My two paise on the question: Why can't the response be that of tolerance rather than a definition? Udhay, a discussion on what constitutes Indian culture would not be capitulation, but providing that as a response would be. This is because by framing a definition, you are also defining an other. As soon as the other is defined, then it becomes an either or question unless the definition is loose enough to accommodate the other too. The Sene can have their ideas of what constitutes culture. The question is not whether their idea of culture is right or wrong, but whether everyone needs to conform to that idea. The pink chaddi response made a lot of people uncomfortable because it chose to define the other in closed terms. Hence, you had to be a part of the pink chaddi campaign to be the other of Sene. The boundaries cannot be black and white because we live in the shades of gray. That's probably why Shobha's response of trying to get at X,Y and Z defining Indian culture would fall into the same trap.
Even if it is "proved" tomorrow, by some newly discovered science, that the Sene definition is what Indian Culture is, the ideal of tolerance cannot be held ransom to such definitions.
