My Op-Ed in Pioneer: Talibanisation in practice
Thursday, 19. February 2009 - 2:55 PM
An edited version of the original I sent them was published today. Comments/criticism welcome.
Talibanisation in practice
Sandeep B
The current political creed ruling India wears the secular tag like a talisman. Yet, it drugs itself asleep during incidents that actually threaten true secularism
Yatha raja tatha praja (As the king so are the people) is a timeless Sanskrit proverb. With her clarion ‘pub bharo’ battle-cry, Ms Renuka Choudhury has become an overnight role model of sorts for thousands of urban Indian youth. Not merely content with force-crowding pubs, our urban youth decided to launch a love-battle against Pramod Muthalik by gathering a nationwide arsenal of dirty pink underwear. But the average urban youngster’s profile forbids us to expect that he/she knows Ms Choudhury’s antecedents as a staunch crusader against liquor during her TDP days. But then, the quality of Ms Choudhury’s leadership can only beget such behaviour.
If anything, the mindless youth-hysteria is actually an overwhelming tribute to her sheer genius. The ‘underwear campaign’ swiftly exposed the yawning intellectual vacuum of our youth, bereft of independent thought. It showed how they willingly mortgaged their brains to become puppets of a political scheme behind a seemingly-frivolous remark made by a seemingly-ignorant politician. They don’t ask this: Would Renuka Choudhury react with similar courage had the pub attack occurred in a Congress-ruled State, and the attack would have been perpetrated by Congress party workers?
The Consortium of Loose and Forward Women’s Facebook group is a barometer of what a majority of youth think are earth-shattering issues. It took one pub attack and a ‘Talibanisation’ remark to erase the memories of 26/11. If only this enthusiasm and mass mobilisation in organising ‘underwear protests’ were put to effective use the first time there was a terror attack on India, our politicians would have fallen in line. While our urban youth wait expectantly on the threshold of pub-crowding, an incident of real ‘Talibanisation’ has quietly occurred.
Editor Ravindra Kumar and publisher Anand Sinha of Calcutta-based The Statesman were detained in police custody for the singular offence of reproducing Johann Hari’s article, critical of Prophet Muhammad. As expected, angry Muslims egged on by their mullahs demonstrated so peaceably that the police had to use batons to break the demonstrators several times this week. The poor duo had to lick their wounds by apologising.
Mr Hari’s article is a powerful argument against a dangerous trend that has already made rapid and vast inroads in the democratic world. It conclusively shows how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been compromised by the rabid Islamic world: “Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia… issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within ‘the limits set by the shari’ah.’ It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate something which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community.â€
Mr Hari details the dangers posed by this trend of prohibiting criticism of religions. Understandably, this enraged our Muslims against the hapless newspaper, which was fully within its democratic right to publish opinion pieces backed by historical evidence.
But the larger issue is the threat of violence, which has since Mahatma Gandhi’s time worked like magic. Behind this threat lies the exact intolerance that Mr Hari describes. Left unchecked and taken to its logical end, it results in comprehensive ‘Talibanisation’. The current political creed ruling India wears the secular tag like a hoarding. Yet, it drugs itself asleep during such incidents, which actually threaten secularism. Nobody can demand privileged treatment in a secular country.
‘Underwear champions’ and misguided advocates of free speech need to actually note the ‘Statesman incident’. Instead, they are busy giving national publicity at their own cost to Pramod Muthalik and his goons.
But the Statesman incident won’t bother them for two reasons. The secular media, a handmaid of the ultra-secular political class is busy obfuscating such pesky, inconvenient news items. Not one prominent media house gave the coverage this outrageous act deserved. The sad and dangerous fallout of this incident is that the Statesman won’t publish such pieces for a long time, at least. Second, such incidents don’t directly threaten the applecart lifestyles of the pub-goers. When it does, it’ll be too late to protest.
19. February 2009 - 4:22 PM
While i do realise the importance of the issues you are raising…I would also like to point out that you have deliberaltely misrepresented the protests in the aftermath of the Mnagalore incident…Just like Ms. Chaudhary you need to keep your political bias aside!
The protest was not for pub bharo..the protest was to demonstrate that women are not cattle…and they have the right to self determination just as the men…Why did Muthalik’s men target only women why not the men who were accompanying them? Afterall alcohol cannot be lethal to women only…i am sure it has the same effects on men too! Half of the women who sent the pink underwear or took part in the pub bharo andolan dont even drink…but thats a personal choice…the state has no right to force these choices on me…and neither does Muthalik or his bunch of goons!
Today its- Dont go to pubs, tomorrow it will be dont talk to strange men, day after dont step out of the house and after that why do you need to be educated???
I dont know if you were in India after 26/11 but there were many such protests in various Indian cities. Please do visit
http://indiahelps.blogspot.com/. This is an outcome of 26/11. While the media maynot be giving it too much attention doesnt mean that people arent doing anything…Do check the profile of the women behind it…they would all be members of the pub campaign that you so dislike!!
Maybe it is a selection bias? You want to see only what you see and not what is there?
We noted the violence against women and raised our voices against it…You have noticed teh incident against Statesmen…You are free to go ahead and mobilize support to protest against it… i raised my voice…you need to raise yours too..writing Op-eds isnt going to cut it!
19. February 2009 - 5:29 PM
Renuka is a w****.The Congress if it is a national party should throw her out.
The problem is compounded by a powerful christist catholic lobby in Dakshin Kanara.Oscar Fernandes and margaret alva come from mangalore.Bloggers like Nitin who are GSBs are not understanding the feelings of manninde magane.Mohammedans are migrating from kerala to mangalore,chikmagalur and Wynaad.
I really despair about the really backward hindus in karnataka and kerala.In Tamizh,we have a proverb-Azhara Kuzhandaithan paal kutikum-ONLY the child which cries gets the milk.
The christists,mohammedans,pseudo-sikkular,powerful ‘obcs’,dalits funded by foreign NGOs are vocal and organised.But if we organise the Hindu samaj,all hell breaks loose.Who can help the hindu real obcs and dalits?We have never been a ‘missionary’ type society?The honest and decent people have to take care of themselves first.
Everyone want to carve out a piece of india for themselves.Today kunbis attacked the CM of maharashtra!More lingayat groups have been given the benefits of reservation.
The BJP does not have the courage to confront lingistic/casteist fundamentalism. The Congress openly encourages casteism.
19. February 2009 - 5:52 PM
In dakshin kanara,there are no obc counterparts to ezhavas,gounders,thevars,kunbis,vanniyars.
Janardan Poojary is the only one that comes to mind.The Sriram Sene is a historical necessity.We have to support it for the sake of Hindu society.
19. February 2009 - 6:32 PM
Shraddha,
May I suggest that you should keep your ‘anti Hindu feminist’ biases aside and concentrate on the message of the article.
You have of course highlighted correctly the issue of gender based violence. But I can assure you that your concern(as well as the majority of the people who obliged Renuka Chowdhury & other ‘feminist movement leaders’ by protesting)for gender based violence is fairly superficial and is guided largely by immediate self interest to the extent it might impinge on the freedom of movement of your person and/or the general class of the section of society you identify yourself with. I can give a lot of examples, but I will illustrate using just two:
a) The deafening silence of these leaders as well as followers like yourself when Taslima Nasreen was intimidated by Muslim fundamentalists and was pressurised to leave India where she had taken political refuge from Bangladesh. Now was this not a manifestation of gender based violence that feminist leaders chose to ignore?
b)Check out these two links
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/mundogari-in-haryana-is-a-village-where-osama-will-be-at-home_100674.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Taliban_writ_in_Haryana_village/rssarticleshow/2437712.cms
Did you note this instance of violence against women and raise your voice then?
Hence, my point that your concern about violence against women is superficial and does not arise out of a genuine compassion for women; rather it is dictated by very narrow considerations.
Coming to my point about your ‘anti Hindu feminist’ biases, I think the above examples also prove the point that you chose to raise your voice only when the offender was espousing a seemingly Hindu cause.
Now since you mentioned at the start of your post that you realise the importance of the issues being raised in this article, I think I don’t need to repeat the central point being made here; that the youth are being played like a musical instrument without them being aware of it themselves in a game of pseudo secularism and superficial and fake feminism.
19. February 2009 - 6:46 PM
shradha,
“the protest was to demonstrate that women are not cattle…and they have the right to self determination just as the men”
so, going by this standard, what would you and your ilk do if Taslima Nasreen were to be tossed around by our politicians. I asked this to one firebrand lady called pubchick in the previous post but all I got were a few moans. I do think that this falls in the realm of women’s lib/rights, whatever you want to call it, so I’d be interested to know what you would spare from your wardrobe the next time Taslima Nasreen is shunted around India.
19. February 2009 - 9:33 PM
In Dakshin kannada,the fisherman are hindu.In kerala,the majority have converted.
Save tulunaadu.
19. February 2009 - 10:09 PM
Hi sharadha,
Women are growing in all the areas now. But you have to take fact in this article and not think this article is against women community. But for sure a union minister should be ashamed for her call ” pub bharao” and relating this wil “jail bharo” movement that was done during our freedom fight by true congress leaders. pls read the book of advaniji. even congress was part of RSS before and after india got independence. coming from that party one minister should have not done this. where did minister go when there was a acid attack in andhra on a girl.. the accused cam out in bail. where did the ncw go there. since this has happened in a non congress ruled state this is being politicized. in our country there is quite a lot of assault on women is happening which is not being highlighted in media.
19. February 2009 - 11:33 PM
Like i said earlier you guys have all noticed the incidents which have enraged you- Why not mobilize support…I am sure in a country of 1 billion it can not so hard…Please stop criticizing people who do raise their voices…
Anup,
I am not anti-hindu…infact i am a practicing Hindu…just a small difference between you and I- I believe my relationship with my God is my private affair…and I am strongly against it becoming a public domain affair…The separation between the state and “church” is the halmark of a secular society and I as a citizen of India would like to live in such a society where I am free to practice my faith and my neighbor feels equally secure in practicing theirs!
Its sad to see people feel that women beating napunsaks are the only hope to save the Hindu society…
I am sure that a culture/religion/way of life that has lasted 5000 years cannot be threatened by a few alcohol consuming women?
