December 8, Vir Sanghvi for Dummies
Tuesday, 8. December 2009 - 10:14 PM
Vir Sanghvi takes an (un)welcome break from his culinary columns and embarks on a noble mission of educating fellow Indians about the virtues of secularism in the tenor we are familiar with. The occasion is rather fitting: December 6, the 17th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition. His heartwarming approach actually melted my heart. Really. For all your characterization of this blog as full of hate-spewing “right-wing” writing, I must confess that this singular piece by Vir Sanghvi converted me. December 6, Ayodhya for dummies, made me realize what a dummy I have been all these years.
Vir Sanghvi is the Guru I have been looking for. And in the true spirit of the Indian tradition, I must present my Guru Dakshina, my debt of gratitude to Vir Sanghvi.
Presenting, December 8, Vir Sanghvi for Dummies.
1. Was there the concept of temples in India to begin with?
A: Hard to say but we can trace the origins of temples to the Aryans. The Aryans were nomadic tribes who wandered into India, massacred and drove away the native population. Once they were well-settled in India, they began to enslave those of the natives that were left. They invented animist rituals, which eventually became a tool for the priestly class to oppress the weaker sections of the society. Temples were a later growth of this, originally, priestly phenomenon. They needed Gods to embed superstition and fear firmly into the minds of the lower classes. They kept the knowledge of these rituals and mantras to themselves and thereby exerted enormous influence over kings and businessmen who contributed generously to these temples.
2. Whatever, but how does this justify Muslim invaders destroying temples?
A: Like I said, Muslim invaders destroyed temples to loot their riches and also for religious reasons. Justification of their act is not relevant here. Again, like I said, they lived in different times and their primary aim was money. You see, all religions are equal and as I have shown, nobody’s hands are entirely clean in this matter.
3. So are you willing to admit that Islam is intolerant?
A: No. What I’m saying merely is that all religions are inherently intolerant.
4. But I have read somewhere that more than most of the mosques today stand on sites of or were built using the materials of the temples Muslim invaders destroyed?
A: Yes and no. Much of this is disputed. When there are ideological differences among archaeologists, the less said about historians, the better.
5. Let’s assume that the Kaba was destroyed and the Hindus wanted to build a Rama temple on that site. Isn’t this is the same phenomenon?
A: There’s a difference. It is yet to be proven that Rama was actually a historical figure while it is beyond doubt that Mohammed is a historical figure. Besides, the followers of every religion have a right to decide on matters concerning their religion.
6. But that means you’re granting different principles to different religions.
A: No. In case of Mohammed, he has the weight of history behind him while Rama is mostly a mythological figure. Moreover, as I said, there are many birthplaces of Rama.
7. How about all those destroyed temples, which have no such controversies?
A: Point taken. But you forget that we’ve not resolved just one controversy. Who knows what issues will crop up when we examine them! Which is why I said it’s best to bury these frivolous topics.
8. Fine but your reasoning doesn’t make sense. How does historicity matter? We’re talking about applying a uniform principle in dealing with such matters.
A: It’s not that simple. It takes a secular bent of mind to understand the historical, religious, and societal complexities involved in such matters. The fact that you’re asking this question shows that your understanding is tinged with the motivation of avenging historical wrongs.
9. If you say it’s a question of avenging historical wrongs, doesn’t it also imply that the Muslims of today are somehow responsible for the wrongs committed by their forefathers?
A: Oh! I see I have been talking to a communalist!
Related posts:
8. December 2009 - 10:29 PM
Sim. Ply. Bril. Liant!
8. December 2009 - 10:42 PM
SubhanAllah!!!
8. December 2009 - 10:53 PM
“Oh! I see I have been talking to a communalist!” ROTFL!
8. December 2009 - 11:00 PM
Sri Sita Ram Goel once asked the Marxist historians to come up with ONE instance of a Buddhist monastery destroyed by Hindu rulers. He gave them (this was in a debate) 6 months to come up with just one. He specifically said “I need just one, not even two.” The Marxist said “Umm, OK, I will try.” Fact is there is no such record. This is the “official Marxist” lie behind which every Marxists hides. In contrast, every single muslim chronicle mentions large scale temple demolitions, and large scale murders. For instance, I was reading the Taj-ul-Maasir yesterday, and Hasan Nizami says that to punish the people of Katihar for a rebellion against Islamic rule, Balban ordered every single male above the age of 8 to be killed. This is par for the course by the way. HIndus were subjected to wanton and extreme murder, destruction of their heritage, rape of their women. All in accordance with Islamic tenets. My blog is dharmaveer.blogspot.com
8. December 2009 - 11:39 PM
Vir Sanghvi’s must have learned a bit of history, if he read all the comments to his article. It is very important to challenge and expose the lies of these pseudo secularist.
9. December 2009 - 1:29 AM
Another standard Marxist sophistry is “Rama’s historicity is not known, but it is known Muhammad was a historical person – ie, he is known to have existed.”
