2009/3/9 Mervyn Lobo <[email protected]> > > One last thing, Santosh has a record on Goanet, one that stretches over a > decade, of being > consistent in his religious views and actions. You seem unable to accept > this.
Mervyn and others: Let me say this, I am usually quite impressed by the usually meticulous marshalling of arguments by Marshall. Unlike many others, he has kept his cool too while making his point. On the other hand, Santosh indeed has a long-standing fair-minded reputation on Goanet. But in these times when all of us are prone to getting polarised (and religious infighting is being increasingly pushed centre-stage on the South Asian agenda), I have also myself been critical of some of Santosh's recent stands, particularly after the Sonal Shah issue. We may debate over whether anyone at all "justified" the Orissa violence, and how such "justifications" can at all be undertaken. But, as I argued earlier, one would expect much more unambiguous stands from people like Santosh, who have a long-standing reputation of fair-mindedness and neutrality. Should we see it as a pogrom or a riot? Was caste the basic issue behind the conflict, or communalism? Is the Orissa violence totally disconnected from what happened in Karnataka? Since we are obviously not able to check out things for ourselves from the distance, whose arguments and explanations do we accept for the events there? In brief, I feel we should not shout down any point of view, as long as it is argued well and politely. In cyberspace, we can only make points and express our opinion not by adducing 'proof' (whatever this means) but by contesting opinions -- ideally, ones which don't go on for years, as in the Fr Ivo-Santosh case -- and leaving readers to judge the merits of each. FN -- FN * http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com "Without a struggle, there can be no progress." - Frederick Douglass
