The Dour Ascetic
Farzana Versey April 10, 2005
#101 Posted by Faruk on April 17, 2005 8:09:48 am
Re: Farzana #88
“At the basic level, there is bound to be differentiating because it is alien, and the celebration of it becomes a clarion call for all kinds of insecurities -- when I say this it is applicable to all groups, minority and majority.”
It becomes a clarion call because other groups feel excluded, when we are able to celebrate our culture, faith etc. with others included this will not be a differentiating factor.
I am glad we agree on the shah bano case.
“In most societies the majority will have a greater stake and slice of the pie; what an effective opposition does is to let the smaller voices be heard with the understanding that they are indeed disadvantaged.”
The minority is not necessarily disadvantaged. Take the case of the Parsi’s or Christians in India, or for that matter of fact the Sikhs, the Jains, the Buddhists or any minority other than Muslims they are not disadvantaged in any way. In fact they manage to have their say most of the time.
I did not mention anything about UCC in my post, but I feel it will be good for the country.
Regards,
Faruk
“At the basic level, there is bound to be differentiating because it is alien, and the celebration of it becomes a clarion call for all kinds of insecurities -- when I say this it is applicable to all groups, minority and majority.”
It becomes a clarion call because other groups feel excluded, when we are able to celebrate our culture, faith etc. with others included this will not be a differentiating factor.
I am glad we agree on the shah bano case.
“In most societies the majority will have a greater stake and slice of the pie; what an effective opposition does is to let the smaller voices be heard with the understanding that they are indeed disadvantaged.”
The minority is not necessarily disadvantaged. Take the case of the Parsi’s or Christians in India, or for that matter of fact the Sikhs, the Jains, the Buddhists or any minority other than Muslims they are not disadvantaged in any way. In fact they manage to have their say most of the time.
I did not mention anything about UCC in my post, but I feel it will be good for the country.
Regards,
Faruk
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#100 Posted by KaalChakra on April 16, 2005 6:12:36 pm
cayenne
IMO, the assumption that a randomly drawn group of Muslims should have the same emotional/intellectual make-up as a randomly drawn group of other Indians is extremely unfair to Muslims.
As Hindus we may see ourselves as noble and generous people who do not ``discriminate.`` But we shouldn`t be surprised if the above-mentioned assumption appears to groups of Muslims as a cruel and arbitrary imposition by inconsiderate Hindus.
That is what Gandhi and Nehru never understood. This is what we find people still running away from.
Consider this: Had Gandhi and Nehru understood Islamic group sentiments better, both we Hindus and Muslims could have been MUCH further ahead already than we are now. I have no doubt the Chinese would have looked at us with the same awe with which at least some of us see them today.
drlokraj
As I mentioned in # 97, majority and minority etc are not appropriate terms. To arrive at any resolution you will have to see the issues for what they are - multidimensional problems between Hindus and Muslims.
IMO, the assumption that a randomly drawn group of Muslims should have the same emotional/intellectual make-up as a randomly drawn group of other Indians is extremely unfair to Muslims.
As Hindus we may see ourselves as noble and generous people who do not ``discriminate.`` But we shouldn`t be surprised if the above-mentioned assumption appears to groups of Muslims as a cruel and arbitrary imposition by inconsiderate Hindus.
That is what Gandhi and Nehru never understood. This is what we find people still running away from.
Consider this: Had Gandhi and Nehru understood Islamic group sentiments better, both we Hindus and Muslims could have been MUCH further ahead already than we are now. I have no doubt the Chinese would have looked at us with the same awe with which at least some of us see them today.
drlokraj
As I mentioned in # 97, majority and minority etc are not appropriate terms. To arrive at any resolution you will have to see the issues for what they are - multidimensional problems between Hindus and Muslims.