There are several arguments against this. One is that Muhammad, when he destroyed the 360 deities at Mecca and took the Kaaba for Islam alone said that this was the original site of Abraham. Namely, he offered Abraham as the reason for destroying all 360 deities. But Abraham is almost certainly a mythological figure, not a historical one; and even if he was historic, it is certain no such figure lived in Mecca (he may have lived in Palestine). Are the Marxists willing to blame Muhammad for what he did then?
9. December 2009 - 2:44 AM
But why are we allowing that idiot to compare Lord Rama and Mohammad? It is historicity of Allah that should be compared to historicity of Rama, and historicity of Mohammad should be compared to that of someone like Veda Vyasa or Adi Sankaracharya.
9. December 2009 - 4:36 AM
@Kedar,
That is true – the problem is that the defensive stand taken even by the RSS is that the muslims should think of Shri Rama and Shri Krishna as prophets, in order to end conflict.
However, it is absolutely true that we do not consider them Prophets (or anyone else a Prophet – Muhammad was simply a charlatan). We consider them Avtaras, and as a devout Hindu, I believe that they (a) did live and their lives are roughly accounted in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata (and some of the Bhagvat Purana) and (b) they were divine. They were not human.
Allah, as described in the Kuran, is not God. He is a construct of a very perverted, wicked, and manipulative mind – in this case Muhammad’s. God does not send verse after verse to ensure that Muhammad’s harem remains well stocked and justify man’s adultery (look at the verses “Allah sent” to cover for Muhammad being caught in his adultery with the maid Maria by his wife Hafsa).
9. December 2009 - 12:20 PM
Q : Would you use your rational mind and question if parting of sea was possibile?
Q : It is possible for a virgin to give birth?
I am not asking people to answer these questions… Just wonder about these questions in a national column and see how soon your glass windows of your home gets shattered.
good journalists should questions what appears to be irrationalities regardless of which religion is associated with irrationalities. Selective posers shows cowardice and shows lack of integrity. we surely dont want to listen to such idiots. but they hide behind sophistication and appear to be genuine.
9. December 2009 - 1:56 PM
@dharmaveer:
I know what you are saying and absolutely agree. But as a debating point, we cant let Lord Rama’s Temple be compared to ka’aba, simply because ka’aba is not a shrine dedicated to Muslim God.
By the way, sometime ago, I read of an Islamic scholar who saif worshipping the ka’aba shrine is haraam because ka’aba is a grave of a human and Quran is explicit that muslims are supposed to bow to none other than Allah himself.
Go figure
9. December 2009 - 4:29 PM
Ramayana is a great epic and it has four philosophies 1) Advaita — Yoga Vasishta explaining to Lord Rama . This is a masterpiece. Though difficult to comprehend , it is par excellence in philosophy.
2) Dvaita- Hanuman’s devotion to Lord Rama
3) Vibhishana’s surrender to Lord Rama is VisishtaAdvaita
4) Ashtvakra Rishi ’s non action philosophy towards material things to King Janaka , Sita’s father.
Now in Ramayana , Rama does not say He is God, but in the next Yug Lord Krishna declares himslef ” I am Ved , Sam Ved” and shows His Vishwaroop to Arjun and says to surrender to Him, in the Gita. This is first time the concept of God was born in a central theme and India holds the unique distinction for this. There were Gods , worshipped by Lord Rama like Lord Shiva . [The Greek Gods in Greece , the Roman Gods etc ( all in Kalyug)]. Lord Krishna declaring Himself as God , prelude to Kalyug is significant. After this in Kalyug we have God, Son of God , Prophet of God and many saints in India of the Bhakti movement.
I am bit surprised that Indians , write a lot in conjectural fashion , with out going into depths. This is very hollow writing. The writer on Ayodhya should seriously think of attending and learning the epics thoroughly.
Hare Krishna
9. December 2009 - 7:16 PM
Fantabulous! Subhan Allah !
9. December 2009 - 11:50 PM
Well, all those tailor made Nehru suits and fine Tandoori at Bukharas surely have been having their effect.
Shame on our media.
10. December 2009 - 1:17 AM
not even one amongst the ‘brave secular gentry’ of our otherwise atrociously soft country raised a serious question on the attitude of separatists & other kashmiri muslims on the amarnath issue last year…the ‘babri’ ghost rises from the coffin n bam !!! ’secular’ media n ’secular’ intellectuals somehow awaken their dubious and dormant ‘bravado’ to again bash, whom ? anybody’s guess now !
[P.S. ---- though am no way in favour of such acts of worthless vandalism standing for pseudo-chauvinism being carried out, if not more, then since the last 1400 yrs, irrespective of creed or religion; but then, we are a 'secular' nation dammit ! no one should go scot-free either...]
