactly the same social problem exists on the other side of the border) - social justice - No group of persons will succumb to Obscuritanism (and Hindutva ideology is just that) if they think and feel, they live in a just society. Obscuritanist live on the ``dignity deficit`` that characterizes societies in the subcontinent and else where - look for yourself, where ever there is the sentiment of injustice, Obscuritanism has adherents.
Another problem for Indian secularism is it`s failure to generate agreement in society on exactly what is meant by ``justice,`` ``a level playing field`` for all sections of society. It has sought to cut all kinds of regional, provincial, deals that have allowed the larger interests of India to be sacrificed in favor of smaller, party or personal interests. It has tried to deal with the curse of caste and it cannot succeed because caste does not operate in the realm of governance - it is deeply connected with both the question, ``What does it mean to be a Hindu`` and it`s answer.
Success for Indian secularism? It goes without saying that keeping together a civil and just India, is no easy task. To be honest, I am more focused on the problems - - How should we know we have succeeded? after all every problem we solve creates a new problem. Talk of success is just more psychology but I recognize the morale factor.
``Do you see a connection between where the Indian Army is now, and the situation of secularism in India today? (The Armed Forces are perhaps the most uncommunal of all large organisations in India. They are certainly the most widely respected.)``
The report that the events of Gujrat had been planned months ago raises suspicions, alarm bells with me. I am becoming more convinced that the events of Gujrat and the political reactions would not be possible were the armed forces not deployed as they are and without the creation of a a war hysteria. I do not know whether you realize what it takes to keep close to a million men armed and primed for action - can you even imagine the logistics and cost of supply and procurement for such an extended period? Do you realize the munitions packed in grease have to be degreased and then maintained on a daily basis - in a desert? Maintenance of air assets on a daily basis in a desert? I very suspicious of a now 5 month deployment, while a section of the country where law and order has disintegrated, where there are internal refugee camps, and a threat of retaliation and reprisal exists nationwide - I mean what Pakistani is quaking in their boots, thinking ``these guys are going to implode``?
``Have you read an Indian newspaper recently?``
Daily - but the difference is that I can discern action from talk - not everyone does, you know
``This implies that secularism is only valid in situations where there are no communal tensions.``
Not at all - It ``implies`` nothing of the sort. What it says clearly is that ``objective secularism`` - the specialization/differentiation of the institutionsof religion and governance, can be said to have been accomplished, only if the institutions of governance are truly differentiated from that of governance. In the case of present day India, such an argument, that institutions of governance in India are differentiated from institutions of religion, is a difficult case to make. It is difficult simply because BJP and other organized units of Hindtva, promote one religion above others.
``I would say that secularism is even MORE necessary in these situations than in
those where communal tensions are minimal or nonexistent.``
The existence of communal violence is partly because the lack of ``objective secularism`` - that is, institutions of governance have promote the interests of a particular religion, as a narrow group in both the institutions of religion and governance, see those interests. In present day India, the discourse on religion has become infused with one that includes history and psychology. Hinduism is no longer just another religion, nor is Islam or is Christianity; Hindutva argues a historical ``injustice`` suffered at the hands of another religion, a religion of ``invaders,`` of non-Indians. Hindutva argues that a ``pacifism`` which it also refers to as ``cowardice`` has been partially responsible for the imposition and sufferance of historic ``injustices.`` So long as such ideas have legitimacy among the majority, there can be little chance that objective secularism can be achieved - because, remember, the ethos of the majority are reflected in the public institutions.
