Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:58:55 +0530 From: Sandeep Heble <[email protected]>
A response to the following post on the GX Forum http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GoenchimXapotam/message/18507 My Response: I generally agree with Rajan's opinions on this. While the secular brigade has always been very vocal in condemning Hindu fundamentalism (and rightly so), they are strangely silent when it comes to condemning the fundamentalism in other religions. This duplicity often bothers me. There is hardly even a whisper that one can hear from them even when the principles of freedom of expression are being abused left, right and center by Islamic fundamentalists. Here's an interesting column by Vir Sanghvi that I had read some time back. This column perfectly exposes the double standards of the Indian secular brigade. Please do read it. http://tinyurl.com/dx3oaq Mario responds: I will let any member of the so-called goddamed "secular brigade" speak for himself or herself about the so-called duplicity they are being accused of by Mr. Heble, who, in turn, only seems to single out Islamic fundamentalists for special mention and opprobium, while grudgingly agreeing, because he has no reasonable alternative in a public forum like Goanet, that Hindu fundamentalists are equally odious. I have no idea who these goddamed "secular brigade" folks may be. However, not being either a religious fundamentalist nor a duplicitous secularist, I will speak only on behalf of reason, truth and peace on Goanet, and those who may agree with me [Peace be upon them]:-)) Have I been silent in criticizing the fundamentalism of non-Hindus? I recall there used to be a Muslim Goanetter years ago who dropped out because he couldn't deal with my trenchant critiques of Islamic fundamentalists - I think he construed my criticisms of Islamic fanatics as criticisms of regular Muslims. This is the typical Ummah syndrome, but what good is Ummah when the primary targets of Islamic fanatics are innocent Muslims? Even Sandeep would have been pleased. Hasn't he noticed my love for the peaceable Hindu supremacists I grew up with in RSS and Hindu Mahasabha dominated MP, and taught to respect others as long as they were Indian patriots? BTW, we all agreed that pro-Pakistani Indians deserved no respect. And, as a practicing Catholic, I have unequivocally called for Christian fascists and fanatics to be brought to justice if found guilty of converting anyone against their will. If there is anyone else that needs straightening out, some errant Buddhist, Jain or Sikh perhaps, even a fundamentalist atheist, who is running amok, I hope Sandeep will bring them to my attention. Here is an excerpt from the Vir Sanghvi column: Most societies recognise that freedom of artistic expression must necessarily clash with religious sensitivities. Mindful of this conflict, they create their own balance and draw their own boundaries to decide what is acceptable and what is not. For instance, the Islamic world regards all offence to religion as entirely unacceptable. In the West, such societies as Britain and Denmark reckon that artistic freedom is so absolute that religious sensitivities are irrelevant. When cultures clash, as they did over the Danish cartoons, each society must decide what balance it prefers. Our problem in India is that we have no standards, no barriers and no sense of what is acceptable and what is not. Instead, each time the issue erupts, we engage in the same meaningless, finger-pointing debates, and call each other names. No principles are ever discussed. No guidelines are drawn up. No balance is reached. [end of excerpt] In my never-humble opinion, while India's constitution guarantees freedom of speech, religion, peaceful assembly, etc. India's culture and government does goddamed nothing to consistently ensure these freedoms for everyone. It all depends on who you are, where you are, and which way the political wind is blowing. Dear Mr. Vir Sanghvi, is India a free, democratic and civilized society? It is? Good. Then the answer is simple. The only acceptable standard is as follows: Everyone, fundamentalist and secularist alike, and everyone in between and without, bar none, has the right to say and do anything peaceably that they goddamed like, as long as this does not interfere with anyone else's property, or intersect with anyone else's skin, or stay within 6" of anyone else's face for any length of time more than ten seconds. I don't give a sh.., ...um, hoot, or a bucketload of intestinal waste products what anyone's religion says or what any atheist thinks. That's their business, as long as they stick to the three caveats mentioned above: namely, say whatever the heck you want, whenever the heck you want and wherever the heck you want, but stay the heck away from my property, my body and my personal space. Have I been specific enough in answering Mr. Sanghvi's plaintive plea for an Indian standard? Now, what about this can even Mr. Sanghvi fail to comprehend?