10. December 2009 - 4:07 AM
Well…… please give Vir Sangvi a break. He and his ’secular’ minded genius friends need something. For last 6 years BJP is not in power. A ’secular’ party is in power. That party recently
1. sold the national interest to a hostile neighbor,
2. could not manage the price of the very vegetables it’s own country produces,
3. could not establish control over 25% of the districts that Maoists are controlling and
4. now that anniversary of 26/11 happened, so far managed to feed biriyani to that Pakistani dude.
So Sangvi and Co. need something to discuss so that ‘Annadata’ gets happy and spend some money for them. So lieberhan was necessary but it’s legitimacy was tainted. So now Sangvi and Co is in the market. There are families to feed.
Please, give him break.
10. December 2009 - 2:09 PM
Vir Singhvi is not an alcoholic people ! He is not an alcoholic ! He only takes LSD before he starts writing.
10. December 2009 - 5:29 PM
But Hindus are also sometimes to blame when they try to argue that Ram was a historical figure and thus display their own ignorance–
“raised a serious question on the attitude of separatists & other kashmiri muslims on the amarnath issue last year…the ‘babri’ ghost rises from the coffin n bam !!! ”
the destruction of Hindu and buddhist sites in Kashmir goes on till today–hundreds of temples and places of worship (small ones) have been destroyed by sepratists in the last twenty years but the government just seems to care more about the past than what is happening at present right now because they can make a political issue out of it–Soon the Hindu and buddhist remains apart from those outstanding sites such as the Martand temple protected by troops will be completely wiped out and it will be difficult to see any Hindu and Buddhist imprint in the valley which has become completely Islamicized. The political situation in India is utterly hopeless and sometimes I think quite beyond repair the way its heading–
10. December 2009 - 8:54 PM
“But Hindus are also sometimes to blame when they try to argue that Ram was a historical figure and thus display their own ignorance–”
So, when pope argues that Jesus Christ was a historical figure, was he also displaying his ignorance? I do not know whether Rama was historical figure or not, but, to us, he is as important as that mythical man of peace to you or that dude in white robe living in Vatican City.
12. December 2009 - 10:29 AM
Sister Barkha is not far behind….
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-matter-more-liberhan-report-or-its.html
She writes, “What should matter more — how a report on an undisputed moment of national shame ‘leaked’ its way into the public domain or what its findings are?”
Undisputed moment of national shame? is that undisputed?
If you ask me, Dec 6th should replace Gandhi Jayanti as a National Holiday as “Ramjanmabhoomi Diwas”
ha ha… I can picture sister barkha’s horrified expression if someone were to suggest that!….
12. December 2009 - 11:57 AM
Written records exist for over 70 attempts, big and small, successful and unsuccessful, by Hindus to take back control of one of their holiest shrines following its destruction by Mir Baqi in 1528. What happened on Dec 6th was just another in a long series of attempts, that have included attempts by the Maratha Peshwa as well.
I have an article on my blog on this, which includes a video as well:
http://dharmaveer.blogspot.com/2009/02/ram-janmabhoomi-issue-revisited_07.html
Here is some Islamic documentation of the destruction of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi:
http://dharmaveer.blogspot.com/2009/02/muslim-accounts-gloating-over.html
14. December 2009 - 7:13 AM
Dharmaveer, Good work on your blog site. I am unable to give feedbacks on your articles and if this cabe rectified, I would appreciate it.
Thanks
14. December 2009 - 9:18 AM
Please all of you acquaint yourself what is happening in muslim majority ares’s of tamil nadu, kerala, West bengal etc.
Melvisharam: “Darul Islam” of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court’s Order
November 9, 2009 is a significant day in the religious, political and demographic history of India in general and Tamil Nadu in particular. The Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu government to consider within three months the representations filed by “Keel-visharam” (Lower Visharam) villagers for the de-merger of their Panchayat from the “Mel-visharam” (Upper Visharam) Panchayat of Vellore district and forward them to the Governor to act upon. The SC Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam also directed the Tamil Nadu government to communicate the same to Janata Party president Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, a respondent in the case.
Islam, its concepts and character
Before going into the facts of this important case, one needs to know the facts about the fundamental character of Islam and the Muslim community. This revolves around six important concepts – Ummah, Darul Islam, Darul Harb, Jehad, Taquia and Kafir – which are practiced and executed as per the Koran, Hadith and Sura.
Darul Harb
Ummah is an Arabic word meaning “community” or “nation”. In the context of Islam, ummahmeans the “Community of the Believers” (ummat al-mu’minin), and thus the whole Muslim world. Wikipedia’s definition on Ummah.
Darul Islam is an Islamic term for the Muslim regions of the world under the system of divisions of the world in Islam. The term appears in the Quran in 6.127 as a name of Paradise. Islamic Nations fall under this category.
Darul Harb is a term classically referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force in the matter of worship and the protection of the faithful and Dhimmis. For much of Islamic history, this is the preferred term used to describe non-Islamic societies, emphasizing various Islamic countries’ aspirations to conquer such territories and render them part of Darul-Islam. Wikipedia’s definition on Darul-Islam.