``Where I disagree with you (correct me if I’m wrong) is the assumption that meaningful
categorisation of a population is always by religion...``
I want to remind you, again, ``Indian`` is a relatively new construct - Hindu, is not. The peoples of ``India,`` in languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish and even English, are HINDU or HINDOU, the land ``us par`` of the Sindh, AKA, HIND. You have a valid point, meaningful categorization of a population is not always by religion - however; you fail to acknowledge that such a characterization is meaningful and is in wide spread usage. Our ideal is to not characterize persons by religion - however; Hindus want to be Hindus, Muslims want to Muslims, Catholics want to be Catholics, etc., should these characterizations be denied because some find such characterization, does not fit in with their ideological commitment? - Is that not changing the results of our observation, instead of our theory? After all, are the victims calling themselves Muslims, is the rest of the world calling them Muslims - Are the perpetrators calling themselves Hindu? is the rest of the world calling them Hindu? Shall we not acknowledge reality? How much PC language is enough? If You or others do not wish to be characterized by your religion or lack of it or whatever - please do understand that these are units of organization - they help us organize information - no offense is intended.
``and that the ethoses (yeh lafz hai?) of Indian Hinduism and Indian Islam are
fundamentally different when it comes to basic issues like justice, education, law and order, etc.``
Yet again, an unwillingness to acknowledge reality - I suggest that we keep our eyes on the ball, in this case, the events in Gujrat - The loss of life and property, the surrender of the state`s will to protect rights, life, liberty and property - as a manifestation of a political struggle of a religio-political movement is meaningful. Clearly those doing the killing and those supporting them have different notions of ``Justice`` - wouldn`t you agree? The argument that ``their people started it`` is also reflective of different notions of, ``law and order,`` wouldn`t you agree? The ``big deal`` here, is that the state is a party to the conflict - any suggestion that such a behavior is ``secularism`` is obscenity.
The other side of the coin is the suggestion that we can create agreement on what ``Justice,`` ``law and order,`` ``education and it`s role in society`` mean - most certainly, others have had success and but for will, it would be possible. Look and see the difference between what can be and what is? - - See, you can get to ``what can be,`` only when you acknowledge ``what is`` -- You and Prem and so many others seem to scared to admit the ``what is`` and seem fixated on ``what can be`` - that`s why I have characterized your attitude as ``Utopian.``
``Whether India’s secular institutions accurately reflect the ethos of the majority of Indians is, however, a valid question – and one which can only be answered by elections. Given the upswing in support for the secular (non-Hindutva) parties in the Hindi heartland and Punjab, there is reason to hope that it does.
Again, some reality, I`m begging - Congress with Sonia as leader is a nonstarter, isn`t it? (what do you think this says about the ethos of the majority of Indians) And is not Mr. Vajpayee on record as saying he is prepared for national elections? And if Congress could challenge BJP, would it not have done so, already? I think, to understand the present situation, one has to begin with Hindutva. If one thinks that Hindutva can be defeated by secularism, in my opinion, it is day dreaming. Hindutva has a strong appeal to the majority - the majority define themselves as Hindus. The only way Hindutva can be over come is for Hindus to ask, ``What does it mean to be a Hindu?`` How Hindus decide to answer this question will determine the course of India and the response of the world.
``In Gujarat, however, there is clearly a large segment (majority?) of the population
whose ethos is NOT reflected in secular institutions.
This a giant giveaway of your ideological commitment and I ask you to revaluate your position. Recall your statement about the ``ethoses`` of Indian Islam and Hinduism? Are they same? your statement above begs if they are the same, why are they not reflected? Can we say that agreement exist as to what ``justice,`` etc., means? Do you know see the concern that those who call themselves ``secularists`` must have? and this concern must begin with the question, ``what went wrong and why?``
``How widespread is this problem? How can we tell?``
Were to be honest, and not defensive, we would have to admit the problem is widespread. But what does wide spread mean in a polity of more than a billion? In my opinion, to suggest that the problem is of such proportions that ``effectively``-Hindutva ideology, is the dominant feature of both governance and attitudes about religion in society.
