On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 05:57 +0530, shiv sastry wrote:
> Martha Nussbaum wants to tell Americans about the Hindu right wing without
> showing any inclination to say where being a "normal Hindu" ends and where a
> "right wing Hindutvadi" begins.
she criticises things she says are "right wing extremist hindu". you
haven't shown that "normal hindus" are in any way included in this.
> In the process she has been critical of normal Hindu behavior.
how?
> If one were to
> internalise Martha Nussbaum's views without critical thought,
and why would one do that? she clearly assumes her readers to be capable
of critical thinking (it was published in the chronicle of higher
education).
> one would be
> inclined to believe that saying "Jai bolo Sri Ram ki" is a command to praise
> Rama.
she refers to forcing muslims to say that. ("At least one Muslim vendor
was beaten up when he refused to say Jai Sri Ram ("Hail Rama")"). she
implies that extreme right wing hindus do this. do normal hindus do it?
if so, they should be criticised too.
> If one were to internalise Martha Nussbaum's words without critical
> thought, one would have to believe that enjoying the Ramayana is to be
> involved with a murderous plot to kill all Muslims. If you read Martha
> Nussbaum's article without critical thought, you will believe that the use of
> technology in a Hindu temple is a right wing plot connected with the murder
> of Muslims.
if you believe that, you can believe anything. where is it implied in
the article? but then, without critical thinking, you _can_ believe
anything. so any discussion about any article is pointless.
> We just need to check out who needs to use critical thought and where. The
> next time I hear anyone say "Praise the lord" I will accuse him of trying to
> force me to praise a god that I don't believe in. That is what Martha
> Nussbaum has implied is correct.
implied how? she referred to _forcing_ someone to praise another god.
you can choose to read any implication you want into anything, of
course, but that's your choice.
> In my view Martha Nussbaum has intentionally or unintentionally posted a
> veiled and vicious attack on Hindus and Hinduism. The attack may be both
> justified and her right as far as she is concerned. But it is an attack on
> Hindus in the guise of an attack on the Hindu right wing. If it gets posted
> on silk list, I reserve the right to point out what I feel.
well, i think it's reasonable to expect that posts on silklist will be
reviewed with "critical thought". since the implications you derive
appear, according to what you explicitly state in your email, to be
based on a reading without critical thought, i don't see how they are
valid. you have not shown that there was anything explicitly or
reasonably implied by the article that referred to any "normal hindu"
behaviour, whatever that is. to the extent that you believe "normal
hindu" behaviour intersects with acts that were explicitly criticised by
nussbaum, such as violently forcing others to accept your religion, or
accepting myths in place of history, i agree that the author criticised
"normal hindus" and i think it is a perfectly reasonable (and not
"vicious") criticism.
-rishab
