And if you agree with me, what's there left to talk about? what's there left to do but decay slowly in place?
What an unlovely prospect! --- On Tue, 19/5/09, Bharat Shetty <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Bharat Shetty <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [silk] Why have Indian exit polls been so off lately? > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, 19 May, 2009, 3:27 PM > 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/ > > > > > > Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with Yahoo! India Travel http://in.travel.yahoo.com/