#99 Posted by cayenne on April 16, 2005 1:04:51 pm
Again, everything in india is regional and local.Even food is influenced by the region, veg or non-veg.Religious fervor is more pronounced in gujarat than in other states with large muslim populations.That is why you see flare-ups occuring every so often.Meanwhile , Uttar Pradesh state has a large muslim population, and the last time religious discord was in the news, it was that a sunni group had attacked a shia group during a procession where they beat themselves up over a prophet who died a long time ago.(i`m not a religious person, so no offense anyone).The hindus just went about their business.Likewise, a tamil muslim reading the Gita is not news down there.The muslims there even have different rituals,mostly arabic,and not persian unlike those of north india and pakistan.Some regions or cities in india have majority muslim populations and yet the collector or some satrap will have a hindu name and life goes on.Muslims in india are a minority community relative to the larger hindu population, but then again, hindus in india are not one homogenous lot, so there is much that is open to debate on this topic!!.All i know is that my muslim friends are no less eager about their country than any of my other indian friends.That is why we are gaining stature and growing from strength to strength.The world is realizing that we are united, after all.
Some dissension exists, yes , but isn`t that a prerequisite for an open society?.I can understand a nagaland citizen of india questioning how he/she ended up in the indian union and support the freedom struggle started aginst the british continued now against indians.But a majority of Naga citizens support the indian union and that is enough to sustain integration.James Lyngdoh, a Nagaland indian, the last Chief Election Commissioner of India would take no crap from even the most powerful politician.He laid down the law as far as elections in India are concerned.The current occupant, a south indian from Chennai just carries on the tradition. There are those that will question, threaten and even disrupt the status quo, even through the democratic process.But have they been in India`s case, successful?.Aren`t we being talked about as a serious contender for a permanent seat at the UN Sec. Council?.I heard Condoleeza call us a ``global influence`` and a ``global factor`` all in the space of 30 seconds.And, there are those who will still deride our unity.
Some dissension exists, yes , but isn`t that a prerequisite for an open society?.I can understand a nagaland citizen of india questioning how he/she ended up in the indian union and support the freedom struggle started aginst the british continued now against indians.But a majority of Naga citizens support the indian union and that is enough to sustain integration.James Lyngdoh, a Nagaland indian, the last Chief Election Commissioner of India would take no crap from even the most powerful politician.He laid down the law as far as elections in India are concerned.The current occupant, a south indian from Chennai just carries on the tradition. There are those that will question, threaten and even disrupt the status quo, even through the democratic process.But have they been in India`s case, successful?.Aren`t we being talked about as a serious contender for a permanent seat at the UN Sec. Council?.I heard Condoleeza call us a ``global influence`` and a ``global factor`` all in the space of 30 seconds.And, there are those who will still deride our unity.
#98 Posted by drlokraj on April 16, 2005 11:25:23 am
Its been enlightening discussion,trying to focuss on some very relevant contemporary themes,though some of the arguements do give the impression of being academic and theoretical.
The terms ``minority communalism`` and ``majority communalism``appear too dangerous to me,but the fact remains that in practical terms reactionary communalism is essentially a phenomenon displayed by minorities in multi-ethnic society.Majority communalism is like rape,i.e.``eaching a lesson``or ``stamping the authority which is in no way different than Hitler`s philosophy and modus operandi.This is bound to make minorites feel more insecure and alienated.
Majority communalism of this scale and ferocity is definitely a relatively newer phenomenon.When were Hindus so concerned about Ayodhaya before the infamous Rath Yatra? Because that worked at that time,some more disputes are being dug out now.I have seen P.N.Oak`s book on Taj Mahal being quoted now to claim that Taj is actually a Hindu structure,constructed by rajput rulers of Jaipur.This book was written in 50s and people had just laughed over it.One of the BJP MPs is going to court to claim Taj as Hindu property based on proofs given in that book.
Biggest problem for India is that the perpetrators of majority communalism have already tasted the power and have used it,though to a limited extent to further their agenda.Such use was restricted because of the presence of other parties in the coalition.
This was just experimental ,their effort is now going to be to come in power on their own.
I still believe that is not going to happen because still the majority in India is not communal and left has a big role to play in future.They have done a good job in keeping BJP away from the throne,even if they had to support congress or that.
The terms ``minority communalism`` and ``majority communalism``appear too dangerous to me,but the fact remains that in practical terms reactionary communalism is essentially a phenomenon displayed by minorities in multi-ethnic society.Majority communalism is like rape,i.e.``eaching a lesson``or ``stamping the authority which is in no way different than Hitler`s philosophy and modus operandi.This is bound to make minorites feel more insecure and alienated.
