Udhay, > Firstly, I was trying to draw a distinction between Indian culture(s) > and the "Indian culture" that is oh-so-conveniently trotted out as an > excuse for the various lumpen elements in the public sphere. > > Secondly, I don;t understand why _seeking to understand_ either Indian > culture or "Indian culture" is in itself a capitulation or a victory for > the Mutaliks.
What I was trying to say was maybe more in context with the article which was asking for a defense to what the Ram Sena sees as the degradation of Indian culture. Excerpt below: >>What I need is a well-thought-out, clearly articulated dictum of what constitutes Indian culture; a list if you will; ammunition. So that when orators at a Hindutva meeting talk about Indian culture being screwed up, I can tell him that they are wrong. I can tell Selvam, “Indian culture is not just about wearing jasmine in the hair. It is X, Y, and Z.”<< I don't think any clearly articulated dictum/ammunition is necessary. X, Y, and Z differs for each person. And what Mutalik is doing is imposing his X, Y, and Z if you will, on others. If the urbane try to define their own X, Y, and Z in what way are we different from Mutalik, although we are doing so in defense to Mutalik's offensive? If another crackpot starts with how Hindus should live, will we try to define what it means for us to be Hindu in defense? Be Bangalorean? All I'm trying to say is that while all these identities are collective, their essence is in each individual, not the collective. So what Mutalik is angry about is that he knows very well that his interpretation of Indian culture is dying or dead (if he is honest about his purpose which I doubt). American Beauty had this wonderful line "Never underestimate the power of denial". I'm thankful for the fact that the Ministy of Culture didn't have an answer to the question of what defines Indian culture. I'd be quite worried if they did. Kiran