Kafir in the Islamic doctrinal sense refers to a person who does not recognize Allah or the prophethood of Muhammad (i.e., any non-Muslim) or who hides, denies, or covers the “truth”. Quran, Sura 2 Verse 256, asks them to take upon themselves the action of “Kofr” of all unjust idols, persons or powers. It is translated in English as “unbeliever,” “ungrateful,” or “obliterator,” and is seen as derogatory(Wikipedia on Kafir). People of other faiths are addressed as Kafirs.
Jihadi Culture in TamilNadu
Jihad, an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. Jihad appears frequently in the Qur’an and common usage as the idiomatic expression “striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)”. A person engaged in jihad is a mujahid, plural mujahideen. The four major categories of jihad are – Jihad against one’s self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand(Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of the sword (Jihad as-sayf). Islamic military jurisprudence focuses on regulating the conditions and practice of Jihad as the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and thus the term Jihad is usually used in fiqh manuals in reference to military combat. Know more about Jehad.
The word “al-Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.” A one-word translation would be “dissimulation”. The Taqiyah doctrine is based on Qur’an 3:28: “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them”. Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir explained that “believers that fear for their safety from the unbelievers… are allowed to show friendship to the unbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly”.What is Taqiyya??
From the above, we can see that to convert the world into an Ummah, Muslims wage Jihad using Al-Taquiya against Kafirs to convert Darul Harbs into Darul Islam. This prompted Dr Prithipal, Professor Emeritus, Professor of Comparative Religion, University of Alberta, Canada, to observe: ‘Muslims will only live as an oppressive majority and turbulent minority’.
Introduction to Melvisharam
Visharam is a town in the ‘Arcot’ Assembly constituency in Vellore district. It has a considerable population of Muslims, who are largely concentrated in areas like Ambur, Vaniyambadi, Arcot and local Vellore as well. Initially, Visharam had two panchayats – Melvisharam dominated by Muslims and Keelvisharam dominated by Scheduled Castes (Adi Dravidas) and MBCs (Vanniyars). The panchayats were constituted in 1951. While Melvisharam had 17 wards, Keelvisharam had 4 wards. In 1996, the then DMK government, yielding to pressure of Melvisharam Muslims, merged Keelvisharam with it. Later in October 2004, the then AIADMK government upgraded Melvisharam as Grade-III Municipality. Later in August 2008, it was merged with Vellore Corporation.
Melvisharam being a predominantly Muslim town, the Urdu-speaking community was quite wealthy with an economy largely based on Tanneries, while the SCs and MBCs of Keelvisharam were dependent solely on agriculture in the water-starved region. The merger of Keelvisharam with Melvisharam has brought immense difficulties to its people, who were forced to approach the courts due to the total indifference and arrogance of successive governments, Dravidian parties and self-styled Dalit and Vanniyar leaders. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy took up their cause, and there is now hope for permanent relief to the hapless Hindus of Keelvisharam.
Melvisharam as Darul-Islam
Journalist Puduvai Saravanan made an ‘on the spot’ investigative report way back in 2005. The Tamil magazine “Vijayabaratham” also published an investigative story on this.
Only Urdu gets prominence in Melvisharam. In Municipal sessions, the Chairman and members discuss all issues only in Urdu. The Municipal Library contains only Urdu books, magazines and newspapers, and has very few Tamil newspapers, that too as a formality. The Muslim majority of Melvisharam speak Tamil only with strangers visiting the town. The only street with just 10 Hindu families is named “Tamil Street”! The names of all other streets and even the names of shops and other trade venues and business establishments are written only in Urdu.
Vellore District in TN
Melvisharam has “Abdul Hakim Engineering College”, “Abdul Hakim Arts & Science College”, and five schools run by “Melvisharam Muslim Educational Society” (MMES). A landmark is Masjid-e-Khizar whose minaret is 175 ft (53 m) high. In 2003 K.H. Group of Companies and Apollo Group of Hospitals set up the Apollo KH Hospital. Banks and other establishments are aplenty. But, it doesn’t have a police station! Everything is decided only by Jamaat (public – as told by Amjad Hussein, who runs a fruit juice shop).
Keelvisharam is also called ‘Rasaththipuram,’ and since its merger with Melvisharam, the Panchayat election has never been conducted democratically. The local Jamaat decides the Chairman and Councillors and only they can file nominations. Nobody else can.
In 2002, the four councilors of Rasathipuram were beaten black and blue by the other Muslim councillors and since then the people of Rasathipuram (four wards) have been boycotting the elections.Know more on this news.
The Melvisharam Jamaat had the practice of choosing an influential Muslim of the ruling party as Chairman of the Municipality. The proceedings of the Municipal session were never known to the Hindus. It is alleged that most times the sessions were conducted in wealthy Muslim homes and not in official municipal premises.
While most of municipal jobs were given to Muslims, menial jobs like sweeping and scavenging only were given to Hindus (SCs and MBCs).