Majority communalism of this scale and ferocity is definitely a relatively newer phenomenon.When were Hindus so concerned about Ayodhaya before the infamous Rath Yatra? Because that worked at that time,some more disputes are being dug out now.I have seen P.N.Oak`s book on Taj Mahal being quoted now to claim that Taj is actually a Hindu structure,constructed by rajput rulers of Jaipur.This book was written in 50s and people had just laughed over it.One of the BJP MPs is going to court to claim Taj as Hindu property based on proofs given in that book.
Biggest problem for India is that the perpetrators of majority communalism have already tasted the power and have used it,though to a limited extent to further their agenda.Such use was restricted because of the presence of other parties in the coalition.
This was just experimental ,their effort is now going to be to come in power on their own.
I still believe that is not going to happen because still the majority in India is not communal and left has a big role to play in future.They have done a good job in keeping BJP away from the throne,even if they had to support congress or that.
#97 Posted by KaalChakra on April 16, 2005 8:51:53 am
dost-mittar, Farzana
The issues you have highlighted are the dominant concerns of Hindus and Muslims and, to a far less extent, of Hindus and Christians.
Dragging in other minorities, for whom the dominant issues are very different, moves the focus away from these relevant sets of relationships.
That will make all analysis and searching for solutions next to impossible.
So, IMO, you may want to avoid using the terms ``majority`` and ``minority,`` and speak here directly of ``Hindu and Muslim.``
Dost-Mittar ji, as a scientist, would you agree that by grouping very different units together we are not doing the truth any service?
[`truth` here defined only in the `statistical` sense that you know so well]
The issues you have highlighted are the dominant concerns of Hindus and Muslims and, to a far less extent, of Hindus and Christians.
Dragging in other minorities, for whom the dominant issues are very different, moves the focus away from these relevant sets of relationships.
That will make all analysis and searching for solutions next to impossible.
So, IMO, you may want to avoid using the terms ``majority`` and ``minority,`` and speak here directly of ``Hindu and Muslim.``
Dost-Mittar ji, as a scientist, would you agree that by grouping very different units together we are not doing the truth any service?
[`truth` here defined only in the `statistical` sense that you know so well]
#96 Posted by dost_mittar on April 16, 2005 7:26:26 am
Dear Farzana#88:
First of all, it is refreshing to see a civilized dialogue taking place here with none of the personal abuse that you have to face too frequently on your boards. Hope people will continue to do that. Now to your points.
``Majority communalism in India (as opposed to good old pugnaciousness) is a fairly recent phenomenon in its resurgent frenzy. Therefore, it is not a response to other communal identities. An ancient culture and heritage shared by 80 per cent of the population cannot be in danger due to minor identities.``
I do agree that India is somewhat unique where the majority sometimes displays a minority syndrome. I can`t say whether it is due to the recent history of the partition or to the more distant history, but this is a fact that is hard to deny.
But majority communalism is not new in India. Even the RSS is 80 years old and, lest it be forgotten, it was formed by a former congressman as a reaction against Mopla riots and the congress support of the khilafat movement (Jinnah was not the only one to leave in protest!). More to the point, it has always existed within the Congress and still does. This is why, while I celebrated the defeat of the BJP, I never equated it with the defeat of the hindutva. But I wont call it a ``resurgent frenzy`` now, that is more an episodic occurence, such as Ayodhya and Gujarat provoked by politicians to meet their ends.
``I also take issue with the use of the term `tolerance` in this context. For, any incident can be seen as communal to subjugate a people. Forget the largest minority...would one place missionary activity in the category of communalism? Yet, there have been incidents of a backlash. The excuse: conversions.``
Several issues in that short para. I do not oppose missionary activities, but I also believe that the RSS has the same right as Chrisitan missionaries. In fact, I support this competitive activity, as long as it is not violent. As a social scientist, I would be very much interested to learn the extent to which this competitive activity has expedited the provision of basic health and literacy to the people whom the government had neglected. Conversion, too, is a basic right guaranteed by the constitution and should also be covered by fundamental human rights, if it doesn`t (and please nobody bring in Saudi Arabia here!). But I also believe that mass conversion is not an act of faith but a political act and nobody should complain if it induces a political reaction.
