Kiran, +1 By the way, has the magnitude of urban protests (articles, voicing of opinions on blogs or media, pink chaddi sarcasm/creativity whatever it might be, candle light marches etc) been lesser than protests at rural areas ?
Suppose, if it is really greater than the magnitude of protests at rural areas, I wonder why is that ? Are the people at rural areas bogged down by problems, which they perceive as greater and more pertinent to them than the pub attacks, attacks on women at urban centres ? OR Are they not given due attention by the media which delightfully is pleased to fill in the stories of urban protests into their columns and articles for they could not get something else useful to fill in their news sections ? OR Are they envious of the comfortable life led by these middle class families and youth in urban areas ? OR Are they made not to reveal too much by the local political mafias or landlords ? OR Are they missing some platform where they can come out openly like middle class urban youth and people ? The list can go on .. A pluralistic country like India throws up too many questions - some of them disturbing, and need to be analysed by getting down into the roots, if we can do that. -- Bharat On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