K.L. Elavazhagan of PMK is the present MLA (Arcot) and hails from Keelvisharam. His father K. Loganathan was murdered in 1991. Though the murder was projected as ‘political rivalry’, it was learnt that the killer was saved and converted to Islam by an influential Muslim from Melvisharam. He is presently living with his Muslim wife leading a cushy life. (As PMK leadership was always pandering to minorities, Elavazhagan had no option but to toe the party line and couldn’t proceed against his father’s killers).
On the banks of ‘Palar’ river in Keelvisharam, the SCs had their burial ground on poromboke lands, which was encroached by Muslims who built around 300 houses there illegally. The Melvisharam municipality named it “Sadhik Basha Nagar” and gave electricity and water connections and issued “Patta” for the owners (sic). A few Dalit hutments situated in nearby were not given power and water supply.
The wealthy Muslims forced the SCs and MBCs to sell their lands for paltry sums and built Tanneries on those lands. The used water and wastage from the tanneries polluted the water resources of Keelvisharam, resulting in agricultural lands becoming infertile and useless. A few years back, the Jamaat issued an order that the lands (worth Rs.10,000/- per ‘cent’) in Keelvisharam must be bought at the rate of only Rs.1000/- per ‘cent’.
The Melvisharam Municipality had passed a resolution to set up a “Waste-water purification plant” in the land (Survey 256/2 – 31.66 acres) at Rasathipuram which comprised a Cashew Farm and an open air temple with “Ganesh Murti” and “Village Amman Deity”, where Hindus (SC Dalits and MBC Vanniyars) have been celebrating Pongal and other festivals for hundreds of years. Due to stiff Hindu opposition, the Muslim Municipality couldn’t set up the waste water treatment plant, but they destroyed the Cashew farm worth 10 crore rupees completely and demolished the Ganesh Murtis. Representations to the district authorities fell on deaf ears. Now the Muslims are trying to encroach on this land in the guise of laying drainage systems. The Hindus are determined to save their land and temple. The only Ganesh Temple in Melvisharam is used as a store room by Muslims to store old equipments and worn out things.
Hindus are allowed to run only ‘Saloons’ and ‘Laundries’ in Melvisharam. Many families in Keelvisharam roll beedi leaves for Beedi factories owned by Muslims of Melvisharam.
Muslims are trying to settle in Keelvisharam and build Mosques there, to change the demography of the small Hindu area. Government schemes and concessions are not passed on to Hindus of Keelvisharam. Every facility (drainage, water supply, power supply, roads, etc.) is enjoyed by Melvisharam while nothing is passed on to Rasathipuram.
The New Indian Express reported on 10 November 2009 that all Muslim functionaries of the Panchayat have denied all administrative and developmental facilities and even basic amenities such as drinking water to the four wards where Hindus reside. Adding insult to injury, when Hindus demanded their rightful share, they were asked to convert to Islam. Muslims of Melvisharam have discriminated against Hindus of Rasathipuram by violating Article 15 (1) of the Constitution.
The Hindus (SCs and MBCs) of Keelvisharam have been oppressed for years and no Dravidian party bothered to attend to their grievances. All Tamil political parties have been acting like beggars for Muslim votes, showing scant regards to Tamil Hindus. Sadly, neither English nor vernacular media in the State bothered to report the problems and misery of the hapless Hindu victims of Islamic oppression. But for Dr. Swamy, journalist Puduvai Saravanan and magazine “Vijayabaratham”, the facts of a “Darul Islam” in Melvisharam would not have come out into the open.
The legal course
Subramaniam Swamy filed a PIL in 2007 in the Madras High Court, seeking a direction to the government to constitute the revenue village of Keelvisharam as a separate village Panchayat instead of being part of Melvisharam Panchayat (now upgraded as municipality).
The High Court issued an order on February 5, 2007 saying that the various Melvisharam public grievances petitions and the demand for partition be considered by the Governor. The Tamil Nadu government, instead of abiding by the HC order, approached the SC against it through a Special Leave Petition, and on 16 January 2009, the SC stayed the HC judgment and issued notice to Dr. Swamy.
Now disposing off the state government’s appeal, the Supreme Court directed it to consider within three months the representations filed by Keelvisharam villagers for de-merger of their Panchayat from the Melvisharam Panchayat of Vellore district and forward the same to the Governor to act upon.
Conclusion
Melvisharam is not the only “Darul Islam” in Tamil Nadu. Dr. Swamy says there are forty panchayats across the state in similar conditions: “In TN there are 40 Town Panchayats with Muslim majority and the minority Hindus there are living with the same Hobson’s choice or Catch-22. Hence, Melvisharam was a test case. With the help of VHP, I shall now visit all 40 Town Panchayats from Melvisharam to Thondi (Ramnathapuram) and see that the minority Hindus get their due share and are not harassed for conversion of their faith to Islam. So this judgment will trigger similar demands in all 40 Panchayats and lead to state-wide Hindu consolidation. That is Karunanidhi’s nightmare” (the ruling DMK tends to discriminate against Hindus for minority votes).