``I’m not sure I agree with you. In secularism religious INSTITUTIONS do not impact the institutions of Government, but the impact of religion on the consciences (and hence voting decisions) of the electorate is easily accomodated in the system, given the safeguards against discrimination against individuals on the basis of personal belief.``
Please make up your mind - do the ideas of ethics and morality of the majority effect public institutions? I recall you saying, they do. In OBJECTIVE SECULARISM, the institutions of religion are specialized, differentiated, from the institutions of governance - they are subordinate to the institutions of governance, not subservient. Institutions religion most certainly do impact institutions of governments - again, the ethos of the majority are reflected in public institutions. An example: The death penalty, in the US, religious institutions support it - in Europe, the secular humanist prevail on this subject and have co-opted religious authority as well, to withdraw support for the death penalty.
``You seem to imply that freedom of conscience and the electoral choices that informs
for each individual is not compatible with secularism, but I disagree. Secularism is not necessarily atheism, it just is not Mullahism or Panda-raj (however sophisticatedly or crudely these may be presented).``
Please stop engaging in straw man arguments - I have never argued that secularism is atheism and I resent your continued efforts at misrepresentation. Subjective secularism, in which ``profanation,`` the diminishment of religion from culture and conscience, is operational ( as in China, USSR and Europe) is not about Mullahism or such, but rather aimed at creating a system hostile to the practice of traditional organized religions.
``Secularism is the political expression of fairness and equality in multireligious societies, which is indeed an ethical issue.``
I rest my case. Objective secularism is born of ethics of Protestant Christianity - it is related to ethics but only those who argue for Subjective secularism will posit that it is ethics, a new religion displacing the traditional organized religions. I agree that objective secularism is about fairness and equality and assert that such fairness and equality is not possible without the freedom of religion.
``Perhaps we could have a more straightforward interaction if you spelled out what you thought the problems with the Indian version of secularism are (there are many many such, no argument) and also which solutions you see to them (extreme or otherwise).``
It is indeed complex, but in my opinion, Hindutva is a problem for objective secularism in India - and there is precious little the forces of secularism can do about it - Hindutva does not really operate in the framework of a secular framework, so how can secularism effect it unless, by becoming subjective secularism - deny the freedom of religion - something most in India will take exception to. Hindtuva is really a problem for the realm of religion and the realm of governance - yet it effects governance directly. This problem is reflective of the giant debate to come - and be assured it will come - as to what is Indian secularism to be? Objective or Subjective?
But this debate is in my opinion a symptom of a larger problem that governance in India itself has yet to come to grips with (exactly the same social problem exists on the other side of the border) - social justice - No group of persons will succumb to Obscuritanism (and Hindutva ideology is just that) if they think and feel, they live in a just society. Obscuritanist live on the ``dignity deficit`` that characterizes societies in the subcontinent and else where - look for yourself, where ever there is the sentiment of injustice, Obscuritanism has adherents.
Another problem for Indian secularism is it`s failure to generate agreement in society on exactly what is meant by ``justice,`` ``a level playing field`` for all sections of society. It has sought to cut all kinds of regional, provincial, deals that have allowed the larger interests of India to be sacrificed in favor of smaller, party or personal interests. It has tried to deal with the curse of caste and it cannot succeed because caste does not operate in the realm of governance - it is deeply connected with both the question, ``What does it mean to be a Hindu`` and it`s answer.
Success for Indian secularism? It goes without saying that keeping together a civil and just India, is no easy task. To be honest, I am more focused on the problems - - How should we know we have succeeded? after all every problem we solve creates a new problem. Talk of success is just more psychology but I recognize the morale factor.
``Do you see a connection between where the Indian Army is now, and the situation of secularism in India today? (The Armed Forces are perhaps the most uncommunal of all large organisations in India. They are certainly the most widely respected.)``
The report that the events of Gujrat had been planned months ago raises suspicions, alarm bells with me. I am becoming more convinced that the events of Gujrat and the political reactions would not be possible were the armed forces not deployed as they are and without the creation of a a war hysteria. I do not know whether you realize what it takes to keep close to a million men armed and primed for action - can you even imagine the logistics and cost of supply and procurement for such an extended period? Do you realize the munitions packed in grease have to be degreased and then maintained on a daily basis - in a desert? Maintenance of air assets on a daily basis in a desert? I very suspicious of a now 5 month deployment, while a section of the country where law and order has disintegrated, where there are internal refugee camps, and a threat of retaliation and reprisal exists nationwide - I mean what Pakistani is quaking in their boots, thinking ``these guys are going to implode``?
