IG, -- I am arguing against Bharat making the mistake of those who admired Hitler, and before him, Mussolini, the original model, for making the trains run on time.
Strongly agree with most of your points. But I do not like this, anyways. I did not champion Modi nor do I admire Modi. If you felt so, it wasn't to be, honestly. -- Bharat | http://twitter.com/shettyb On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Bonobashi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > --- On Tue, 19/5/09, ss <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: ss <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [silk] Why have Indian exit polls been so off lately? >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Tuesday, 19 May, 2009, 9:55 AM >> 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 > > > Shiv, > > I am afraid that while your arguments are undoubtedly facile, they are also > inaccurate. > > They live or die based on an assumption that Bharat Shetty expressed some > Hindutvabadi points of view and that I promptly coupled it with the > accusation of Modi, another Hindutvabadi proponent, being an instigator of > murder, therefore Bharat's point of view stood unworthy of consideration. > > Please go back and read the text, the exact text of what Zainab wrote and > what Bharat commented about that. > > My point here is more simplistic, cruder than you have made it out to be. > > Both Zainab, vicariously for her father, and Bharat, interpreting that point > of view, thought that Modi was preferable to Advani because of his strong > identification with progress; with growth and development. > > Is this a fair summation of the situation before I commented? Presuming that > it is, please consider: > > * There is no Hindutva involved here, only the question of what defines > political leadership; also, conversely, what disqualifies a politician from > leadership. > * My objection to Modi was nowhere connected to Hindutvabadi; it was > connected to our usual, may I say facile, ability to gloss over breaches of > the rule of law, typically because we are largely pseudo-secular in the sense > that you have defined very often, in the sense of being pluralistic with > regard to religion in public places, rather than exclusionary. > * My objection was to his being permitted to remain under consideration > even as he was tainted with such egregious breach of trust, with betrayal of > citizens of the country, citizens whose stewardship, whose well-being was in > his hands. > > * It is the same objection that I have to an historical figure, Husain > Shahed Suhrawardy, for exactly the same reasons, except that Modi happens to > be Hindu, and Suhrawardy was Muslim. > > * It is the same objection that I have to Tytler, Sajjan Kumar and the > unlamented swine H. K. L. Bhagat. > > * It is the same objection that I have to the Muslim crowds that > demonstrated to numbers in Calcutta, seeking the expulsion of the hapless > Taslima Nasreen. Being a hopeless and pedestrian writer doesn't warrant such > brutal measures, nor such a flagrant breach of the rule of law. > > So which part of Hindutva, or which Hindutvabadi was I guilty of hauling up > before my kangaroo court? While I appreciate the history lesson administered > - it is salutary to remember the basics, and it is useful to be reminded of > these from time to time, to wake up one's sleeping critical faculties - I am > not sure that it was to the right address. > > Consider for a moment that I not only do not stand in opposition to the > analysis that you have presented, indeed I support it enthusiastically. What > is it then that divides us? > > My objections do. > > Unfortunately, Shiv, these objections are not the ones you have selected for > me; these are quite simple and plain. Please read on. > > I object to Zainab's father's views - my respect for somebody not present to > defend himself, and also intimately related to a fellow-member of the list > restrains me from using adjectives, but several, not very complimentary ones, > come to mind. There is nothing Hindu-Muslim about this, it just goes to show > that - well, never mind. Let us just say that there is an equivalence of > critical faculty displayed across communities in an even-handed manner. > > I object equally to Bharat's thoughtless championing, indirectly, not > directly, I admit, of Modi, without considering that his position demands > that his positive qualities of governance and his supposed administrative > qualities be set aside in view of the basic breach of trust that he committed. > > In short, I am taking the stand that irrespective of caste, creed and > community, a leader who violates the law, and worse, instigates his followers > to violate the law, does not deserve consideration for leadership on other > grounds. Such other grounds are not compensatory in any way; they are > qualities and aspects which must be subordinate to the basic tenet of fair > leadership, to treat all under his/her care the same. > > Let me make it plain - once again, as a matter of abundant presentation - so > that it cannot be misunderstood. > > I fully subscribe to the views that you have expressed. > > However, you have thoroughly muddied the premises by assuming that Hindutva > came into the picture once Modi came into the picture. Murder, not Hindutva, > came into the picture, when Modi came into the picture. And we are fully > agreed, it seems, in our condemnation of the act of murder, and we agree > further that nobody on this list is to be thought guilty of justifying murder. > > Please go back and read carefully. The Hindutva card, so called, in its two > opposite connotations, by Bharat and by SRS as membership cards, by you as a > token of punishment and penalisation, came in later in the commentary, and > adds or subtracts nothing from my entirely justifiable indignation that a > suspected murderer is under consideration for national leadership. This is on > par with the reprehensible situation that the casteist parties in Bihar and > UP give tickets to murderers facing multiple charges, even to murderers in > the custody of the court or the police, facing live investigations. > > It is this that revolts me, not, in this present instance, Hindutva or > Hindutvabadi. > > On an historical note, since you dragged Clio kicking and screaming on stage, > in a condition of some deshabille, and in your respective postures strongly > reminiscent of Hindu mythology dealing with dragging unwilling women into an > alien forum, I wish to draw your attention to the close association between > ruthless, stringent discipline in administrative measures and totalitarianism > in general. As you are already aware, in India, there is no left > totalitarianism; one may come to that conclusion from the state of disrepair > of all public functioning in left-run states. The only totalitarianism > available to us is the totalitarianism of the right, of fascism. > > At this point, I crave your indulgence for a Sudra taking recourse to > Brahminical sophistry; in earlier times, it might have led to condign > punishment, but I may get away with some harsh words today. > > It is at present fascism and brutal totalitarian methods and practices that I > am opposed to. In this matter, there is no bigotry. I am clear that within > the Parivar, there are elements of bigotry, and there are distinct elements > of fascism, and there is no confusion in my mind as to which is which. I am > arguing against Bharat making the mistake of those who admired Hitler, and > before him, Mussolini, the original model, for making the trains run on time. > > Some remarks in general. > > I have to say at this stage, with some sorrow regrettably mingled with > frustration: to the man with the hammer, every problem looks like a nail. > > Your analogy of the torn shirt and the open fly is famous now, Shiv; it is > known widely on a variety of fora, including some where I doubt that you > would be caught dead on, of your own accord. Unfortunately, it has become a > crutch, and is no longer a useful artefact. > > Not every argument against an individual belonging to the Sangh Parivar is an > argument against the concept of Hindutva or against all Hindutvabadis, and > please also be sure that i am not making the silly mistake of confusing your > own views with your criticism of the asymmetric nature of the arguments of > pseudo-secularists. > > Is it that whenever somebody who in your book is an anti-Hindutvabadi > expresses an opinion, a mental construct within you flashes a card that says, > more or less,"Anti-Hindutvabadi - KILL"? One hopes not, but reading your > arguments, and your bellicosity on this single matter, one wonders. > > I hope that you are not falling into the same traps that you run around > wild-eyed warning others away from. > > > Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with Yahoo! India > Travel http://in.travel.yahoo.com/ > >