Finally, I agree with cayenne`s post that there will always be communal elements in every community and political parties ready to cater to that constituency, but when a group starts to, or more importantly perceive to, act en bloc wrt the other, the situation is ripe for someone to provoke the majority to do the same. And that is the first step towards fascism.
First of all, it is refreshing to see a civilized dialogue taking place here with none of the personal abuse that you have to face too frequently on your boards. Hope people will continue to do that. Now to your points.
``Majority communalism in India (as opposed to good old pugnaciousness) is a fairly recent phenomenon in its resurgent frenzy. Therefore, it is not a response to other communal identities. An ancient culture and heritage shared by 80 per cent of the population cannot be in danger due to minor identities.``
I do agree that India is somewhat unique where the majority sometimes displays a minority syndrome. I can`t say whether it is due to the recent history of the partition or to the more distant history, but this is a fact that is hard to deny.
But majority communalism is not new in India. Even the RSS is 80 years old and, lest it be forgotten, it was formed by a former congressman as a reaction against Mopla riots and the congress support of the khilafat movement (Jinnah was not the only one to leave in protest!). More to the point, it has always existed within the Congress and still does. This is why, while I celebrated the defeat of the BJP, I never equated it with the defeat of the hindutva. But I wont call it a ``resurgent frenzy`` now, that is more an episodic occurence, such as Ayodhya and Gujarat provoked by politicians to meet their ends.
``I also take issue with the use of the term `tolerance` in this context. For, any incident can be seen as communal to subjugate a people. Forget the largest minority...would one place missionary activity in the category of communalism? Yet, there have been incidents of a backlash. The excuse: conversions.``
Several issues in that short para. I do not oppose missionary activities, but I also believe that the RSS has the same right as Chrisitan missionaries. In fact, I support this competitive activity, as long as it is not violent. As a social scientist, I would be very much interested to learn the extent to which this competitive activity has expedited the provision of basic health and literacy to the people whom the government had neglected. Conversion, too, is a basic right guaranteed by the constitution and should also be covered by fundamental human rights, if it doesn`t (and please nobody bring in Saudi Arabia here!). But I also believe that mass conversion is not an act of faith but a political act and nobody should complain if it induces a political reaction.
Finally, I agree with cayenne`s post that there will always be communal elements in every community and political parties ready to cater to that constituency, but when a group starts to, or more importantly perceive to, act en bloc wrt the other, the situation is ripe for someone to provoke the majority to do the same. And that is the first step towards fascism.
#95 Posted by KaalChakra on April 16, 2005 6:41:58 am
re: cayenne # 94, HP # 92-93
Interesting points. Hope others will join in so we can have a richer dialogue.
The specific concern is how Hindus - defined as the ``majority`` - should approach the ``minority issue.``
Within that broad area, we had focused on the following related questions:
1) Is it fair to put Muslims in the same category of `minorities` as Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs (and Arya Samajis or anybody else who is non Hindu in India)? Should a Hindu see a Muslim as the same kind of ``other`` as he or she should a Jain?
2) What mistakes did Gandhi and Nehru make in managing their relationships with the Muslims? Why did they make those mistakes? Did they ignore the signals that their approach was not working? Why did they persist in ignoring those signals?
Interesting points. Hope others will join in so we can have a richer dialogue.
The specific concern is how Hindus - defined as the ``majority`` - should approach the ``minority issue.``
Within that broad area, we had focused on the following related questions:
1) Is it fair to put Muslims in the same category of `minorities` as Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs (and Arya Samajis or anybody else who is non Hindu in India)? Should a Hindu see a Muslim as the same kind of ``other`` as he or she should a Jain?
2) What mistakes did Gandhi and Nehru make in managing their relationships with the Muslims? Why did they make those mistakes? Did they ignore the signals that their approach was not working? Why did they persist in ignoring those signals?