I found a cause which i believe in- and espoused it..I think its time you do the same!
19. February 2009 - 11:43 PM
Dear Anup and N Shah,
I understand your frustration at the vendetta the Indian media seems to have against the “saffron brigade†and how it jumps at every opportunity to malign hindutva at the behest of minority-communal parties. It pisses me off too.
But please tell me:
a)Would you be less disgusted by the PPC if the perpetrators of this crime were some Muslim or Christian group instead of SRS?
b)If there was no PPC, would you prefer nobody spoke against the SRS’s actions because nobody spoke against the Tasleema Nasreen or Sister Abhaya case?
Cuz that would be behaving a bit like the despicable Rajdeep Sardesais and Amar Singhs of the country who respond to national issues based on their own agendas.
Now I am NOT a fan of PPC, and I do think if they’d done something different, like send the SRS bangles (less offensive to most) or Ramayans so they could read on Sri Ram before maligning his name, they (the PPC) would be better off. You guys tell me Nisha Susan’s intentions are suspect and I believe you. Also, the Pub Bharo andolan called by Renuka Chowdhary is the most retarded thing I’ve heard. What’s her answer to dowry deaths? A Spinster bano andolan?
But I don’t think most of the young people in the movement are dumb or in it for political reasons or its anti-hindu bias. They are responding to it instead of say the Mandodri story, because they identify with the pub victims and see the SRS ideology as a threat to their own lifestyles. You can begrudge them for their selfishness, but then we all tend to get aggrieved by issues that directly affect us. Young doctors protested against medical quotas, so many privileged kids protested after 26/11 mostly because of the nature of places attacked, Sandeep is angry at the oppressing of freedom of speech and shielding of Islam, you two are mad at the bias of the Indian media, and they’re all within their rights to do so. I’m sure if some smart, pro-hindu guys like you came up with a better idea, a large number of kids would be a part of that movement too.
Please refrain from calling me ‘feminist’ or ‘anti-hindu’ or ‘commie’. I’m merely want to know what is it that offends you so much about this movement.
19. February 2009 - 11:48 PM
Sorry *Mundogari
20. February 2009 - 2:42 AM
“Like i said earlier you guys have all noticed the incidents which have enraged you- Why not mobilize support…I am sure in a country of 1 billion it can not so hard”
-
-
Shradha, AFAIK the BJP did raise a voice in support of Taslima Nasreen when she was being shuttled around, but the UPA and “activists” ignored it.
The other point is, when we have so many instances of “progressives/liberals” sitting quietly over incidents that erode freedom-of-speech (starting from way back in 1983 when Sita Ram Goel’s book – actually Ram Swarup’s – was banned), you can understand why it’s difficult to rally people. Unfortunately, Rage Boy’s picture has been splashed all around the globe.
Here’s a suggestion: next time you protest, don’t do so under the aegis of “feminism”, “women’s rights” and “freedom of expression” – for the simple reason that such highbrow concepts are put to use pretty selectively in India (instead of being universally applied to all Indians, as they should, since India is a secular democracy) and have a clear communal bias. Or you can do so under “Hindu rights”, “Hindu feminism” and “Hindu freedom of expression” because I don’t see any outrage from you people when a religion other than Hinduism is involved as your “adversary” regarding these rights and issues, or when Taslima Nasreen or Shah Bano are involved. You are smart enough to figure out who’s communal here and whose approach is hypocritical.
If all these activists and defenders of freedom (more like ‘closeted Hindus’) were *genuinely* interested in applying these principles universally to all Indians without regard for religion, we wouldn’t have this polar divide in Indian society that we see today. Also next time, if your co-freedom fighters throw around the “saffron” label unthinkingly, please challenge them, as it’s the flip side of the same coin that you brought here.
Or I can ask you a simple question: Why do you not feel any concern over The Statesman incident mentioned in this post, since it happened in secular India? What if the editor and publisher of the newspaper had been women?
20. February 2009 - 9:19 AM
Sandeep,
You made a point. I was witness to Renuka’s barking during the anti-liquor movement which led to complete prohibition which in fact led to a lot of illicit liquor related deaths in Andhra.
Renuka has blood on her hands – I know a few incidents when the government hospitals refused to take Ammonium Sulfate Toddy victims in because that would expose the government.
People whose world view is limited to the SMS or emails they got may consider Renuka a liberal saint.
And it is ironic that people who ridiculed Gokhale, Minoo Masani, Piloo Mody and N.G. Ranga and used every opportunity to defame them are now called liberals
20. February 2009 - 1:09 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chennai/Man_beaten_to_death_by_residents/articleshow/4157633.cms
A man who spoke in hindi,who did not know tamil has been beaten to death by the public.
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE IN the mainstream media?
Lawyers assault Subramanian Swamy in the presence of Judges.
When the police go to arrest the lawyers including one Immanuel ,Hell breaks loose.
Police are attacked,they retaliate and a police station is torched WITHIN the High Court Campus.
The Acting Chief Justice Mukhopadhyaya who had hauled up the police the previous day for not providing security to Swamy capitulates in the face of Tamizh chauvinism stops the police from arresting the lawyers.I agree with the Acting CJ’s decision as things would have got uglier because Mr.Swamy is involved.
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE in the mainstream media?
20. February 2009 - 1:41 PM
Shraddha,
You make far too many assumptions about what I am or what I think and make statements. Whereas I took the trouble of letting you know with good reasons what I thought of your thoughts.
You make it sound as if I am supporting the actions of SRS and that I think that my belief in God should be public affairs. Please do take the trouble of finding out for yourself if I said anything that suggested that.
Hence I shall treat your reply as a rant and add nothing to your allegations.
20. February 2009 - 1:58 PM
Pratah-smaraneeya Madam Shraddha (PMS, in short):
Get a young lady from Mangalore to comment on this issue. When the whole of sub-urban, rural masses and many from urban the middle class are clearly in support of what happened, its only enlightened people like you who want your share of limelight.
Most mothers still think that their daughters going out to pubs is not a good thing and they WILL resort to what is called in the USA as “domestic violence” to stop this, regardless of what the minority like you thinks. And they WILL push their men to get onto streets to drag their sisters and daughters out of pubs. And they will NOT care about you even if you ‘practise your hinduism’ in the best possible way.
Go and have a look at Bharat. Dont live in the koopa-manduka called ‘India’.
20. February 2009 - 2:23 PM
P.Gupta,
I must admit that I find your questions a little strange. However, that says something about me rather than you.
Your questions are hypotheticals. Here is my response to your questions.
a. From what I can understand of the PPC, it seems to be a politicking tool used by a party/group of parties (Congress & possibly others) who are anti another party (BJP). The PPC is using the common thread of both the SRS & the BJP being organizations that supposedly espouse the Hindu/nationalist interests. The reasons for saying this are many as you would probably know. And Sandeep has essentially driven home that point that the PPC is essentially politically driven and you admit that yourself.
So, now coming to your question in light of this point. The answer is that the PPC would have been non existent if a non Hindu/nationalist organization was behind the Mangalore pub incident.
The proof is also provided by the same two examples as I gave before wherein the violence against women is much more extreme than the reprehensible actions and the subsequent vainglorious comments by the SRS. If the PPC is genuinely concerned about womens’ rights then these two incidents should have provoked far greater outrage.
b. Do you seriously think that people have not spoken against SRS’s actions and that the PPC is the only ones who have? I would urge you to answer that question and if you have doubts,then I will readily accede that the actions of the PPC must be supported by everyone regardless of the fact that it is a politically motivated response.
Of young people, I don’t agree with your assessment that they are not ‘dumb’ as you put it or not being played/used by some vested interests without their awareness. For, if they saw the PPC and the media’s reporting for what they are, then it should be very apparent to them that they are contributing to the very value that they are fighting for; that of a free, open society where the real issues are discussed by informed people. And in the absence of any proof that the young people can discriminate what the PPC/media reporting is all about, I am inclined to hold to the position that the youth are being played like a musical instrument.
As for your hopes of a movement, the dice is loaded against the likes of the bloggers here because the all too powerful and biased media will not give a fighting chance of discussing issues that really need to be discussed.
20. February 2009 - 2:48 PM
Kedar,
Osama called. He wants to know if he can share your cave with you.
If you’d care to read the discussion here, Nobody has shown “clear” support for the molesters.
20. February 2009 - 5:55 PM
Guptajeee, saprem Namaskaar.
Nice to know you have such acquaintances, but no thanks.
Not understanding the situation can be a quite a handicap.
20. February 2009 - 7:50 PM
P Gupta,
At no point do I absolve the SRS of committing the riot that they did. Punish them for what they did. Period.
Now, coming to your question of what my reaction had it been a Muslim or a Christian group..honestly, I do not believe you would have the media hysteria about it had that been the case in the first place. You wouldnt find a square inch devoted to it in the newspapers. You wouldnt find RC shouting her lungs out spreading the pub bharo andolan.
The young are not so dumb (or innocent) that you make them out to be. For one week, you had ToI running front page stories giving you status updates on where the pink underwear campaign was headed. The subtelities were not to be missed. The young arent so numb not to understand what it all implies.
20. February 2009 - 8:01 PM
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/kerala-nun-alleges-sexual-harassment-in-convents/85844-3.html
Folks we need not have to wait very long. We have a case in action. Lets see when our dearest liberated Renuka will say that the church has been “Talibanised” or the PPCs will start collecting the assorted lingerie against the pastors to be couriered to them.
20. February 2009 - 8:05 PM
Btw, what happened to the “kidnap” case?
So close on the heel of the SRS assault?
In my mind’s eye; I see “Shradha” not being passionate about protesting the “kidnap” and Ms Gupta wanting bright Hindus to organize protests around it so that “young ‘uns” can then support the venture a la PPC.
The huge point being (deliberately?) missed is the media’s “blind spot”.
Feels nice to be back Sandeep. Hope I’m welcome here. As you will notice, some old dogs can learn too
20. February 2009 - 8:12 PM
Palahalli,
Of course you’re welcome anytime.
20. February 2009 - 8:16 PM
Guptaji, Shraddha – Any comments.