``Have you read an Indian newspaper recently?``
Daily - but the difference is that I can discern action from talk - not everyone does, you know
#267 Posted by arjun_m on April 26, 2002 2:50:17 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#266 Posted by ylh on April 26, 2002 2:50:17 pm
Ladies and gentlemen
REQUEST: Please don`t throw Jay a bone by responding to him.
#265 Posted by tahmed321 on April 26, 2002 12:08:32 pm
dost-mittar #248 I must admit I did not have this impression of hobbyty. But then, I read only the hobbyty posts in the three or four times that we have debated an issue (generally having to do with interpretation of Islam) only (since even I, hard though it may seem given the frequency of my posts on chowk, cant spend the time needed to read all posts, particularly the lengthy ones). So: I will take you at your word on hobbyty. The fact that you think 2 jay = 1 hobbyty while I think it is 1 jay = 2 hobbyty is possibly an indication of the difficulty we have as humans in taking a totally fair view of anyone. And you are at least as fair, and probably more so, than I am.
#264 Posted by jay on April 26, 2002 12:08:32 pm
Soysauce,
``Speaking of dilemmas and contradictions, i`m always puzzled by the legends and stories where a selfless and detached person is rewarded at the end with gold and other goodies. If that`s not a real contradiction what is?``
I do not think many indian stories say that. But the point is that a disinterested person will be able to attain what ever he chooses, and if it happened to be gold and other goodies, so be it, But it is very unlikely.
Now to a story, real story. Thakkral Group is a major property group in Singapore/ Australia owning many prestigeous hotels. The wealth was built by an sardar based in singapore. While in sydney, some journalists asked him, now that you have significant investment in australia, how about buying a sea side property in sydney. The man in his typical punjabi village accesent said, `` oh goodness, I still live in a one bedroom house in singapore where I lived for the past forty years, the best food is still the sukka chaptty my wife makes and the best sleep is still in my old bed. If I leave that everything will be lost``. In australia he owns three five star hotels including hayat and sheraton. The man is no saint, but he is ten percent there, and he likes to own hoels, not that he likes them, but he chooses to own them.
regards
Jay
``Speaking of dilemmas and contradictions, i`m always puzzled by the legends and stories where a selfless and detached person is rewarded at the end with gold and other goodies. If that`s not a real contradiction what is?``
I do not think many indian stories say that. But the point is that a disinterested person will be able to attain what ever he chooses, and if it happened to be gold and other goodies, so be it, But it is very unlikely.
Now to a story, real story. Thakkral Group is a major property group in Singapore/ Australia owning many prestigeous hotels. The wealth was built by an sardar based in singapore. While in sydney, some journalists asked him, now that you have significant investment in australia, how about buying a sea side property in sydney. The man in his typical punjabi village accesent said, `` oh goodness, I still live in a one bedroom house in singapore where I lived for the past forty years, the best food is still the sukka chaptty my wife makes and the best sleep is still in my old bed. If I leave that everything will be lost``. In australia he owns three five star hotels including hayat and sheraton. The man is no saint, but he is ten percent there, and he likes to own hoels, not that he likes them, but he chooses to own them.
regards
Jay
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- SPY: Re: # 50 ahmedmadani:... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- bhs75: Re: # 92 "About the... The Strange Case of
- SPY: Re: # 54 NewPakistan:... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- SPY: Re: # 38 ahmedmadani... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- Goldfinger: Re: # 14 arjun...do they... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- SPY: Re: # 37 ahmedmadani... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 14 I... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- SureshM: Re: # 36 God Bless... Uneven Democracy : The