#94 Posted by cayenne on April 16, 2005 2:00:50 am
Contrary to popular perception islam came to india`s south western coast through the arab spice trade, long before the ghazni`s et al decided to hoof it across the northwest.Islam in India is as varied as its` peoples.Same for hinduism.Hinduism in India is very polyglot and multifacted.The aim of the hindutva folks is to unify these disparate forces of hinduism into one big voting block, just as the muslims try to with their political groupings.Excellent in theory, but flawed it will be in execution.Yet, we will see small blocks of hindus and other indians like sikhs , buddhists who will try to influence their community by offering an unified platform.We cannot avoid them, whether we like them or not, as we are a democracy.Everyone has to have a voice.But, the mainstream parties will continue to hold sway as indians always vote accroding to their regional and local platforms, and not on the religion platform.A minority does, and that`s how it will always be.
#93 Posted by HP on April 15, 2005 11:35:13 pm
#58 by Mantolives
“Also, despite all its flaws, Hindutva can`t be compared to Islamic fundamentalism... because Hindutva is simply politicization of Hindu identity ... and not an attempt to create a theocracy.”
If your interest in this issue is academic, then you really need to study up on this issue. Hindutva is not just politicization of Indian society but it is a full throttle effort to turn India in to theocratic state. There really is no difference in RSS and Jamaat Islami in terms of their religious ideal. RSS portrays Hindu as a religion and it is fighting for the supremacy of the religion and Hindutva is just a cover to bring all Hindu under the same umbrella against supposedly other religious entities that don’t conform with Hindu religious view of the Indian society.
#92 Posted by HP on April 15, 2005 11:19:59 pm
#90 by kaalchakra
“If liberals are determined to blindly adhere to the views and rhetorics of Gandhi and Nehru”
kaalchakra,
I think your arguments rest on your own misconstured rhetoric. Gandhi was not liberal in any sense of the word. His political symbolism heavily depended on his total commitment to his religious foundation. I have not seen any thing that he wrote or said that can in anyway be construed to be liberal or anti religion if that is the way you wanna compare the two differing political philosophies in the Indian context. The only difference was that Gandhi was not out to make India a religious state. Even if he wanted to, Nehru and socialist influence on the Indian freedom struggle and on Indian National Congress kept him from forcing his personal beliefs. But again, there is nothing to prove that he shunned his religious faith or at anytime actively supported liberal or socialist causes in India. The difference between his (Gandhi) religiosity and the current rise of fundamentalism in the Indian society is deep but that does not make Gandhi a liberal.
In the absence of a true debate between liberalism and Conservatives, in the Indian (or Pakistani) society, the religious fanatics are faking as conservatives. They will continue to define liberalism as Anti religion. Their attacks on Secularism are also based on their belief that Secularists and liberals are the same species.
A conservative in general is also a supporter of secularism as secular ideals don’t conflict with conservative ideals.
The struggle in India is between the religious fanatics and people who don’t believe that the religion should be the central part of the country’s political ideals. To win this battle, the religious fanatics would continue to malign the opposition in different ways. It is up to Indian intellectuals to buy religious fanatic’s odds and ends or pay attention to the benefits of continuing with the secularism or at least non interference of religion in the state affairs in the current world.
What Gandhi and Nehru did some sixty-seventy odd years ago is only brought up in a discussion when religious fanatics run out of legit arguments to support their view of the Indian society.
“If liberals are determined to blindly adhere to the views and rhetorics of Gandhi and Nehru”
kaalchakra,
I think your arguments rest on your own misconstured rhetoric. Gandhi was not liberal in any sense of the word. His political symbolism heavily depended on his total commitment to his religious foundation. I have not seen any thing that he wrote or said that can in anyway be construed to be liberal or anti religion if that is the way you wanna compare the two differing political philosophies in the Indian context. The only difference was that Gandhi was not out to make India a religious state. Even if he wanted to, Nehru and socialist influence on the Indian freedom struggle and on Indian National Congress kept him from forcing his personal beliefs. But again, there is nothing to prove that he shunned his religious faith or at anytime actively supported liberal or socialist causes in India. The difference between his (Gandhi) religiosity and the current rise of fundamentalism in the Indian society is deep but that does not make Gandhi a liberal.