Check this out. This is same news reported in 2 newspapers
(Indian Express)
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=%91Rapist%92+held+for+minor+girl%92s+death&artid=2qGwpqM7KJ8=&SectionID=7GUA38txp3s=&MainSectionID=fyV9T2jIa4A=&SectionName=zkvyRoWGpmWSxZV2TGM5XQ==&SEO=
(Times of India)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Girl-ends-life-after-over-moral-policing/articleshow/4118319.cms
21. February 2009 - 12:44 AM
Sudhir & Palahalli,
Please Read, THINK, and then reply. The very FIRST line of my post reads:
“I understand your frustration at the vendetta the Indian media seems to have against the “saffron brigade†and how it jumps at every opportunity to malign hindutva at the behest of minority-communal parties. It pisses me off too”
How does this imply that I’m defending the media or missing their bias? Just because I asked Anup a question regarding his post I’m a PPC type now? Or is it because I objected to Kedar’s irrational assumptions, which, btw, I didn’t see any of you object to, while you surely like to put people like me and Shradha on trial for every random act of the media. Sudhir, weren’t you complaining about the “you’re either with us or with them catch phrase of the liberals†just a while back?
Anup and N Shah,
Thankfully you did understand my questions, and I do appreciate your bothering to answer. It’s your call entirely to answer directly or evade with another hypothesis. But at least you got my point. I understand you’re pretty set in your disgust for the youth, and that’s your prerogative too.
Contrary to Palahalli’s observations, I don’t want you to start anything. I was just pointing out that maybe a lot of people in PPC or otherwise would be a part of a “smarter†group if there was any (on the Mangalore molesting issue). N Shah, I didn’t think you supported SRS’s actions, I wouldn’t have asked for your opinion if I did.
One last comment. Anup complains about how the anti-hindu media is monopolizing popular opinion, and for this case, the youth. Yet, when people like Rakesh, Shradha, Nandini make an effort to build bridges and exchange opinions on blogs like these, people like to call them names and take pleasure in booing them away. Small victory? Could that be the reason the anti-hindu forces are monopolizing their support and opinion? Just a thought.
21. February 2009 - 1:43 AM
Ms Gupta – Why do you think Kedar was making irrational assumptions?
21. February 2009 - 2:47 AM
Gupta,
The whole point of posting the 2 news articles is to show how a small incident can be twisted in some way to generate opinion in favor or against someone. These minor things invoke the youth who are eager to join the bandwagon without looking at ulterior motives of the creators of such campaign.
As far as Kedar’s comment is concerned, it may sound irrational to you but when I see the reality at my home, I do not see the situation any different at my home. My parents will be absolutely furious with me if they come to know that I frequent the pub with fairer sex. (Mind you I am a male). Maybe they are backward or as you say osama type but I am happy with the way the things are. (and I THINK that majority of Indians are that way because I when I see among my friends few of them used to drink and they used to follow all possible methods to avoid detection)
Maybe supporting the beating of the girls by some stranger by the rural or sub-urban class may be stretching the assumption too far. (But we did not see any complaints from the family of victims or the victims themselves either inspite of the all this brouhaha)
21. February 2009 - 2:51 AM
“Yet, when people like Rakesh, Shradha, Nandini make an effort to build bridges and exchange opinions on blogs like these, people like to call them names and take pleasure in booing them away. Small victory?”
I think this blog encourages open debate. Why should anyone be intimidated by the comments of the other commentators? If you don’t like the comment argue against it. I would assume the commentator went away because he did not have counter comment rather that anyone booing away anyone.
21. February 2009 - 11:03 AM
Hi P Gupta,
Interesting observations there. Like you I also have BJP sympathies! But I saw that in the other thread you got very angry with JT’s comments which disappointed me but lets not go there over again.
>>I’m merely want to know what is it that offends you so much about this movement.
Speaking for myself the only thing that “offends” me if I may call it that is that anybody would call this pink panties burlesque a “movement”. Well commies are doing so very loudly but it is disappointing seeing people like you and even Sandeep fall into the trap. More on this later, when I ask you a few questions.
Speaking for myself I am amused not offended by the pink pantiers. Even their supporters like Nandini also agree they are silly. You saw the recent New York Post cartoon?
http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/postcartoon.jpg
My version would be the cop telling the other cop: “They will have to find someone else to send pink panties to SRS”.
But if you insist there are a couple things about them that do “offend” me. Pinks are not only silly but they also are bushist. No n o, not bullshit, BUSHIST. “If you are not with me you are with SRS” is the slogan written on their pink panties.
Second thing that “offends” me is their trivialization of attacks on women. If these clowns had their way, they would send pink panties to commies of west bengal, saying, “commies, here are pink panties for the wonderful rapes you committed, please enjoy, we are leading a movement against you”. Not funny.
Now I have a couple of questions for you, because unlike most BJP supporters you sound like an intelligent BJP supporter to me.
How did you jump to the conclusion that this pink show is on the scale of a movement? Not that I am necessarily challenging your perception, but just a curious question.
Second thing is, and this is interesting coming from a BJP supporter, how did you conclude that there are no anti-Hindu pink pantiers there? Let me guess. Could it be because you saw messages like:
Message 1, by Archana: “I was a proud Hindu, but after seeing what SRS have done I am disgusted with Hinduism”
Message 2, by Rohit: “I hang my head in shame as a Hundu. I want to hold it high with the support of pink panties!”
Message 3, by Kalpana: “Who says pink panties are anti-Hindu? I am a PROUD Hindu and I bought a carton of pink panties today!”
etc, etc. Is that the basis of your judgement? But can that not be misleading? Suppose the person’s real name is D’Souza and he posted the message with his real name. Wouldn’t he be D’Idiot then?
I’m trying to understand your premises. Please explain.
22. February 2009 - 12:04 PM
Sandeep This incidental Highjacking of the Right wing One incident Oppurtiunity of the Renuka Chaudhary is nothing new, To be very Frankly if Renuka Chaudhary is given a LAxative, You know what she would excrete next day, Pricks & just Pricks, This is what the reality of the Seculars ladies is like. One such incident that bought to Light The Honesty of this Lady has happened real close to me, One of My sub-ordinate’s Young Daugher(who was apparently very beautiful) was kidnapped by His Landlord’s wife & sold(perhaps I Guess) elsewhere. I told this poor man to approach Renuka for helpw,when all the efforts to persuade Police were in vain. She openly remarked(Renuka)That poor men should not have beautiful Daughters. tee hee, This has happened in 2007-08 August.
As far as the Liberty of the Society is concerned, all the branches grow in Tandem in a Society that is Marching ahead. Some people who love this way of life will go on to live this way & some who are conservative, will be conservative, There is nothing to be linked to the old & new Modern or Obscelete.
Afterall the First Sex oriented play Mrichhakatikam was written by Kalidasa when the English were still reeling around as Vixens in England.
India has survived not because of the rigidity but the factor of the internal synopsis & the evolution of the Indie concept that comes out in new Form.
These Seculars are doing India the worst damage anyone could have done, Oppurtuinists I would rate them,It is a fact that 90% of the educated or the 98% of the uneducated Moslems are prospected Terrorists,but they do never get to see the real Image. Myopical I Should call that? or should that be rated as With the Hidden Agenda to keep the rule in their hands sumhow.
Where Leftists suffer the Chinese syndrome, The Congress Suffers The Anarchy & Flattery,Right from the Nehru till Yuvraay Rahul all of them have been the token of Ingenuinity & Ill willed functionality, that has only been progressed as the Instrument of the Promotion of the Selfish Interests.
The way This Pub Bharo thing has been propogated by the Congress & so well picked by the Youth, It clearly shows & interprets the Words of the RUSKIN BOND , who mentioned in the opening preface of the Book “MY JOURNEY FROM PESHAWART TO LAHORE” Two things:
1) I never believed InGod,but after travelling India my views have changed. I think God exists In India, that is why that Nation still Lives on, after somuch treachery & Hoplessness India still Lives. GOD RUNS THIS COUNTRY
2) India is nothing but the Nation of Flatterers & snake Charmers.
Omg! Please bless my NAtion
22. February 2009 - 12:09 PM
Sandeep This incidental Highjacking of the Right wing One incident Oppurtiunity of the Renuka Chaudhary is nothing new, To be very Frankly if Renuka Chaudhary is given a LAxative, You know what she would excrete next day, Pricks & just Pricks, This is what the reality of the Seculars ladies is like. One such incident that bought to Light The Honesty of this Lady has happened real close to me, One of My sub-ordinate’s Young Daugher(who was apparently very beautiful) was kidnapped by His Landlord’s wife & sold(perhaps I Guess) elsewhere. I told this poor man to approach Renuka for helpw,when all the efforts to persuade Police were in vain. She openly remarked(Renuka)That poor men should not have beautiful Daughters. tee hee, This has happened in 2007-08 August.
As far as the Liberty of the Society is concerned, all the branches grow in Tandem in a Society that is Marching ahead. Some people who love this way of life will go on to live this way & some who are conservative, will be conservative, There is nothing to be linked to the old & new Modern or Obscelete.
Afterall the First Sex oriented play Mrichhakatikam was written by Kalidasa when the English were still reeling around as Vixens in England.
India has survived not because of the rigidity but the factor of the internal synopsis & the evolution of the Indie concept that comes out in new Form.
These Seculars are doing India the worst damage anyone could have done, Oppurtuinists I would rate them,It is a fact that 90% of the educated or the 98% of the uneducated Moslems are prospected Terrorists,but they do never get to see the real Image. Myopical I Should call that? or should that be rated as With the Hidden Agenda to keep the rule in their hands sumhow.
Where Leftists suffer the Chinese syndrome, The Congress Suffers The Anarchy & Flattery,Right from the Nehru till Yuvraaj Rahul all of them have been the token of Ingenuinity & Ill willed functionality, that has only been progressed as the Instrument of the Promotion of the Selfish Interests.
The Youth of India on other hands is Listless & Mentally Bankrupt, whose only objective is to lead a comfortable Life sumhow, earn their Livelihood Money & Money, & Nothing else.
The right Wing people is more of a Farce than the real factor. Raj Thackreys & all those creeps.
