The use of grievances may be time-tested method, but one should at least dispassionately be able to figure out if the grievance has merit. And while each community or caste has some grievance, it is a stretch to argue that "Hindus are second-class citizens in India." It flies in the face of logic, facts, balance of evidence, etc. Of course Hindutva parties will choose their own yardsticks. And of course, they'll appear ridiculous.
This has nothing to do with eminence - or not - in writing. I don't consider myself eminent at all. And indeed, you'd have expressed more detailed views elsewhere on the Net, just as I have written about some of these issues extensively over 20 years. I agree there's no need to go over arguments we've made elsewhere. Of course, discrimination never vanishes from a society. The question is whether the state, or its instruments, perpetuate it, or whether they do anything to offer redress and protection. In the latter part, India has a weak case; in the former part, India does offer a lot more constitutional protection to its citizens than Indians ever did, before 1947. I'm suggesting the need for "good Hindus" to speak out because many within Hindutva want "good Muslims" to speak out against the mullahs. If Hindus don't want to reform their faith, it is their problem. I have no idea who a good Hindu is. But I can tell, usually accurately, lunatics from each faith. (I can't tell who a good Christian or Muslim, either). Hindutva becomes equated with lunatics because Hindutva's "good" adherents - presumably people like Arun Shourie, Arun Jetley, Jaswant Singh, and Yeshvant Sinha - do precious little when a Sri Rama Sene or the Shiv Sena turns up at their doorstep, with evidence of wrongdoing in their hands. And I'm not calling Hindus lunatics. I'm calling many Hindutva adherents accepting their lunatic fringe rather unquestioningly, precisely because their message resonates with a constituency that can be mobilised. Look how the BJP responded to the Varun Gandhi speech. (For the record, I'm glad Varun made that speech - it demonstrated that he was indeed his father's son). > 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. That may be convenient, but are those red-or saffron-flags to be ignored/tolerated? I find that behavior offensive, and I don't have too much time for them, except to condemn them. (And over the past 20+ years I've written enough against the Ayatollahs, popes, and the Taliban too). > > Only a very small minority of people would support all five categories above, But in India even "small minorities" run into millions of people. > but does agreeing with any one of them make a person a lunatic who must be > opposed by "good Hindus"? That's for "good Hindus" to decide. > > 1) Should all Indian Muslims be thrown into the Arabian sea? (Bay of Bengal is > another choice) So long as we sent all Indian Hindus to Nepal, in that case. > 2) Should all Christians be burned? After their natural death, if they so prefer. I have no problem one way or another. > 3) What is the role of the Hindu naari? The role she wants to play. > Hindutva parties have lost on all these issues. Have they? I sure hope so. Thanks; Salil