In the absence of a true debate between liberalism and Conservatives, in the Indian (or Pakistani) society, the religious fanatics are faking as conservatives. They will continue to define liberalism as Anti religion. Their attacks on Secularism are also based on their belief that Secularists and liberals are the same species.
A conservative in general is also a supporter of secularism as secular ideals don’t conflict with conservative ideals.
The struggle in India is between the religious fanatics and people who don’t believe that the religion should be the central part of the country’s political ideals. To win this battle, the religious fanatics would continue to malign the opposition in different ways. It is up to Indian intellectuals to buy religious fanatic’s odds and ends or pay attention to the benefits of continuing with the secularism or at least non interference of religion in the state affairs in the current world.
What Gandhi and Nehru did some sixty-seventy odd years ago is only brought up in a discussion when religious fanatics run out of legit arguments to support their view of the Indian society.
#91 Posted by jang on April 15, 2005 2:47:25 pm
#90 good post kaal
vision if nehru and gandhi gave us partition holocaust and (no less painful) more sustained economic stagnation. so there must be something wrong in the vision.
vision if nehru and gandhi gave us partition holocaust and (no less painful) more sustained economic stagnation. so there must be something wrong in the vision.
#90 Posted by KaalChakra on April 15, 2005 2:30:11 pm
We claim that Nehru and Gandhi are dead. That we as a nation have moved on. That we have matured enough to recognize that these great men did not know or understand everything related to the Indian subcontinent. For thousands of years we KNOWN that there can be no such final prophet. That`s why, in our view, civilizations must learn over time.
But have we really moved even an inch? We are still making Gandhi`s and Nehru`s arguments, and don`t look beyond their rhetoric in matters of Hindu-Muslim relations.
Are we intent on repeating the mistakes these gentlemen made in managing these relations?
I hope not. Liberals who share the peaceful ideals of Nehru and Gandhi must understand why these gentlemen acted so unwisely and so incoherently in managing this relationship?
What assumptions did the two consistently make? What hopes/dreams lay behind their assumptions? Why did they keep thinking they were right? Did they receive sufficient and repeated warning signals and did they ignore them? Why?
If liberals are determined to blindly adhere to the views and rhetorics of Gandhi and Nehru, then can they expect any Hindu-Muslim results different than theirs? Won`t that be everybody`s loss?
But have we really moved even an inch? We are still making Gandhi`s and Nehru`s arguments, and don`t look beyond their rhetoric in matters of Hindu-Muslim relations.
Are we intent on repeating the mistakes these gentlemen made in managing these relations?
I hope not. Liberals who share the peaceful ideals of Nehru and Gandhi must understand why these gentlemen acted so unwisely and so incoherently in managing this relationship?
What assumptions did the two consistently make? What hopes/dreams lay behind their assumptions? Why did they keep thinking they were right? Did they receive sufficient and repeated warning signals and did they ignore them? Why?
If liberals are determined to blindly adhere to the views and rhetorics of Gandhi and Nehru, then can they expect any Hindu-Muslim results different than theirs? Won`t that be everybody`s loss?
#89 Posted by Netizen on April 15, 2005 1:41:58 pm
Re: # 88
``Re. the UCC, it will have to be sweeping; the majority communities too will lose out. It is time for it, but why did the BJP government not start the process? Were they looking for minority approval? I think not. ``
Because they didn`t have a complete majority. They were in a coalition. The ``secular`` coalition partners didn`t want to antagonise muslims. Are you really that ignorant?
``Re. the UCC, it will have to be sweeping; the majority communities too will lose out. It is time for it, but why did the BJP government not start the process? Were they looking for minority approval? I think not. ``
Because they didn`t have a complete majority. They were in a coalition. The ``secular`` coalition partners didn`t want to antagonise muslims. Are you really that ignorant?
#88 Posted by FarzanaVersey on April 15, 2005 1:18:45 pm
dost-mittarji (#75):
[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.]
Majority communalism in India (as opposed to good old pugnaciousness) is a fairly recent phenomenon in its resurgent frenzy. Therefore, it is not a response to other communal identities. An ancient culture and heritage shared by 80 per cent of the population cannot be in danger due to minor identities.