The way This Pub Bharo thing has been propogated by the Congress & so well picked by the Youth, It clearly shows & interprets the Words of the RUSKIN BOND , who mentioned in the opening preface of the Book “MY JOURNEY FROM PESHAWAR TO LAHORE†Two things:
1) I never believed InGod,but after travelling India my views have changed. I think God exists In India, that is why that Nation still Lives on, after somuch treachery & Hoplessness India still Lives. GOD RUNS THIS COUNTRY
2) India is nothing but the Nation of Flatterers & snake Charmers.
Omg! Please bless my NAtion
24. February 2009 - 12:45 AM
err… i didnt realise that this debate was still raging
I did not get boo-ed away…It’ll take a a little more than a few comments to do that..
A few points i would like to make
a) The whole PCC campaign is tongue-in-cheek…so the panties are not to be taken litrerally..It is a symbol and not a demand for creating alcoholic women
b) Do i think it is silly? Yes, I do. At the same time i feel it is important to register my protest. Thats all!!!
c) I do not care whether Renuka Choudhary, Sonia madam or or defunct head of state endorsed it or not..and believe me it would have not made an iota of a difference to my support to the campaign
d) I am more concerned about what the Hindu right wing does simply because that is my chosen faith. I do not want a bunch of people dictating what i can do or what i cant! PCC is a protest against that! My faith and my decision to partake alcohol are mutually exclusive (Thankfully!) and i would like to keep it that way. Why cant these guys beat up goons who ensure that most women avoid public transport like the plague…I dont think you can empathise..but it is very difficult to take a bus in any of the Indian cities without having ur ass pinched or your breasts pressed by some pervert.. SRS would be my heroes if they would put a volunteer in every bus to ensure no such act goes unpunished! Surely the number of women who are eve-teased or molested daily on Indian streets far outnumber the pub going women… Why not choose a cause that benefits the majority?
e) There were many mothers who felt women studying, women working are leading to break down of our family values/culture…Sati was an integral part of our value system and so was the mistreatment of widows! Does that mean that we continue with mistreatment or suppression of women just in the name of tradition?
God has given us a brain with which to evaluate right and wrong, empathy and compassion to understand the circumstances of fellow human beings…and differentiate the good from the bad!!!
All the campaign wants to highlight is the freedom of choice, mind you the same freedom of choice that is available to men of all ages, income profiles but is uniformly denied to women across the board… Its a protest against that
f) Is the media biased? Yes it is. It is there for any discerning Indian to see. But what are we doing about it? Why cant the hindu samaj start their own media channel- I mean the mullahs have their radio and TV..what stops us from doing the same? Where are the enterprising Hindus? Forget mainstream media..how many bloggers talk about it? As you would have me believe, i am the minority in protesting against the acts of the SRS- then why is the majority silent? Surely there are forum available…I urge M/s Anup, Sudhir et al to start such a forum- believe me as long as it upholds secularism-i’ll be the first one to hop onto the bandwagon!
g)the reason i came looking for this page was to point out a link to the orginal page that sparked off this whole debate and the above article. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-despite-these-riots-i-stand-by-what-i-wrote-1608059.html
the post script lists a few options through which we can uphold the cause of secularism in India.
“Some good places to start are the National Secular Society, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason, or – if you want the money to go specifically to work in India – the International Humanist and Ethical Union. (Mark your donation as for their India branch.)”
While i dont think the second will find too much favor with the readers of this blog…the third is definitely an option…
ps: our reasons always appear logical to us, others’ always as rants!! so same pinch!
pps: I’m not PMSing yet..send i n ur email will email you my cycle calendar
, if you are interested!
24. February 2009 - 7:57 AM
@ Shradha
“…Sati was an integral part of our value system and so was the mistreatment of widows! …”
Its news to me that sati practice was an integral part of somebody’s value system. I presume this person may be coming from some community where it is.
Where I come from, traditionally women are as much decison makers of the family as men and sometimes, more so.
Being born and brought up in India, what I see is veneration of the female power in our ancient culture.
Veneration that is not seen anywhere else.
Shiva is worshipped as one part man and one part woman.
Shiva is also worshipped as the joining together of Linga and Yoni. Both concepts represents the merging of opposites.
Shiva is the consciousness that has discerned the oneness. The Yogi who realises that all perceptions of opposites are creations of the mind. Thus with the attaining of that knowledge, through the eye of the mind represented by Shiva’s thrid eye situated between the eyebrows, all creation is seen as creations of the mind. With that seeing or knowing, all apparent opposites and diversities dissolve.
That is why the world is said to dissolve when Shiva opens his third eye.
Relevance of talking about Shiva now is to bring out the equality that ancient indians gave to both man and woman and also because Mahashivaratri was yesterday.
Brahma and Vishnu are also worshipped along with their consorts Saraswati and Lakshmi.
Brahma is the consciousness that creates. Saraswati represents the knowledge which is necessary for the act of creation.
Vishnu is the consciousness that sustains the creation. Lakshmi represents wealth and prosperity which is necessary for sustenance and therefore, Lakshmi and Vishnu are together.
Shiva is the consciousness that destroys creation upon attaining realisation. Parvati represents the dedication and willingness to sacrifice in pursuit of attaining Shiva consciousness.
Our ancestors considered man and woman, representative of opposites, to be equally necessary for creation to be.
My pranams to our ancestors who have shown us the way so well.
In some parts of our country, which was subjected to invasion by marauders from foreign lands, upon the death of the warriors and defeat of the kingdom, it was considered prudent for the widows, bereft of protection of their husband, to commit the act of sati rather than be mistreated by the victorius enemies.
A person who chooses to do so must be very brave.
And that was why they were respected and venerated.
But that is an individual’s choice.
The britishers in their endeavour to belittle indian culture in order to deplete self-esteem of indians and make them more servile attributed every possible wrong thing to indian culture.
After the british left, the british educated indians have been perpetuating the intentions of the british.
The british have succeeded to some extent because a lot of indians now do associate ill practices with ancient indian culture.
So much so that some who consider themselves to be followers of ancient indian culture think that they have to do all these acts.
Thus cow and ganga jal are considered worshipworthy and having powers to purify.
It is said that the sanskrit word that is interpreted to mean ‘cow’ also means ‘wise thoughts’. And it is this meaning that is meant in the Vedas as worthy of nurturing.
Similarly Ganga flowing into the head of Shiva is meant to symbolise wise thoughts flowing into the minds of the self-realised Yogi represented by Shiva.
Thus immersing oneself in Ganga or wise thoughts is meant to purify one’s mind.
24. February 2009 - 10:06 PM
we can be like ostrichs and keep our heads burried in the sands and keep denying that anything is wrong with us!
on the other hand..we can be aware of the good and the bad and work on eliminating the bad…
Thats a choice you have to make for yourself…
I know what my religion stands for, i know what my Gods and Godesses symbolize…
But over the last 5000 years (not sure abt the exact time frame) or so that this religion has been formally in existence..there are many social practices that have become a part of our religion..Hinduism is not just a religion- it is also a way of life…
I am with you when you say that certain practices originated under certain socio-economic conditions…I cant judse who started Sati and i am not to judge whether it was morally right or not…
but i also think that these some of these practices need to be discarded by the following generations!
If i were to go by what you say- Should i keep espousing the caste system- even if it is defunct in today’s world? Maybe it worked a long time back-so the fact that i criticize the system today because i feel all men and women are equal does not mean that i have a servile british educated mindset!
24. February 2009 - 11:16 PM
“Sati was an integral part of our value system and so was the mistreatment of widows!”
Shradha, would you like to expand on this – what do you mean by “integral part”? Let’s leave aside that neither of us is advocating that women should commit sati today. But, what were your sources from which you learned that sati was an “integral part”? How widespread was the practice?
24. February 2009 - 11:37 PM
“Maybe it worked a long time back-so the fact that i criticize the system today because i feel all men and women are equal does not mean that i have a servile british educated mindset!”
Shradha, actually, most of us who got an English education, do have the British education mindset, because the traditional system of education was replaced by them, and there were no counterpoints or a different voice to what we learned in schools. That’s why what we learn about Hinduism is caste system (and that too, always how bad it was), sati and child marriage; and not the positives like giving shelter to many religious groups (Jews, Parsis, Buddhists – Dalai Lama, Syrian Christians) while Europe was grappling with separation of church and state, yoga, number system, meditation, other achievements in metallurgy, astronomy and many more – much before Galileo and Copernicus did. We learn that Britishers abolished sati (so nice of them), without realizing that there were attempts within Hinduism to abolish it – that is, not everyone simply accepted it on blind faith. Or that Britishers also did a lot of damage.
Even when we talk of caste system, we don’t even pause to think that maybe there were some positives to the system – it’s all bad, and even contemplating that there could have been some positives makes one a fascist Hindutva or regressive. That’s the extent of brainwashing and internalized Euro-centric view, and the attempt by us Hindus to appear progressive/liberal by distancing ourselves from everything “bad” without examining it first.
That’s because the current education system focuses more on the negatives of Hinduism than the positives, while ignoring that Christianity wiped out native populations and their traditions wherever it went. That slavery was OK under Christianity. So the norm and internalization is – Hindus are bad, there’s nothing positive or redeeming in Hinduism; while looking at the positives of other religions and ignoring their negatives. In effect, holier-than-thou and holding ourselves to a much higher idealized standard (why?) than the rest of the world.
24. February 2009 - 11:51 PM
“I am more concerned about what the Hindu right wing does simply because that is my chosen faith. I do not want a bunch of people dictating what i can do or what i cant! ”
Shradha,
In other words, India is for Hindus and is synonymous with Hindus/Hinduism. Is that correct?
What about Indians of other religions? Who should be concerned about their activities which harm India? Or, do their harmful activities remain limited to members of their religion only?
Sorry, I just don’t understand this point of yours. Could you please explain in detail?
25. February 2009 - 2:01 AM
Actually, I have a hard time imagining Caste being defunct.
I also have a problem reconciling with the widespread (?) view of the Caste System as hierarchical in a set frame. Ie. Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Shudra. Whereas, history tells of numerous occasions where this “order” was shaken up. And Caste remained in place.
Today, I see the Caste system as strong as ever and the prevailing “order” (of whatever type) being shaken up by the fifth Caste group, the Dalit. All very welcome.
My next point is; how does one “do away” with Caste when our society keeps it so alive? The fact that our society keeps it alive points to a need of Caste and its entailing structure. (Again, have we understood its structure?)