Love Jihad in Kerala, india
Love Jihad: Kerala High Court shows the way
13/12/2009 07:31:22 Organiser Editorial
The Kerala High Court’s direction on December 9, to the state government, to take action against forced religious conversion of girls, after trapping them in love and marriage has confirmed the existence of Love Jihad. For decades, several Hindu organisations have been fighting this organised conversion racket but the political leadership was unwilling to act. They even shield and justify such acts. However, it is only now that the issue has gained judicial attention. And rightly so.
The statistics of ‘Love Jihad’ marriages in Kerala are staggering. According to the High Court, the police records showed 4000 conversions having taken place through love affairs in the last four years and 2,800 girls converted from other religions into Islam for love. In the four northern districts (which have dominant Muslim presence, including the Muslim majority district of Malappuram) 1600 such conversions have taken place.
The issue came to the attention of the High Court through an alleged case of coercive conversion, filed by an aggrieved parent. The Court, in its order yesterday said the campuses should not be turned into venues for forced conversions though false love affairs.
The state DGP Jacob Punnoose had given two varying reports to the court. First he had conceded that there was Love Jihad and then going back on it and claiming that the evidence on ground did not indicate any organised movement on these lines. The Union Home Ministry too had said that it had no information on such activities anywhere in India. This is surprising because the Maharashtra Assembly had discussed this issue when a member brought to the attention of the house the similar incidents in the state and the state government had ordered a CID inquiry into it, in July this year.
The police reports in Kerala clearly said that conversions through love affairs had been going on in the state since 1996, though the DGP had said that there were no “actionable evidences” in the matter. From the police reports it became clear that outfits like Islamist Popular Front of India (earlier NDF) and its student wing the Campus Front were the chief forces behind the Love Jihad.
The High Court in its ruling refused to ban expressions like Love Jihad and Romeo Jihad. It also rejected the anticipatory bail application of Shehenshah, who had allegedly forced an MBA student in Pathanamthitta into converting to Islam.
This publication has on several occasions raised the issue of forced, coercive and bribed conversions of people from one religion to another. Till now, Hindus were the chief victims of soul harvesting by the missionaries. Even today, conversions through financial cajoling are rampant in poor villages in India. Often they become flashpoints, as it happened in Orissa recently. In Kerala, both Hindu and Christian girls have fallen victim to Love Jihad. It is the Church in Kerala that voiced the issue loudly. The Christian leaders there are giving calls to their men to raise larger families extending all financial help from the Church to counter the demographic growth of the Muslims.
Meenakshipuram mass conversion of February1981 is still fresh in our memory. There have been other such incidents. This is to say that the method might have changed, the purpose remains the same-by all means outnumber the Hindus, demoralise them, defeat them. Hundreds of years of rule by religious fanatics did not succeed. But that is no guarantee it will not, now. That is why the society has to wake up to the threat of being overwhelmed by religious fundamentalists. Anti-conversion law is in place in some states. They need to be fortified. Local administrations should be sensitized about the issue. One of the best ways of dealing with the issue of religious conversions could be to fix a quarantine period of at least 10 years. A person wishing to change the religion should wait for that period from the date of first expressing the desire before being legally declared the converted.
The social cost of religious conversions is very high, within the community and between communities. And the ultimate goal of the people who are prompting conversions is not spirituality but money, better living conditions, social status and political power. That’s when the number becomes crucial, not the man or his soul.
We all are human beings made of similar flesh and blood but some behave worse than animals, how should we trust muslims & christians. This is my question? History never lies entire history of world depicts barbarity and heinous names committed on the names of islam and christian.
We should read everything by self be it bible, quran, vedas, upnishad etc, and be a self judge
15. December 2009 - 7:35 AM
@ Rama,
Thanks for the kind words. The only reason I disabled the comments feature is that there were too many people who were abusive since they felt I was profaning Islam, when I am merely shedding light on what Islam’s holy books themselves say. It is not I who say all Hindus who do not convert should have their heads chopped off – it is the books of Fiqh (Islamic schools of jurisprudence) of 3 of the 4 orthodox sunni schools of Islam. Only one (Hanafi) allows us Hindus the right to live as Hindus in an Islamic state. The other 3 are emphatic – if you are an idolator, you should be given only two options – convert or die. Indeed, even the 4th school says that this is the option that you should give any infidel state before attacking it, for the sole reason that they have refused the religion of Allah.
15. December 2009 - 1:39 PM
I’ve had about enough of how rotten Islam is and how much more rottennenss it inspires in Muslims. All of that is understood. It’s who they are.
Now, can we think of what needs to be done to solve the problem? Because this is where we all falter or rather not think at all.
Let’s think.
15. December 2009 - 8:08 PM
Palahalli,
We probably have reached a stage where whatever we can do is too little too late. Our gov, our media, our babus, our “netas” and our previous generations – all have failed us. Look at the fiasco being made about division of states and you will realize the truth behind my statement.
