On Monday 18 May 2009 10:14:56 pm Bonobashi wrote: > there is nothing hypocritical in my condemnation of the Gujarat massacres, > and that you can use this only against a specific party and specific > individuals from that party and from elsewhere who have actually > demonstrated the hypocrisy that you have rightly pilloried. > > The point? Not everybody falls within your classification, and it does not > seem logical to use arguments which depend on these categories as universal > categories. > > Now it would be interesting for you to state those other issues which are > being suppressed under the Modi smoke-screen. Please go ahead and list > them, and see how secularism or its absence affects those issues. Or our > responses to those issues.
IG I will try and address the following issues in my reply (and will hopefully answer your questions as well). 1) I will try and illustrate why the use of what I term as a "torn shirt versus open fly" argument leads inexorably into a "slippery slope" where anything can be connected up with anything else leading to irreconcilable argument without the ability to see some important issues. 2) I will also try and show why the views you have expressed, while being valid, still count as "pseudosecular" in their ability to obfuscate and suppress certain opinions. 3) How the suppression of certain inconvenient viewpoints has a negative effect on Indian society today. if you felt personally targeted by my comments, I must admit that my comments (while not targeted at you personallly) were meant to hurt anyone who counters what is seen as a "Hindutva" argument with a reminder that Modi represents genocide. i don't think any one of us on this list needs a reminder that Modi stands accused of representing genocide. I don't think anyone on this list is a supporter or abettor of murder. Let me merely point out how you have fallen into the standard Hindutva trap by raising the "Modi is a killer" card as soon as your "Hindutva detection meter" sounds a warning. But you will have to listen to a fundamntalist Hindu viewpoint that I will state here because this is exactly what is said (and let me point out that is is another egregious example of torn shirt versus open fly - where one fact does not make another irrelevant or false) Al Beruni has documented the murder of Hindus in the past. There are records of other massacres of Hindus including that of 500 brahmins in Melkote. Despite this, I will explain why would it be wrong for a "Hindutvadi" to call all Muslims murderers on the basis of documented history. No matter who committed murder in the past there are two incontrovertible facts: 1) All Muslims are not murderers and do not support or abet murder 2) For all the murder that was commited by some people, a lot of innocent people are being smeared merely for representing a different viewpoint Now apply that to "Hindutva and BJP" 1) All Hindutvadis and BJP supporters are not murderers and do not support or abet murder 2) For all the murders commited by Modi and his goons, a lot of innocent people are being smeared merely for representing a different viewpoint. The pseudosecular argument is as follows: "You represent Hindutva. Modi represents Hindutva. Modi is a murderer, and therefore your opinions coincide with that of a murderer. No decent human would agree wth you. You need to shut up" The counter argument made by "Hindutvadis" is similar: "Islam is a murderous religion. Muslim opinions represent a murderous religion. And your support to them represents support of murder and Hindu genocide. You do not represent real secularism when you fail to criticize genocide by Muslims in the past, while you criticize murder by Hindus more recently. You are pseudosecular. You need to shut up yourself" This is the "slippery slope" that you are getting into when you use Modis guilt to suppress an opinion expressed by somenone else - in this case Bharat Shetty. How does all this impact Indian society? How is "pseudosecularism" as damaging to society as a misrepresentation of all Muslims as fundamentalists? You and me and everyone else on this list, as "decent, secular" people claim to fully understand the angst of "religious minorities" in India such as Muslims and Christians. But what does not get expressed so often is that the "majority community" of Hindus have their own reasons for dissatisfaction and angst. In a "secular and democratic" country such as India, if we must go to great lengths to reduce the angst and suffering of the "religious minorities' it also means that we have to be willing to recognize and assuage the angst of the majority too, which exists, whether one wants to admit it or not. There is a problem and the Hindu majority are making sure that the problem translates into action whether or not "decent, secular" Indians allow them to have their say. I will try and explain how "Hindu majority angst" has a practical impact on the treatment of Muslims in india. (But the opinions are mine and I take responsibility for them) If you look at the Sachar committee report and look at the few articles published about th Muslim community in India you find that there is an urgent need to take Indian Muslims as "our own" and treat them as our own, for they are our own. Idiotic sops to Muslm communities and kowtowing to fundamentalist demands need to be replaced by proactive action to get Muslim children into schools to study side by side with others while Muslims get jobs (and houses) like anyone else. Why is this not happening? It is not happening because there is resistance to such action from the majority Hindu community. I put it to you that you cannot do anything good for Muslims in India until you get Hindus on your side because they are an ovewhelming majority. Getting Hindus on your side means that you have to be able to listen to a Hindu side of the story. If you spend your time talking down to Hindus as if they are all representative of murderers you will not get Hindu cooperation. The absence of Hindu cooperation with ensure that Muslims remain in the dumps in India. If that makes a few of them radical - it will only "prove a Hindu point" about Muslims in general. Do you see where I am going? Hindus too have a viewpoint. They also happen to be in a majority. These are two "inconvenient facts". Pretending that a Hindu view represents the view of murderers, reactionaries and other undesirables is wrong because it is untrue. By connecting all that is "Hindu" with extremism and expressing shame and horror and recalling Hitler and genocide whenever a Hindu viewpoint is expressed plays a role in pushing Hindu resentment below the surface - where they will resist anything positive that genuinely needs to be done for minorities in india. That is EXACTLY what has happened for 6 decades and is still happening. I think parties like the Congress and the BJP understand what I have written perfectly well. They learn from each other's mistakes. It is only when "decent secular" people like us fall into the political rhetoric trap (as has occurred on this list) that we tie ourselves up in knots by classifying one or the other as "Hindutvadi" and "pseudosecular" I hope I have made my stand clear and will be happy to clarify anything that needs clarification within the limits of my ability to do that. shiv