Caste is very powerful. Have we understood its dynamic enough to make use of it positively? Is it our wrongful understanding of its power that makes us feel arrogant about “uprooting” it from within our Society? Has this also allowed for our mis-handling of Caste power?
**********
Lest I digress too much from the subject at hand, is it true that most liberated women respond to men as Beings apart from themselves and not as part of their everyday lives? There is much hostility and the strongly felt “need” to guard their “independence” and “freedom”.
Isn’t it true that one guards ones independence and freedom from probable aggressors and “foreign to themselves”, rulers/bodies?
We might imagine this “struggle” to be long in history if we have as our start-point the story of “Eve” in the Garden of Eden. Again, Christian Conservatives, a group that does not really think much differently from Hindu Conservatives, on the subject, might draw a different conclusion than that espoused by liberated women. But let’s leave that aside.
My point is this. Have men earned this (female) wrath upon themselves? Another way of imagining Liberation is secession. One secedes from a stronger body when the stronger body becomes weak and is unable to hold its own and loses credibility and the trust of its (female) constituent.
It is not impossible to recall times when women would occupy their rightful place alongside their men. And they must have felt quite liberated too…. and the man was strong and would protect his woman.
I honestly don’t see female strength waning. In fact, it has remained consistent and also grown. However, I do note the fall in male strength. The Liberal man, I’m afraid, has been party to the loss of his own credibility Vis a Vis his woman and this has given the female, occasion to secede from the male. Being more practical, she sees no point in continuing the arrangement.
I’m saying that a Liberal attitude has allowed for such weakness and consequent secession of the female from the male and institutions of family. (Incidentally, the Liberated female also views the family and its obligations as “chains†she is tied to.)
How?
A man’s instincts of survival are constantly honed by vigilance against threats and dangers. By being aware is he kept sharp. His sense of protection towards his woman and loved ones is derived from such instincts.
But how does he keep them sharp and thereby retain his credibility (with his female) if his Liberal worldview has allowed for his woman to be Independent/Liberated (of him)? And once “Independent and Liberated”, how does the “new” mechanism allow for the woman to recognize any worth in her man as protector (save provider)? And even the “provider” status is in danger of becoming irrelevant.
Shortly, what does the Liberated woman see in a Liberal, “freedom giving†man, that will retain her deeper respect for him? Interplay is dead.
My thought may need more tinkering to acquire greater sharpness but I suspect its not at all unique and original. I hope its not
Thoughts? Comments?
25. February 2009 - 2:28 AM
Sorry for the late reply. I got lazy over the long weekend. Maybe Ot can write a post on how he thinks the culture of chilling on weekends is uncool.
Anyhow, here are my answers
Sudhir,
This is exactly why I had suggested you read, think and then reply. When did I call non-drinkers backward? Again you’re clubbing me with the stereotype of the PPC you’ve created in your mind. If you want to know, I actually think it (not drinking) is a very healthy habit and I’m glad you’re an obedient child. All parents try to inculcate good values in their children, and that’s not just a phenomenon limited to India. What I do oppose is mindlessly calling people who drink loose and retarded. I feel strongly against eating meat, and would hate for my children to eat meat. But would it make sense if I started calling all meat-eaters fat and ugly?
The reason I called Kedar Osama type was because of his support for the beating up and molestation of girls. You, yourself, say his assumption is a little stretched. Please explain that to your friend Palahalli as well. As far as I can see, MOST people even on this blog stood against SRS’s actions.
Regarding your articles, those were two excellent examples of the media’s ridiculous reporting and biases. But does it in anyway prove that the youth of our country are anti-hindu thugs conniving with the Congress to malign Hinduism? In fact your own comment again reinforces my original point that the media’s bias is the larger evil here and that you should go after that instead of merely hating the PPC or the youth.
If getting cheap thrills out of calling girls PMS, Suparnakha etc. is your idea of encouragement of open debate, I have nothing else to say to you, except you’re a dhonpu.
25. February 2009 - 2:37 AM
Dear L Nayak,
It’s very refreshing to hear from somebody who just doesn’t want to play the “you suck you suck†game. Don’t you think JT called for that response?
I’m sorry if that disappointed you.
Here are my answers to your questions
a)On why call PPC a movement – Honestly, I didn’t know what qualifies something as a movement. I had to check the dictionary but that too proved inconclusive. If it’s the importance attached to it that you’re talking about, I absolutely agree with you. Why give it so much importance instead of the larger problem of media hypocrisy and its anti-hindu bias ?
b)On my assumption that there are no anti-Hindu pink pantiers there – I absolute do not think that the Pink Panty is blame free. I already acceded that the intentions of its founder – Nisha Susan – itself are suspect. However, my point was why are we hating on all the pub goers or the youth? Not all of them are anti-hindu and there’s no point raising these divides. The pro-hindu pub-going youth that I’m talking about are some of the people that I know, who might not be with the PPC but still hateful of the SRS and its ideology.
Since you seem to care, let me dump on you my issues with all the youth, clubbing, girl haters (like Ot, Sanjay, Anup, Sudhir, N Shah etc.) here:
For Raising ridiculous divides – It’s not the media or the politicians that are the enemy of Hinduism, it’s people like you, who like to you divide your own due to jealousy. You’ve learnt nothing from our history, and you’re blind to the present. If people like you weren’t so busy being Marathis, or Yadavs, or anti-Yadavs or anti–youth anti this and that and stood up together as 80% of the population, you wouldn’t have to cry about getting secondary treatment in your “own†country. You put the whole community at a disadvantage.
Also, when you unnecessarily bitch SRS protestors (not necessarily hindu haters or BJP haters), you aid the Nisha Susans in making people think SRS = BJP, and effectively put people off the Right Wing. Isn’t it funny Anup, that you see it with PPC, but not with yourself, that you guys are working against the same things you claim to be fighting for – Power to Hinduism and Power to BJP.
Calling people Anti-Hindu – What makes Anup pro-hindu? Is it his ability to piggy back ride on Sandeep’s ideas? Because he hasn’t told us how many temples he got constructed. How many villages he adopted through organizations like Ekal Vidyala etc. that help people and check conversions? Run gurukals that train young boys in Vedic texts to become well-versed shastris? If not donate, do you volunteer at any of these places, or collect funds for them, cuz I didn’t see an appeal here. Or maybe you’re a sanyasi and so you’re conscious of the real truth as opposed to us? I think these temples and organizations preserve and promote our religion and you might be surprised that some of them are run by the families of these stupid pub-going youth. so I’d be a little careful before calling somebody anti-hindu again just because they think differently on some issues.
These people might also be surprised(??) to know that when your beloved BJP leaders come asking for funds, they show no abhorrence for this “comfortable,†“pub-going,†lifestyle. In fact, some of their own peeps like Rahul Mahajan are extreme examples of this lifestyle. Last I checked, this wasn’t a commie blog.
For protesting against PPC mainly because SRS is Hindu – When they do this, they act exactly like the “communal media†they like to hate. SRS is not a hindu organization. They are just a group of gundas. BJP is suffering from its own laziness/disinterest in not disassociating with such gundas who’re letting the media malign Hindutva. The moment we start appeasing goons in the name of religion or caste, we’re treading down the path of Pakistan and Bihar, and it’s surely going to come back to bite us.
Mr. Nayak, I thought your cartoon was very funny – both for its content and the unnecessary hype it’s generating. I would liken the protestors of the cartoon to all the haters here who can successfully argue the wickedness of the PPC, the youth, the pub-goers etc. without judging the issue on its own merit. I really enjoy Sandeep’s writing, but I can’t stand the bigotry and closet communism of his followers whose petty agendas have nothing to do with Indian National Interest, so I’m out of here for good. Or as Sudhir put it, I have nothing left to say.
25. February 2009 - 2:45 AM
*as Sudhir WOULD put it, I have nothing left to say.
25. February 2009 - 9:15 AM
P Gupta,
I thought you were sensible. But you dis-appointed me.
“Since you seem to care, let me dump on you my issues with all the youth, clubbing, girl haters (like Ot, Sanjay, Anup, Sudhir, N Shah etc.) here:”
Thanks for the compliment. As you have already come to a conclusion abt me, let me make my points clear so that you can attribute more adjectives to my character.
I have absolutely no problem with anybody doing anything with their personal lives. Everybody has the equal right to enrich or ruin their lives. Their wish not my problem.
But I do have a problem when somebody abuses my religion by using words like Hindu Taliban. This is because from my limited knowledge about my religion I know what a wonderful thing it is and what it has been. I absolutely support the freedom of people to have wrong information like Shradha when she says “Sati as an integral part of Hindu culture” If you can read Kannada I suggest you read Aavarana by Sri Bhyrappa. But I will do comment so that more people do not take this wrong information as information.
I do have a problem when someone adds Mangalore to the league of Swat or NWFP or FATA. Because I know what Mangalore is and I also know what it is not. Let me narrate an incident to you. Some petty groups around Mangalore used to threaten colleges on their college fests. It appeared in local newspaper couple of times. After that when the newspaper reports died down so did the threats. What PPC “movement” has done is exactly opposite. Only outcome of this is SRS has grown bolder.
I do not oppose PPC because SRS is hindu but because their motives are suspicious. If you visit the PPC website you will find that some people have informed the organisers about the recent incidents (even if they claim that they were busy with their loose forward and pub-going lives to read any newspaper). But only reply from Nisha Susan (I assume her blogname is The chasing Lamb) was “Can we all calm down a little?” If she had shown the same zeal that she displayed after the pub incident then I would have STFU.
“I really enjoy Sandeep’s writing, but I can’t stand the bigotry and closet communism of his followers whose petty agendas have nothing to do with Indian National Interest, so I’m out of here for good.”
You have the absolute freedom to be judgemental. But we know what we are and not need a certificate from you.
25. February 2009 - 11:49 AM
Shradha, P. Gupta,
Having read your comments, I think I can understand where you are coming from and I certainly agree that you make a very important point wrt the general tone of discussions on this blog as well as blogs like National Interest. I shall hazard a psychoanalysis and urge the understanding of all my fellow “commentators”.