Another media genius, close to Mr. Sangvi’s stature, indicated that Andhra politicians should let Hyd. go, because new loot can be found in the creation of new city. Some readers appreciated his views.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/seconderabad/553253/0
Dark days ahead. Winston Churchill, the racist, did not believe Indians could govern themselves. Given the state of the country today, he would have a self-righteous laugh.
15. December 2009 - 8:48 PM
Siddharth – Is that the reason why I never considered Churchill racist?
More to the point; I believe whatever happens happens for the good. Even the Telangana fiasco will serve it’s purpose.
The real Hindu elite have to take our diversity seriously. I mean Hindu diversity and not liberal multi-culturalism. The latter is an infamia.
Btw, I think Shekar Gupta stole that idea from Bibek Debroy
15. December 2009 - 9:44 PM
@Palahalli
I wish more people knew what you consider to be common knowledge. How many news channels/papers after 26/11 said that “what Qasab and co have done is only part of their faith. In other words, he is a practising muslim, nothing more.” Instead we heard all the platitudes about how Islam is a religion of peace etc. Also, it is not who muslims are, but what Islam as an ideology is. It is the ideology we must be courageous enough to attack. If everyone states firmly that (a) Islam is a ideology of terror, permanent war upon Kafirs, and extremely debased behavior and (b) we simply won’t stand up for it anymore, things will be different. People called Nazism for what it was, but we are reluctant to call Islam, though it is a far more terrifying ideology.
The first stage is to simply make sure most people understand what Islam is. Not a “hijacked brand” of Islam, but mainstream orthodox Islam. The Islam as expounded in the Kuran and the 4-6 (depending on your school) canonical Hadiths.
As for what to do with the muslims – the answer is clear. It will take centuries, but they must all be brought back to the Hindu fold. Indeed, we must begin by thinking of them as Hindus – Hindus who were forced out of our society at pain of death during the Islamic invasions.
Part of the education is to tell muslims what is in their scriptures. How many muslims do you think know what is written in Sahih Bukhari? My guess is less than 5%. How many muslims do you think know that there are entire chapters on slavery (including how to rape female captives) in various Hadiths? My guess is less than 5%. It is only with the internet that such knowledge is now available to anyone willing to find it. Earlier, it was in arabic, translations are frowned upon, and so many pious Indian muslims would know the entire Kuran by rote without knowing its meaning. I have seen many cases of this myself.
Indeed, I carried out unscientific “surveys” among muslims and found that almost none of the pious ones knew the truth about Mohammed – that he was a rapist, mass murderer, paedophile, robber, assassin, and so on. Most of them told me he was a wonderful, extremely kind man. They truly believed it because those are the lies fed to them. But the truth that emerges from the Hadith and the Sira (his biography) is that of a blood chilling murderer and sex obsessed fiend.
We have to disseminate this information – both among Hindus and among Hindus who have been forced out of our samaj (aka muslims).
Truth always wins – as a devout Hindu, I believe that. Satyam eva Jayata, Nanritam.
15. December 2009 - 10:32 PM
Shri Dharmaveer – Please don’t mind my tone because I’ve just come back after dealing with some SR Murthy at The Acorn.
Here’s my take.
There is no point in differentiating Islam and Muslims. Really no point.
There are a number of cults and religions that are barbaric. However, what seperates these from the “threat” of Islam to Hindus, is the presense of Muslims.
Muslims are the carriers of Islam and it’s message.
It matters very little to a Muslim what abuse is heaped on his religion and his Prophet. In fact, I believe that such abuse is childish. It amuses the Muslim and does nothing to dissuade his resolve. (Thought excercise – What would Europe have done if the Muslim simply grew in numbers and not done anything to provoke a backlash? That’d be a peaceful death)
Wrt Nazism, please remember one thing. It’s enemies not only called out the ideology of Nazism, but crushed it’s proponents. After the defeat of Nazi Germany the allies did not go about educating Nazis in good governance. They hanged them. They occupied their country and changed everything the Germans had gotten used to.
Most importantly, the allies convinced the Germans that Hitler and his Nazism did not ensure their safety but had in fact ensured their destruction.
Without such comprehensive and complete physical victory, the allies would been laughed out of court.
Everything else we Hindus tell ourselves would be a good bed-time story.
Until we are overwhelmed that is.
Please consider my thoughts and see if they make sense.
15. December 2009 - 10:55 PM
@dharmaveer,
I can not agree more. Too good a response.
Anytime someone come up with a response that “Islam is misinterpreted by wahabbists”, ask him/her what is the correct interpretation and how did they reach that interpretation. Most likely you will get one of these gem of a secular response:
“…..you are a hindu bigot…” (in response, it is time to tell them that they are secular bigots or ignorant fools)
or
“…..to understand their answer, you need a secular bent of mind…” (like Mr. Vishnu Som. Please tell them to understand our question they need to follow straight logic, not the twisted curve of secularism).
