The Dour Ascetic

kaalchakra:

``than by trying to turn everyone into a Hindu.``

...where did that come from?

kaalchakra, that is what is D-M saying. People don`t have to be Hindu to be a son of the soil.

Anyway, I don`t agree with Hindutva.

dost-mittar

``from an Indian perspective, nobody is `the Other`; all are sons of the same soil.``

Depending on the context ``sons of the same soil`` can be a very empty phrase.

Why do we believe that we can create a better world by running away from reality? IMO, we can forge a safer, more peaceful coexistence for everybody by being realistic, than by trying to turn everyone into a Hindu.

kaalchakra:

It depends upon whose perspective one is looking at. From the hindutva perspective, sikhs are not ``the Other``. But from an Indian perspective, nobody is `the Other`; all are sons of the same soil.

Re: # 70


``If religion is not the basis of Hindutva, then why are other communities always portrayed as the Other?``
``Others`` are those who owe their allegiance to someone other than the motherland. Hindutva doesn`t consider Jians, Buddhists, Sikhs as others. Even Christians are fine as long as they don`t start missionary activities, but the muslims are the usual suspect, thats nothing new is all over the world.

``Advani said recently that his one regret is that he could not build the Ram temple at Ayodhya; he is not talking about the hospitals and educational institutes that could not be built. ``

How many hospitals and educaitonal institutes/year have been made during non-BJP rule? or in non-BJP states like bengal? Is there is a significant difference? You are comparing apples to oranges. Did you hear Laloo regreting that he could not build hospitals in Bihar or Sonia putting her energies in building educational institutes rather than manipulating Goa/Jharkhand. BJP rode to power/created a mass base because of temple movement, hence there is nothing wrong in his statement(whether for real or for PR).

``The leftist is against majority communalism, ``

lndian leftists are against hindu/native customs/traditions. Do leftists even believe in religion that they will tolerate securalism? why aren`t they against minority communalism? Or is it they it doesn`t happen?

``which is how secularism as a political entity functions -- to prevent a large group from holding sway and gagging any voice other than its own.``

Wrong. Secularism doesn`t allow a state to interfere in the religious matters of its subjects. It stays neutral. In democracy the majority does gag the minority voice (through the ballots) hence you see several governments implementing policies just to keep the majority happy, even if they are disastrous.

dost-mittar

Not to get distracted, my specific objection is to the misuse of the term `minority` by mixing it with the term `other.` If we give the word `other` its connotative meaning, then `minority other` should not be used to hide Hindu-Semitist otherhood.

This otherhood cannot be managed, let alone removed, by mixing it up with simple political otherness of let`s say liberal and conservatives. These situations have nothing in common. So let`s not confuse them.

Re : Farzana #70
“So, if gay rights are tolerated, should we accept that homophobia is bound to happen? “

I don’t agree with your analogy. I look at homophobia as communalism against the gay community. The point I was trying to make is that minority communalism is just as bad as majority communalism.

”I think we should see communalism as two aspects -- a communal identity and a herd mentality, sometimes misused. When does one communalism lead to another? That is a question worth thinking about.”

There is a big difference between celebrating your culture, your faith, your heritage and differentiating against others on that basis. The latter is communalism the former is not.

”The leftist is against majority communalism, which is how secularism as a political entity functions -- to prevent a large group from holding sway and gagging any voice other than its own.”

That is how secularism is defined by the leftist/socialists. It’s wrong, it’s not the way our constitution describes it and it’s a misguided view of secularism. Preventing a larger group from gagging a smaller group is fine, but tolerating all the antic’s of all smaller groups is not secularism.

The shah bano case is a good example, a small vocal group, a minority within a minority managed to force the Indian govt. to amend the Indian constitution to deprive Muslim women of their right to alimony. That is secularism according to the leftist/socialist not according to me.

Lets take another example, the French have banned all forms of religious identity from public schools. The majority Christians cannot wear the cross, the Muslims cannot wear hijab and the Jews cannot wear the scull cap. This in my opinion is taking the concept of an uniform too far but its applied across the board. It would be wrong to ask the majority Christians to leave their cross at home but make allowances for the Jewish & Muslim minority. That is what the leftist do in India.

Regards,

Faruk

dost-mittar

Except in the most trivial sense, being the ``other` is not the same as having a political identity.

kaalchakra#76

Sikhs do have a political identity; it is Christians who do not insist upon a political identity, and have benefitted from that. The result is that there are now 5-6 christian chief ministers, mostly where they are a minority.