I do feel the same on at least one of the issues you two have brought up viz. the possibility of “right wingers” projecting extremism in their arguments on this blog and putting off people like yourselves who might be otherwise inclined to the general “right wing” view. An admission of this possibility is not to discount the feelings of the people who are driven to exhibit such extremism. But I guess this is what happens when political correctness is strongly rooted in the discourse of the society/media/academics/politics resulting in intolerance wrt the expression of viewpoints not seen as politically correct. It is only human of course; your pent up emotions will find a vent someday and it will in a sort of seemingly unsightly manner. You may of course dismiss this as inappropriate but you must appreciate why this happens and make concessions to these sort of outbursts.
Having said that, that’s no justification to be uncivil and uncouth by anyone. This is because of my belief that if there is no root of hatred or anger in yourself, then you possibly cannot react in such a manner whatever be the provocation. But then people are different and as a very wise man once told me, it takes all sorts of people to make up this world and all have their place. For, without evil you cannot appreciate goodness and so on.
So in a nutshell, may I suggest to all my fellow commentators to be civil to each other and not take things personally however extreme the provocation may be in a discussion. It might be a good idea to counter people’s allegations by asking them for proof and in its absence, ignore them/their comment.
As an afterthought, I would also like to add that some people cannot be mobilized against evil if the discussion is not emotionally charged. What we have to ask of ourselves is whether we are those type of people.
Shradha/P. Gupta, piggybacking on other people’s ideas is at times referred to as “standing on the shoulders of giants”; in this instance it was to clarify a particular point of view in response to a specific query/comment that appears confused.
Also, wrt your comment about me calling your bias as anti-Hindu; I think I gave you proof why I thought so. You may want to refer to it again.
25. February 2009 - 11:51 AM
P. Gupta,
Btw, I did not see any evidence from you before labeling me as a “youth, clubbing, girl hater”. A courtesy that I extended to you and I would expect the same from you.
25. February 2009 - 12:33 PM
Hi P Gupta,
>>Since you seem to care, let me dump on you my issues with all the youth
Wow that’s quite a big dump.
I will try and take a look at it when I have more time, but in the meantime your painstaking labour should not go wasted. Put it on your mother-in-law or better yet host a blog, dump it there and invite folks to look.
>>I didn’t know what qualifies something as a movement.
When you said the pank panties thing was a movement I thought you knew what a ‘movement’ is. But now you think you had no idea what you were talking about. Hmmm..
Being a young person and knowing a lot of young people I rather think the young people of India do not like the confusion and cluelessness that they believe characterizes Alzheimer’s afflicted senior citizens.
Just pulling your leg, thats it, please don’t dump!
25. February 2009 - 12:35 PM
Dear Sandeep, these smileys are as annoying as the slimies. Can you please disable graphical emoticons? Thanks.
25. February 2009 - 4:16 PM
Where do i begin…
If i thought Hinduism was so bad and all negative- I would have converted a long time back, no? I haven’t…and thats why I’m here..
I for even one moment did not imply that India is synonymous with Hinduism…ITS NOT…Our culture has been enriched by the contributions from different kinds of people and “visitors” we had…and its the eclectic mix of all these habits, practices, cultural symbols that define the Indian culture as we know it.
I just said that i am more concerned with what SRS does because their intrusion into people’s public space directly affects the me- thats all. I am not naive enough to believe that Muthalik has any good intentions towards forwarding the cause of Hinduism. I am also pretty sure that most people on this forum would know far more about our country and the religion than Muthalik. It is a political movement. A sure shot way to get famous quickly…From being a nobody yesterday, most people know about him today.
I am sorry i will beg to differ with you and still say that the caste system is defunct- we may choose to keep it alive for our selfish (political??) reasons…Maybe i am a minority in my own country who feels that way…but in urban india atleast (or maybe the mandook i live in)- the lines are blurring….there may be a different social (economic?) hierarchy emerging there but nonetheless the caste based discrimination is ending…
It may have had its beenfits and purposes when it was conceived,….but i myself have seen people being discriminated against just because they were from a “lower” class…which is something i am not able to reconcile with on a fundamental level….I am a firm beleiver in equality of people (irrespective of caste, creed or color)..so lets just agree to diagree here…
ofcourse..lets talk about Sati and how wide spread it was ..btw FYI I do know that efforts by Raja Rammohan Roy, Dayanand saraswati were key in getting the practice abolished..i dont remember saying anywhere that the British were the ones who did it!
If my memory serves me correctly while most of the sati stones are found in Rajasthan, but they have also been found in MP, Maharashtra, Gujarat, karnataka, Bihar, Bengal, Orissa as well as the plains of the Ganges. It was supposed to be a voluntary custom which denigrated into the custom as we know it
The british have recorded it in Bengal, Orissa and Bihar. “Bengal Gazettes during the period of 1815 to 1828, record the total figure of 8135 widows burnt alive as Sati.” (http://www.datamationfoundation.org/women4.htm)
RajaRammohan roy estimated the number to be 10 times that…
I am unable to find a reliable estimate/record of the exact population of the bengal presidency at that time..but i leave it for you to judge…whether it was an integral part of the society’s cultural practices or not!
when i say integral- i mean it in terms of resistence faced from the common public …and integral to the thinking/mentality of that powers-that-be at that time in history (If memory serves me correctly- kshatriyas, zamindars and brahmins- were mostly against it) to change the practice
25. February 2009 - 10:05 PM
@ Shradha
“…we can be like ostrichs and keep our heads burried in the sands and keep denying that anything is wrong with us!…”
We need not keep our heads buried in sands and keep accepting that everything others say is wrong with us might be true too.
“…on the other hand..we can be aware of the good and the bad and work on eliminating the bad…”
Yes. We need to understand what is fact and what is propagated as fact to suit somebody’s interest.
“…But over the last 5000 years (not sure abt the exact time frame) or so that this religion has been formally in existence..…”
“formally in existence…”
What do you mean by formally in existence?
Was it ‘formed’ by some committee of rishis?
Inagurated by somebody?
Who ‘formed’ it?
What is the basis on which that statement is made?
Is there any text that says that ‘such and such religion’ has been formed at ‘this’ particular time?
Or is it also one of the assumptions that ‘somebody’ put forward and the ‘ostrich in the sand’ mentality accepted as factual?
“…there are many social practices that have become a part of our religion…”
Is there again some text or scripture which incorporated the ‘many social practices’ as ‘part of our religion’?
Who incorporated it? When?
What is the basis of that statement again?
Is it also based on assumptions as before?
“…Hinduism is not just a religion- it is also a way of life…”
Now, you have to be specific.
What is it?
What is the difference between ‘religion’ and ‘way of life’?
I hope you are making all these statements on the basis of solid facts, such as some scripture that unequivocally states that ‘This is Hinduism’ and that it is a ‘religion’ or ‘a way of life’.
“…I cant judse(sic) who started Sati and i am not to judge whether it was morally right or not…”
This is a classic example of ‘ostrich in the sand’ mentality that was referred above.
You cant ‘judge’ who started sati, but you can find out, of course you need to take your head out of the sand first.
Also nobody stops you from judging whether a practice is right or not.
In fact judging a practice to be right or not is necessary before one comments on it.
“…but i also think that these some of these practices need to be discarded by the following generations!…”
And how do we do that without judging it to be right or not.
“…If i were to go by what you say- Should i keep espousing the caste system- even if it is defunct in today’s world?…”
Again, I hope you have found some fundamental text that ‘espoused caste system’ for this ‘religion’ or ‘way of life’ that you referred to.
While on that, I hope that ‘text’ also describes what is this ‘system’.
“…Maybe it worked a long time back…”
Did it work long time back…
“…so the fact that i criticize the system today because i feel all men and women are equal …”
You feel all men and women are equal..? Equal in terms of …? physical ability, intellectual ability, emotional ability…….?
And that is the reason to criticise the system today?
Why not from long time back itself?
“…does not mean that i have a servile british educated mindset!…”
It does not in any way absolve you of having a servile british educated mindset either!
Thanks
26. February 2009 - 12:23 AM
@ Incognito
Re: your comments to Shradha’s post, talk about missing the forest for the trees. I’m posting a few links which may help you with the many questions you pose.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_caste.asp
http://www.mahavidya.ca/?page_id=20
http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/castejati-varna.html
http://hinduism.iskcon.com/lifestyle/901.htm
Look forward to more “statements of fact” and fewer questions in your next post.
26. February 2009 - 12:34 AM
Shradha – I cannot, in fact, agree with you on Caste. (I’m pushing the discussion here)
You see Caste purely in terms of the negativity you think it engenders in people. I agree with the Caste-”conceit” bit.
And,
When you don’t see this Caste negativity being on display, you automatically assume that Caste is “defunct”.
That’s a trap most “educated” Hindus have fallen into.
I say this because it is a fashion statement for most “educated” Hindus who btw are also largely “Upper Caste”; to deny Caste ostrich-like. Is it guilt that leads them to this conclusion? Guilt induced by their “Secular education” and the Secular State?**Please also note that I don’t use “pseudo” as prefix to “Secular”. Secularism is simply that. To speak of a “pseudo” variety is to fool ourselves totally.**
Our Castes are also repositories of our varied traditions. Folk being proud of their Caste means they take pride in their traditions and value them and live by them.
I have this proposal on my mind; why cannot Hindu organizations, apart from lighting a lamp, sacrifice an animal too, at the start of their programs? The meat can then be included in the lunch/dinner. Or simply be distributed to our poor, if lunch/dinner is not on agenda.
There are many Hindus who sacrifice animals and distribute Prasada in order to propitiate their Gods. So why not?
My proposal is to use Caste pride constructively; if we can. Or better still, to let it be…
26. February 2009 - 1:13 AM
Another point of disagreement, Shradha
“I for even one moment did not imply that India is synonymous with Hinduism…ITS NOT…
Our culture has been enriched by the contributions from different kinds of people and “visitors†we had…and its the eclectic mix of all these habits, practices, cultural symbols that define the Indian culture as we know it.”
- But India IS synonymous with Hinduism.
Let me start from an outright assumption which I feel you won’t dispute – ie. You’re “Our culture” means Hindu culture.
Apart from the fact that when someone says “Hinduism”, it is not a land other than India that comes to mind, but the fact also is that it is in India that Hinduism as we know it and as it has been known, has developed and flourished.
