On Saturday 18 Jul 2009 12:43:12 pm Salil Tripathi wrote: > I think the point was raised about Hindus being second class citizens > in their own land, and Muslims getting the privileges. But is being > able to have four wives, or study in madrasas, and disempower women, a > privilege? Are Muslims, by any yardstick, better off than Hindus? If > so, the Hindus would have a case - they don't, it is spurious. Surjit > Bhalla has done excellent work showing how Muslims are worse off than > even dalits by certain yardsticks, and hence more deserving of > reservations (I'm not in favor of reservations in general, by the > way).
Grievances are a time tested way of creating political upheaval. Muslim groups know this as well as Hindutva groups. I think we have been through this path of "Muslims are worse off" many times here. They are obviously worse off by all published "yardsticks" other than the yardsticks chosen by Hindutva parties. I don't think there is any argument here - and although I am not so eminent a writer as you are I doubt if you have read what I have online about my views on some of these issues (linked in earlier discussions). But that is not relevant here. > And did Gandhi really succeeding in changing the views of upper > castes? In Gujarat alone, I've reported caste-related violence of an > exceptionally crude variety, in the 80s - barely three decades after > Gandhi's death. Temple entry continues to be denied to dalits in many > parts of India. Discrimination still remains. Oh I think Gandhi played a huge role in changing perceptions across India. The fact that discrimination exists today is not an indicator of discrimination that has already disappeared, and the role that Gandhi played in making it disappear when he went around the country sinking differences in favor of unification against British rule. If discrimination were to vanish totally in future it would be possible to deny that it ever existed. That is, in fact what Pakistan has done - having virtually eliminated its minorities they now describe themselves as moderate and with respect for all religions. Like Hitler laying a wreath on the grave of a Jew. > > The narrative of what being a fundamentalist is, is changing, granted. > And the RSS/BJP are playing a major role in writing that narrative. > And that's the problem. Just as secular-liberals want the good Muslims > to speak out against the seizure of their faith by the Taliban, good > Hindus need to speak out to, and from within the Hindu tradition - as > Amartya Sen has argued. That's not happening. Some of us with > Hindu-sounding names who continue to criticize this fundamentalism, > are doing so through a lens that's universalist, and not Hindu. So > what we say, at one level, doesn't matter. It needs a Sankaracharya, > or a mahant, to take on the lunatics. And the problem is, most mahants > who are popular are busy adding more "sri"s to their names, or hawking > yoga on TV, while not making illiterate remarks against gays. Isn't this talk of "good Hindus" speaking up against the lunatics a binary argument? "Two sides to any argument" is a cliche that restricts many arguments to a binary nature. Classifying and categorizing the nature of the argument, binary or not, is not an answer to a question. Hindus exist with viewpoints that cover all shades from black to white. If you accept all as Hindus, who is not Hindu? This is a rhetorical question, but one that crops up often enough to be troublesome. Who is a good Hindu? Who is a lunatic? And this is the point I am getting at. Your good Hindu neighbor often has lunatic viewpoints about his daughter's attire and his wife's need to wear Jasmine in her hair that makes him support "the lunatics" Lumping "Hindutva" into a "Lunatics versus good Hindus" game is short sighted and superficial IMO. Hinduism has some serious and deep "flaws" in it. OK I used a strong word. There are things in Hinduism that can be seen as flaws from some other viewpoints. Calling Hindus lunatics for following certain Hindu traits is a strategic self goal. A booboo of massive poportions that I see being made by those who profess to oppose Hindutva. Conflating different issues like hatred of Muslims. attacks on Christian priests and churches, attacks on shops on Valentines day, attacks on unmarried couples or girls in jeans - lumping them all together into a single issue and then filing that in the trash tray as "Hindutva - to be discarded" is a convenient one stop shop for collecting support - but not a well thought out one. Only a very small minority of people would support all five categories above, but does agreeing with any one of them make a person a lunatic who must be opposed by "good Hindus"? Hindus have many shades. Not binary. You are always treading on some Hindu toe or another. In Hinduism you get your toe trodden upon, say "ouch" and in turn step on someone else's toe. it is easier and more relevant to look at issues 1) Should all Indian Muslims be thrown into the Arabian sea? (Bay of Bengal is another choice) 2) Should all Christians be burned? 3) What is the role of the Hindu naari? Hindutva parties have lost on all these issues. But that has not "cleaned up" what needs to be cleaned up with regard to how Hindus behave or how Muslims are treated. None of this will get addressed by constantly trying to fit all sorts of things inside the "Hindutva" box and then bashing Hindutvadis who are merely the most visible symptom of rot within the Hindu system. shiv