Face facts. Then deal with them reasonably.

There are minorities, but there is no ``minority other`` in India.

It`s Hindu other and Muslim other.

It`s Hindu other and Christian other.

Essentially, it is Hindu other-Semitist other.

There is no minority `problem.` It is the `problem` of Muslims and Christians.

---

Even dumping Sikhs among the same category as Christian and Muslims is unwise. Issues are very different.

---

``I am convinced that Hindu communalism is a greater danger to India than minority communalism`` -- No comment for now.

Dear Farzana#70:

I agree with your post generally.

`` If religion is not the basis of Hindutva, then why are other communities always portrayed as the Other?``

Of course, religious identity (not religion) is the basis of Hindutva, and, yes, it is against ``the Other``, which is why I said its motives are suspect.

The ideal recipe for Indians would be to follow Jinnah`s famous advice to Pakistanis, namely, for Hindus to cease (politically) being Hindus and Muslims to be Muslims and just become Indians. But that can happen only if Muslims, Sikhs, etc. also cease to think of themselves as political entities (in my opinion, Christians already do so).

While I am convinced that Hindu communalism is a greater danger to India than minority communalism, I am also convinced that it will survive as long as other communal identities do. A tolerance of minority communalism will inevitably lead to a backlash as there will always be an Advani or a Modi to lead a backlash as long as conditions for it exist.

#73 by FarzanaVersey on April 15, 2005 1:37am PT
Re: # 72:

we seem like benign creatures before their vintage venom.


We???...If you were an adult when you interviewed desai way back in the days ye must be ancient now, was my train of thought.But, who cares??.One is as young as one thinks one is.I am eyeing the very same `nimbu paani` and i shall fan myself to escape the heat and dust of Bharat and get some beauty sleep.Slaap goed.

Re: # 72:

This really cracked me up, so before I can settle into the sultry somnambulence of the afternoon of the afternoon and tend to my...creaking knees...let me just say that I did not interview Desai NOW; by your logic I ought to be dead and conducting ghostly conversations. Besides, do check out the 18-20 year olds who rake up the past with such vigour (oh, how lovely to spit-polish that piece of antique!)...we seem like benign creatures before their vintage venom.

Re. the gay point, it is called an analogy. Not to be taken literally.

Hope YOU have something better to do...we are just eyeing that nimbu-paani...

#70 by FarzanaVersey on April 15, 2005 0:20am PT
So, if gay rights are tolerated, should we accept that homophobia is bound to happen?


......So if it does, it does!!!.Let us deal with it like everything else we have dealt with.Didn`t we overcome or working on overcoming socialism, Indira is india/India is indira, sikh extremism, muslim alienation,economic and social inequality and traitors of all kinds. We will overcome and survive.Infact, we have.The world is acknowledging us even before we`re fully there.God, you must be old!!!.Interviewing Desai!!!.I don`t mean to be offensive.But there are many old people on this site who have nothing better to do than to rake up the past , it seems!!!!.

Re: # 70
Dear Farzana:

I had often wondered and wanted to ask how a writer, journalist and a artist like you would define ``Your India``, and hence the question. Thanks for the link. Would you not say that there is more to ``Your India`` ?

Anil

dost-mittarji (#62):

[The real danger from hindutva is not religious bigotry but fascism.]

What if religious bigotry is fascistic? If religion is not the basis of Hindutva, then why are other communities always portrayed as the Other? Its political sanctity rests almost entirely on its religious credo. Advani said recently that his one regret is that he could not build the Ram temple at Ayodhya; he is not talking about the hospitals and educational institutes that could not be built.
- - -
Faruk (#63):

[If minority communalism is tolerated majority communalism is bound to happen. I don’t see the leftist as non communal, just against majority communalism.]

So, if gay rights are tolerated, should we accept that homophobia is bound to happen?

I think we should see communalism as two aspects -- a communal identity and a herd mentality, sometimes misused. When does one communalism lead to another? That is a question worth thinking about.

The leftist is against majority communalism, which is how secularism as a political entity functions -- to prevent a large group from holding sway and gagging any voice other than its own.
- - -

#57 by anil:

[How would you define... ``Your India``...?]

I am surprised by this question, since I have not used the phrase either in the article or my interacts. Wonder why you asked.

But, here`s a plug! For the answer perhaps you could go to http://www.chowk.com/show_exhibition_home_page.cgi?exid=150&start=0&end=4&chapter=1&page=1