Numerically too, Hindus in India are the overwhelming majority.
It is more Hindu “mores” that are part of minorities in India. Evidence Caste.
But for this reason we do not call the Muslims and the Christians an eclectic mix! They are simply, Muslims and Christians, with their own cultures.
“Enrichment” of Hindu culture does not take away from its essence just like a Kannadiga speaking in English largely, does not essentially take away from his being a Kannadiga, and turn him into some “mix”.
Hinduism, with all its diversity, is still Hinduism. A little more diversity will not change its character. It still remains synonymous with India.
26. February 2009 - 9:53 AM
Article by S Gurumurthy, connecting the Pub Bharo with economics
http://expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=The+disaster+of+%E2%80%98me,+me%E2%80%99&artid=|GM74iUpyc8=&SectionID=d16Fdk4iJhE=&MainSectionID=d16Fdk4iJhE=&SEO=Thomas+L+Friedman,+Pramod+Muthalik,+Renuka+Chowdhu&SectionName=aVlZZy44Xq0bJKAA84nwcg==
26. February 2009 - 12:35 PM
Palahalli@49,
You use terms like Religion and culture interchangeably. There’s an important distinction between the two.
Religion definitely influences culture but culture is more than the religion. It includes the value system, norms, sensibilities of the populace. For instance, An overwhelming indians opt for ‘arranged marriage’ irrespective their religion – thats culture. The young are asked not to question or argue when grown ups speak – its culture.
Maintaining cohesiveness of family takes priority over individial aspiration – culture again!
Hindu, muslim and christian culture do not exist as water-tight compartments as you make it out
to be. They have intermingled with each other so much over the centuries that its hard to imagine
what each originally was. For instance, salwar-kammez, most frequently worn dress by indian woman
is a variation of an apparel brought by mughals, india’s dance form Kathak starts by invoking hindu gods,
move on to take salami ( vestige of courtesans dance form from the mughal era) and without a jarring effect
proceeds to narrate the tale of Krishna-gopi. Not just dance forms, consider economics- the city of benaras,
famous for ( among other things), the benarasi saree – traditional wear for hindu bride is mostly woven by
muslim weavers and why just sarees – do u stop to notice that the ‘must have ‘shehnai playing in a hindu marriage would be played by ustad bismillah ali khan only.
There are even places of worship – dargah in ajmer, rajastha, kashmir, bengal etc where people of all religion
keep “mannat’. And did anyone figure out which religion Kabir was born into?
When u say india synonymous with Hinduism – u are not elevating hindusim, rather narrowing the definition of india.
26. February 2009 - 12:52 PM
Palahalli@37
>>Shortly, what does the Liberated woman see in a Liberal, “freedom giving†man, that will retain her deeper respect for him? Interplay is dead.
When a woman ( or anyone) is dependent on a provider/protector, she might appear servile and meek to him – dont confuse it with respect.
yeah..she might happen to respect him as well. But then that feeling is independent of whether she’s dependent on him. The point is, a person earns respect by displaying
higher/evolved human quality, it has’nt much to do with what control he can exert on the “respect-giver” by way of their dependence on him.
The basic premise of womens lib is that the mind has no gender and therefore qualities traditionally associated with men like courage, assertiveness and intellect should be worked upon by women too.
Likewise,qualities such as restraint, empathy and sensitivity need to be honed by men .
That way, both strive to be complete human being rather than one striving to be a “real macho man” and the
other a “delicate princess”. The interplay between two liberated individual will be more realistic and matured.
26. February 2009 - 3:30 PM
Nandini@52 (I like this system, I’m adopting it)
I’m trying to understand you’re point but what exactly is you’re case against India being synonymous with Hinduism?
Can you take the examples you mention and base you’re argument on those?
Nandini@53
On the “woman” question, why such negativity?
Why should I assume “dependence” to mean servility and meekness? Are my children “servile and meek” wrt to my wife and I?
I am dependent on my wife too.
I have not spoken of “control”. I am speaking more from the “role” point of view.
Obviously, the man will earn respect through his behavior. A man cannot behave like a beast and then expect that kind of respect from his woman. Similarly, a woman must earn her respect vis a vis her man. I believe “familial roles” provide just such an opportunity apart from many other positive spinoffs.
If the basic premise of women’s lib is as you say it is; we are in deep trouble. And not just men.
The “traditional roles” are evolved over ages. They follow experience and reason.
Don’t you see the fallacies in you’re argument? If as you say, man and woman should aim to “complete themselves”, you’re “liberated individuals”; why must they need each other at all? Logical conclusion.
Isn’t that what is happening today?
I’m sorry but arguing from the “macho” and “delicate” standpoints is childish.
26. February 2009 - 5:46 PM
Palahalli@54 ( I adopted it from somewhere too! )
>>I’m trying to understand you’re point but what exactly is you’re case against India being synonymous with Hinduism?
I am not sure if this argument is just about the nomenclature. All i wanted to say was India is synonymous with lot of things – not just Hinduism. For mentioning hindusim alone would exclude indians of other faith as also those who happen to be atheist/agnostic/undecided etc.
And now regarding Womens lib..
>>Why should I assume “dependence†to mean servility and meekness? Are my children “servile and meek†wrt to my wife and I?
That would depend on how fair you are!
And that is the problem of a relationship defined primarily as provider-receiver. Whether the receiver will be treated equally or not depends on the fairness quotient of provider. see the point?
>>The “traditional roles†are evolved over ages. They follow experience and reason.
You are right. The operative word here is “evolve”. Womens lib is part of that evolution. Every new idea/system faces resistance when introduced and WL is no exception. Observation says that traditionally defined gender roles are getting more and more defunct . This is not even debatable when Israel accepts women in combative roles in their armed forces.
>>If as you say, man and woman should aim to “complete themselvesâ€, you’re “liberated individualsâ€; why must they need each other at all?
The journey of completing oneself is lifelong. A life partner helps. However, i want to make an important distinction here. Its Help, not depend. “If one’s dependency on their partner is so great, that they cant live on their own – its parasitism, not love.â€
Thats a quote from M.Scott Peck from “Road less travelled”. In other words, our partners help us grow, mature with the aim of becoming our “complete self.
>>If the basic premise of women’s lib is as you say it is; we are in deep trouble. And not just men.
Pls elaborate.
>>I’m sorry but arguing from the “macho†and “delicate†standpoints is childish.
how about replacing that with strong and gentle?
I agree
26. February 2009 - 9:37 PM
>>For mentioning hindusim alone would exclude indians of other faith as also those who happen to be atheist/agnostic/undecided etc.
Context being discussion of India Culture, you seem to believe that “Indian Culture” is that which is not entirely Hindu; it must either be religion-neutral or influenced by Islam/Christianity.
Are you conflating “Indian culture” with “Indian secularism” by any chance?
27. February 2009 - 1:33 AM
Nandini@55 – I still cannot understand what the issue is. If India cannot be identified with Hinduism, then with what will it be identified? Or should this country be bereft of an identity all-together?
I honestly don’t know how to respond to you’re list of exceptions. Which nation doesn’t have these? But they don’t remain confused about their central identity!
If I were to succumb to Liberal pressure but still have my way, I would have to say Hinduism encompasses all exceptions and if I were to listen to the RSS, I would have to inform you that Hinduism also encompasses Jesus and Mohammed. (Without them (J & M) knowing about it, though!)
But I cannot succumb to this tempting offer.
So, why don’t you explain why this country should go without an identity? If you tell me that identity is “Indian”; I, like Nirad C Choudhary, would have to look at you in askance.
Or, is it you’re case that an “identity” is itself a very bad and rotten thing to have? Like the feeling of “Nationalism”? And so, by divesting this country of the one identity it can confidently assume, you reach you’re comfort levels with you’re Liberal psyche.
On Women’s “Lib”, you still assume too much negativity wrt relationship in families.
Family members are “providers” & “receivers” at various levels. It’s all about give and take. That’s how any normal family will work. Commitment to each other at a higher level. You seem to be confusing this relationship with a transaction; “One slip and it’s all over! Contract ends!” That’s true, isn’t it?
We are always evolving. All kinds of changes occur. Not all of them good. It’s our sense of what is right and will help us survive into the future, is what we should nurture. I have serious reservations about the “Lib” agenda.
Whose “observation” are you talking about? I’d like to know what you think about the erasure of traditional roles.
Israeli women in the forces is Israel’s survival instincts at work. They need more hands in their armed forces and the threat levels they face is amazingly high on an almost daily basis. They need all of their youth trained to handle arms and to have some combat experience. Indeed, what nation can even dream of surviving without healthy families?
I found this interesting –
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154526026305&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
India has women in the forces too. Are all these women “Libbers”? Are we not forgetting the fact that it’s because they come from healthy families that they even get to make such tough choices?
Also, traditional India has never been without it’s female warriors.
I guess I’m trying to understand why you feel being within the family entails admission of weakness by the woman.
Even Scott Peck seems to moderate his extremist view with an – “If one’s dependency on their partner (**is so great**), that they cant live on their own – its parasitism, not love.â€
I say we’re in very deep trouble because the Liberal man has allowed himself to become irrelevant by passing off his responsibility under the cover of women’s “Independence”. The Liberal woman is seen grabbing this “opportunity” in the misplaced hope of “freedom” from the man.
The result is male indifference and female exposure to danger.
Families breaking down. Easy divorces on the flimsiest of grounds. Easy “living-in” arrangements where no one takes responsibility for the other. “Unwanted” pregnancies and easy access to pills. Single parenthood…same sex parenthood…foregoing having children altogether because THAT will restrict this “freedom”..all finding acceptance amongst Liberals only because “freedom” and “independence” to decide one’s manner of living, is THE priority.
Please tell me this is not true.
27. February 2009 - 2:08 AM
@Nandini et al – I found this extremely interesting and well written.
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/articles/04-06-07/Women-in-the-Armed-Forces.html
27. February 2009 - 8:01 AM
@ Anonymous
>>Look forward to more “statements of fact†and fewer questions in your next post.
Accepting of ‘facts’ without question is indeed what the british wanted to propagate among indians.
