On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 20:31 +0530, Cecil Pinto wrote: > The column of mine describing a Narkasur spotting evening in Panjim got the > response below from a (Indian origin) friend of a cousin of mine based in > the USA. I asked his permission to post his views here. He wishes to remain > anonymous. Comment most welcome.
Shades of 'vivek'. Well, looks like the friend of a cousin of yours is a Hindutva apologist, and apparently they generally like to remain anonymous, at least on Goanet. Frankly, these are quite conventional Hindutva opinions. > 1. I am afraid I do not share your optimism about religious harmony nor > your cousin's aspirations about a benevolent universal religion. That's your prerogative. > 2. Your cousin's relatively benign attitude towards Hinduism reflects > current political realities in India. The Hindus are hopelessly divided, > and the more cohesive Christian and Islamic minorities - strengthened by > foreign missionary funding - This fellow's (or fellee, since you have not specified the gender) favourite bedside reading is probably the collected rants of K.S. Sudarshan. Yes, I do think foreign funding is an issue, and a lot of it is used for unsavoury purposes. But the Hindutva lobby is probably one of the worst offenders in this regard. For depressing details, see "The Foreign Exchange of Hate" available at http://www.stopfundinghate.org/sacw/index.html. Within a few days of the above report appearing, one of its authors, Biju Matthew, was listed on hinduunity.org (the Bajrang Dal website) among "Enemies of the Indian People". Telling the truth is not the best way to win friends and influence people. > are in a position to make or break governments > at both the national and provincial levels. ??? 15% (at the outside) of the population can do this? Because Hindus are disunited? What does disunited mean, that most of them have enough sense not to vote for the Hindutva forces? > Keep in mind that the real > ruler of India, Sonia Gandhi, is a Catholic who has surrounded herself with > Muslim and Christian advisors with a sprinkling of Hindu women in tow. This Hindu male's ego really seems to be hurting, sob, sob. (That bit at the end of this sentence decisively clears up the issue of the person's gender). I for one am proud that the current prime minister of India is a Sikh, the President is a Muslim, and the chief of the most important political party is a Catholic. This is a heartening expression of India's multicultural identity. I could go on and on, throwing facts and figures about percentage of 'minorities' in India's population and their representation in parliament and other elected bodies and how this representation is far below their share of the population, etc. etc. blah, blah. But when people want to see Christian and Muslim conspiracies everywhere, who can help them? > She has carefully kept Hindu men at bay, realizing quite correctly that > they represent the most serious threat to her dynastic ambitions. Tsk, tsk! Maybe that's why you emigrated to the USA, where men are men (and Hindus are Hindus)? > 3. Since the Hindu majority is no longer a serious threat to the > minorities, the latter can indulge in two contradictory approaches. You are right, the Hindu majority is not a threat to minorities; by and large they are too decent to be going around threatening people. But when the Hindutva forces succeed in hijacking the polity, they are a horrendous threat. Go ask the Muslims of Gujarat. > The > more liberal Christians and Muslims can afford to be graciously benevolent, > if a touch condescending, especially towards the more colorful, whimsical > manifestations of Hinduisim. The hardliners, on the other hand, smelling > blood in Hindu disarray, have stepped up their vicious attacks as can be > seen every day on numerous websites masquerading as "Dalit" enterprises! So now Dalits are added to the hate list? > 4. It is not clear how all this will play out. But I am afraid the worst > possible outcome, namely a Muslim majority in India, is not the least > probable, and may even be on the cards if current demographic trends > continue unabated. Given current rates of population increase, it will take centuries for India to become a Muslim majority state. > If and when that happens, the remaining beleagured > Christians of India will surely be nostalgic for the glory days of a > divided Hindu majority. But it will be too late then, and, unfortunately, > there will be no Hindus left to gloat over their discomfiture! This guy is quite funny, actually. Cecil, ask your cousin if he knows a good psychiatrist to whom he can be referred for treatment of his acute paranoia. Incidentally, notice the sting in his above rant. He is trying to set Christians against Muslims after setting Hindus against all others. Maybe he listens to too much George Bush out there in the US. > At the present moment we need to worry particularly about > global Islamic fundamentalism engorged as it is on petrodollars. Not > singling out this ideology for special treatment would be a tragic mistake > even in the short run. I believe there is a vacancy on George Bush's speech-writing staff. -- Question everything -- Karl Marx _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