I also take issue with the use of the term `tolerance` in this context. For, any incident can be seen as communal to subjugate a people. Forget the largest minority...would one place missionary activity in the category of communalism? Yet, there have been incidents of a backlash. The excuse: conversions.
It would be ideal with religius groups ceased to have political identities, but then there would be regional, linguistic and other groups...so an ideal state is a chimera....I suppose anywhere in the world.
- - -
Faruk(#79):
[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.]
At the basic level, there is bound to be differentiating because it is alien, and the celebration of it becomes a clarion call for all kinds of insecurities -- when I say this it is applicable to all groups, minority and majority.
I agree with you about Shahbano; it was a total cop-out, but why blame the leftists? I do not agree that the Left looks the other way at the antics of smaller groups, and here I am restricting myself to religious groups. In most societies the majority will have a greater stake and slice of the pie; what an effective opposition does is to let the smaller voices be heard with the understanding that they are indeed disadvantaged. I have not heard of any Left commentator patting SIMI on the back.
Re. the UCC, it will have to be sweeping; the majority communities too will lose out. It is time for it, but why did the BJP government not start the process? Were they looking for minority approval? I think not.
- - -
Anil (#71):
It is a large subject and perhaps not quite the place for it. I will try and pen some thoughts and put it up in my private space some time later.
- -
This board might be out soon...
Regards
[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.]
Majority communalism in India (as opposed to good old pugnaciousness) is a fairly recent phenomenon in its resurgent frenzy. Therefore, it is not a response to other communal identities. An ancient culture and heritage shared by 80 per cent of the population cannot be in danger due to minor identities.
I also take issue with the use of the term `tolerance` in this context. For, any incident can be seen as communal to subjugate a people. Forget the largest minority...would one place missionary activity in the category of communalism? Yet, there have been incidents of a backlash. The excuse: conversions.
It would be ideal with religius groups ceased to have political identities, but then there would be regional, linguistic and other groups...so an ideal state is a chimera....I suppose anywhere in the world.
- - -
Faruk(#79):
[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.]
At the basic level, there is bound to be differentiating because it is alien, and the celebration of it becomes a clarion call for all kinds of insecurities -- when I say this it is applicable to all groups, minority and majority.
I agree with you about Shahbano; it was a total cop-out, but why blame the leftists? I do not agree that the Left looks the other way at the antics of smaller groups, and here I am restricting myself to religious groups. In most societies the majority will have a greater stake and slice of the pie; what an effective opposition does is to let the smaller voices be heard with the understanding that they are indeed disadvantaged. I have not heard of any Left commentator patting SIMI on the back.
Re. the UCC, it will have to be sweeping; the majority communities too will lose out. It is time for it, but why did the BJP government not start the process? Were they looking for minority approval? I think not.
- - -
Anil (#71):
It is a large subject and perhaps not quite the place for it. I will try and pen some thoughts and put it up in my private space some time later.
- -
This board might be out soon...
Regards
#87 Posted by cayenne on April 15, 2005 1:13:11 pm
Jeez, are we still taking the bait of vicious individuals who like to heckle and provoke us , or are we going to put an end to this nonsense by behaving like indians?.Do we have to descend to their level?.I think not.
#86 Posted by KaalChakra on April 15, 2005 12:44:15 pm
MaheshG2
Look, we are humanizing the ``soil,`` ``the country`` and such things. I am all for doing that, so long as we do it with our eyes open. This kind of thinking may not fit into everybody`s worldview. We shouldn`t pretend that it does.
Look, we are humanizing the ``soil,`` ``the country`` and such things. I am all for doing that, so long as we do it with our eyes open. This kind of thinking may not fit into everybody`s worldview. We shouldn`t pretend that it does.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nemesis3: #38 Posted by Pardesi... Uneven Democracy : The
- bulleya: anil#: ...can you define... Uneven Democracy : The
- harish_hyd: Today's Pakistan IS Jinnah's... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- harish_hyd: If Karzai is a... Crowning of a Crony
- Pardesi: #36 - Your health... Uneven Democracy : The
- harish_hyd: #16 Posted by Goldfinger I... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- SPY: Re: # 49 ahmedmadani:... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- bhs75: well if NAB was... NRO Is Just a