We seem to be accepting many things as ‘facts’. Such as the ‘ill practices’ of our culture.
The Vedas start with invocation of Agni- Fire.
It is the fire of spiritual enquiry within us that starts off our journey to spiritual advancement that is referred here.
This attitude of enquiry is central to our scriptures and to spiritual advacement.
This attitude is also displayed by the seers of all lands too, such as Gautama Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed etc who questioned the prevalent accepted norms.
Many of their purported followers have abandoned their attitude, like us.
Vedas, Upanishads and other scriptures, unlike other books, cannot be read and understood. Not even if you have complete knowledge of sanskrit.
They are to be travelled with on our journey to spiritual progress.
This is why what goes by nowadays as translations of Vedas and other scriptures mean very little.
My purpose of posing many questions to Shradha was to prompt herself as well as all of us to examine what is given to us as ‘facts’.
Coming to the contents of the websites listed in our post, should we accept them as authoritative contents of the Vedas and other scriptures?
My recommendation is that we examine them and verify them for truth.
Upanishads are considered Vedanta, the culmination of the Vedas.
In Upanishads there is a story of Satyakama Jabala.
His father was not known to his mother Jabala.
In English, they have a word for such a person.
Let us see what Sanskrit has.
When Stayakama went to a Guru to learn the truth about life, he was told that it can be given to only Brahmanas. And the Guru asked him whose son he is.
He told the Guru that when he asked his mother Jabala that question, she had told him to say he is Stayakama, son of Jabala, his mother.
From that reply, the Guru discerned that Stayakama is a true Brahmana, one who has yearning for knowledge, asks questions and is a true lover of truth as his name suggets (Satya-kama). and is a true lover of truth as his name suggets. The Guru therefore accepted him as disciple.
He gave him hundred good thoughts and told him to nurture them in solitude until he multiplies them, which he proceeded to do in the rest of the story.
There are three things that needs to be discerned here.
1. A person who might be called ‘fatherless’ and many other bad things in English language is a ‘Brahmana’ in our scriptures.
Because he displayed behaviour of Brahmana which is yearning for spiritual knowledge, self initiated enquiry and sticking to truth.
That and that alone is the identifier of Brahmana, not lineage.
There are many such instances in our scriptures which categorically indicate that Varna is not about one’s parents.
It is contrary to what it is propagated by britishers and their followers.
2. The incompatability of English language to convey the true meaning of Vedas is also evident here.
The good thoughts that was given to Satyakama by his Guru is misinterpreted as ‘cows’ in many of the present day translations. That is because of misidentification of the meaning of Sanskrit by someone who did not understand the contextual meaning or deliberately wanted to mislead people.
3. The third thing is that understanding of our scriptures cannot be had by reading through of them in Sanskrit or their translations.
They are understood when we set off on our journey to spiritual advancement displaying the Brahmana characteristics of yearning for spiritual knowledge, self initiated enquiry and sticking to truth.
That is why it is said that Vedas can be understood only by Brahmanas, who are identified not by their parents, but by their own displayed characteristics alone.
Coming to the contents of the websites listed in our post, should we accept them as authoritative contents of the Vedas and other scriptures?
My recommendation is that we examine them and verify them for truth.
What I have seen there is that they are only shadows of the truth of our scriptures.
Like shadows, they have a distorted form of the original but is full of darkness and bereft of all qualities of the original.
Thanks
27. February 2009 - 9:10 PM
Palahalli,
On Indian identity,
India can definitely be identified with hinduism and vice-versa.I am not contending that. I object when this is projected as the only identity.
But then you tell me that this MUST be the central idea..and that you are not ready to succumb to the “temptation ” of including all exception within Hindusim . so what would you call these people in ‘exception list’? Lesser indians? Abberation?
A country as diverse as ours with its myriad tradition, subtle nuances and at times direct contradiction is bound to have many identities ( as opposed to “no identity” like you put it). Some identity will find more takers than others but i would certainly object to one identity being projected as “The right one”. As an aside, even when you talk about hinduism, you would face a daunting task defining ITS central theme. Would you then dismiss charavakas ( which extoll materialism and reject the notion of after-life) as an aberration? An exception?
Personally, this cacophony of identities dont bother me. When a hardcore rationalist questions the premises of religion itself, i listen with interest . But that doesnt stop me from enjoying a soulful rendition of a bhajan.
And why are we just stuck with religion. There are other aspects of life. You can also identify india with its arts, dance, music form, both traditional and contemporary. Or with common attitudes indians display in everyday life?
Do all this make you look at me in askance? Hmmm! But why like N.C Chaudhari??? ïŠ( the man who personified the adage ‘more british than british)
On Womens lib
>>I’d like to know what you think about the erasure of traditional roles.
Traditional roles like men going to work and women looking after home made sense only in cavemen times when primary occupation of human being was hunting and gathering. Primary skill set required was physical strength.
So a division of labour along the lines of physical capacity made sense.
why now? With automation, most jobs would require little or no physical strength. So women go to work. And i see no reason why they shouldnt. That reminds me. I read the article on problems faced by women in army.
Before reading it i thought this must be one biased rant against women. I was wrong, it was not only well-informed but balanced and sensitive.
I knew India accepts women in purely non-combative roles but i took the example of israel. That was deliberate. I realize and also as the article mentions – an army will mirror the society it belongs to. So i perfectly understand that even well meaning , unpatronising and a fair male colleague will find it hard to assign difficult task to women..in an indian context.
Perhaps, we are still not ready for it …but i am optimistic that attitudes will change. This is after the last male bastion and the challenge is expectedly the toughest.
>>Families breaking down..Easy “living-in†..Single parenthood all finding acceptance amongst Liberals only because “freedom†and “independence†to decide one’s manner of living, is THE priority.
Please tell me this is not true.
No, how can i say its not true? They happen. However, i am less judgemental of these. We are the sum of all choices we make in life. Every decision we take, small or big alters our future…whether for the better or worse is for the doer to decide.
You might argue that some of our action affects others, not just us. what about the kids in an unstable family? Do they deserve it?
Yeah..i must concede i dont have an answer to that. All i can say is that there are bad and good parents all the time cutting across cultures. So, this phenomenon is not a result of womens lib alone.
18. March 2009 - 12:25 AM
It’s been quite a while and I do hope Nandini is around to read and respond.
Nandini seems to have misread my “succumb” point.
I was merely trying to point out the cost incurred by me if I were to try and make India’s Hindu identity more palatable to Liberals.
Then again, Nandini confuses the cacophony within Hinduism with which I have no dispute at all, with cacophony surrounding Hinduism that is seeking to overwhelm Hindu society.
Perhaps she does not see it that way.
Nandini’s Liberal ethos impels her to a position where she sees no qualitative differences between cacophony within Hinduism and the cacophony outside of it. So, since all cacophony is now on the same plane, it goes to assert that either all cultures become India’s core identity or none of them must. Furthermore, if Hinduism is allowed that privilege it might just stamp Hinduism’s superiority over Islam. Btw, a fact that must be acknowledged.
This is simply not tolerable to the Liberal, less because it is Hinduism and more because it rubbishes their “all cultures are equal” claim.
And we are really comparing apples and oranges if we compare Islam and Hinduism. Hinduism is a confederation of many paths. Islam is quite simply a very basic religion or ideology if you will.
Nandini’s sneering about Nirad Choudhury is also on track.
It was Nirad’s choice to move to England and settle down there. By trying to be more “British than the British”, (if that were possible when the British were still sensible), he was merely fulfilling a moral obligation to his new motherland. He imbibed Western Civilization that helped him feel at home in his adopted environment. But if Nirad babu were a Liberal, he would most certainly retain and maintain his distinctive Hindu mould everywhere and at all times, in England. Why? Because he would never have been able to make the distinction between the need to imbibe Western Civilization amongst Westerners and the pull to maintain his “native” lifestyle.
It is perhaps to Christian Civilization and Hinduism’s credit that he meshed them both fairly well within himself.
On women’s “role” – My bet is that Nandini missed the point again.
When it comes to the workplace it may well be that women are as capable as men and in certain roles they are more capable; but the undeniable natural role of a woman as home-maker and bearer of children is something that cannot be “stood-in” by any man. Here again, Nandini’s Liberal ethos drives her to the “fact” that men and women are “equal” and therefore, men may as well bear children and care for the home and give women the helping hand, nay, take over that role!
That’s a larger discussion.
Her take on women in Armed Forces is again flawed. Not just in India, but in many nations are female soldiers recipients of “special” care. The article is clear enough.
Indeed, it’s getting quite ridiculous. The US Army is instituting “daycare” for children of working women soldiers who find it not possible to leave kids at home with their dads. What does the dad do? Not work? It goes on and on and on…one Liberal failure to cover for another.
*******
“All i can say is that there are bad and good parents all the time cutting across cultures. So, this phenomenon is not a result of womens lib alone.” – Huh?
- I think it’s time we made Liberals accountable for their failures of judgment.
18. March 2009 - 5:44 AM
Would you then dismiss charavakas ( which extoll materialism and reject the notion of after-life) as an aberration?
Are there any modern-day carvakas around? Do they have a website? Any links to their philosophy in detail?
19. March 2009 - 12:23 AM
I was wondering where to post this ludicrous EU and Obama administration’s nonsense and I thought since we are discussing gender issues here, it would be close to being appropriate.
“EU bans use of ‘Miss’ and ‘Mrs’ (and sportsmen and statesmen) because it claims they are sexist”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1162384/EU-bans-use-Miss-Mrs-sportsmen-statesmen-claims-sexist.html
And the offering from Obama’s America..
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613330,00.html
“man-caused” disasters = Terrorism
Have fun!
19. March 2009 - 12:45 AM
Lawrence Auster has a hilarious take on the above posted disaster!
Do read –
(Start Quote)Obama administration insufficiently PC
I just realized that the Obama administration has put itself in hot water with the EU. Even as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has replaced the word “terrorism†with “man-made disasters,†the EU has decreed that the term “man-made†must be replaced by “synthetic.†Therefore, to get rid of the verboten term “man-made,†the Obama administration will have to call terrorist attacks “synthetic disasters.†It is to be hoped that public-spirited citizens will alert Secretary Napolitano as to the needed further change. (End Quote)
Now…have more fun!