Muslims are not the problem, Islam is.
@Palahalli
“….Is that the reason why I never considered Churchill racist? …” – there are other gems of profound thoughts on Hindus or Indians by this man (“Beastly people with beastly religion”) that can force you to rethink about your opinion.
Telengana fiasco would serve some purpose, but the purpose may not be in the best interest of all of us. How long would we keep paying the dividends on the divisional tactics of these politicians? Our diversity is in culture, language and ethnicity, not in identity. We are Indians and we should remain to be so. Continuous confusion between our cultural as well as linguistic dimensions and political identity is making it impossible for us to consolidate our political identity. Until we have a consolidated political identity that is different from cultural and ethnic concerns, we can not express any of our cultural and ethnic concerns too. The result is a steady betrayal of our people and our failure to respond to the external aggression.
I do not care who stole ideas from whom, but the fact that these ideas are being expressed freely without an ounce of protest in the mainstream media is a result of implicit acknowledgment even acceptance of unchecked corruption. Or have we corrupted our souls so much that this is supposed to be the normal situation? Am I missing something here?
15. December 2009 - 11:55 PM
Siddharth, I’m sure Churchill would have called his German enemies worse things. That doesn’t make him a racist. But he’s not the topic of discussion although he did have some great insights into Muslims.
You seem to worry about diverse Hindu identities. To me these are strengths. Our various castes, tribes, religious groups, languages are there because our people need them. They value them.
You say our diversity is not in identity. How do you say this? I have a Kannadiga identity. I love this language and I love this city and state. Why is that a negative? It’s my home.
Modi would never have been successful if he had not spoken about and for Gujarati asmita. That’s the way to go. Bring glory to your state and that will enhance this country’s prestige.
I call this Hindutva devolved.
In fact, I cannot identify with any “Indian” identity. Those who I have observed doing this, have either replaced Hindu with Indian or have tried hard to clarify what they mean. Mostly it’s always been the “idea of India” or some such nonesense.
The thing is replacing Hindu with Indian makes no sense at all because your sending loads of mixed and wrong signals.
“Until we have a consolidated political identity that is different from cultural and ethnic concerns, we can not express any of our cultural and ethnic concerns too.”
- That’s a paradox of sorts. How do you explain it?
On corruption, please dont be surprised that it’s not just tolerated but intellectually pondered over for possibilities – not when the same mind-set ponders over “legalizing” prostitution and homosexuality. All thresholds are falling in liberal raj.
Not limited to Hindusthan though.
16. December 2009 - 12:39 AM
@Palahalli,
You got me all wrong. By identity I meant political identity. The language and state is a part of you and your identity. Me being a Bengali is my identity and I would always stand for it. I do not know how I conveyed the my distaste for cultural identity in the last post.
But a confusion between political identity and cultural or ethnic identities create the troubles that we see often. Do you remember Mr. Raj Thakarey? You being a Kannadiga is a part of your cultural identity, but you are an Indian too. Being Indian is our primary political identity. This political identity should never come between our cultural identity and us. But then cultural identity should not be confused as political identity either.
As for Modi, his rise can be attributed to Gujrati asmita, but he would not be able to stay in that position if he was not a good administrator and did not deliver at least partially. I have never heard him saying that Gujrati identity should replace Indian identity.
Unlike you, however, I do feel for an Indian identity. Indian identity is not a “secular democratic” identity that leftist theoreticians and Nehru sought to project.
How would Indian identity replace Hindu identity when it is what that is embedded in Hinduism very deeply? So deeply, that every perception of India in the international arena evokes some or other picture that strongly resembles Hindu tradition. We consider the country as mother. It is a Hindu custom to consider mother as someone that should be venerated always. That is why “Vande Mataram” is what inspired so many people to struggle for freedom. No other religion gives mother that big a place and accordingly followers of such religions call their countries father-land.
“That’s a paradox of sorts. How do you explain it?” – Yes, certainly. All of us have separate languages, separate customs and even sometimes separate gods to pray to. But all these languages came from the single source, all the customs comes from practice of Hinduism and all the gods belong to a Hindu set of gods. Until we adhere to a single political identity we can not create enough resistance to protect our ethnic and cultural identities.
“….not when the ….homosexuality.” – sad to know that you are still following the missionary and maulavi tradition of declaring war on homo-sexuality. As always we are struggling to find a point where we can agree. Pretty accurate model of Hindu society.
16. December 2009 - 1:13 AM
Ok, let’s see if I can explain better -
1. The only thing wrong I find with Raj Thackeray and his ilk is that they bull-doze without using their brains. His argument is not bad. A lot of “non-state” actors, if you will, use this “Indian” cover to migrate to greener pastures. Fine. However, none of those who oppose Raj and Co, have ever spoken of why this happens. What about developing Bihar and UP?
2. You will not hear Modi replacing the larger Hindu asmita with Gujarati asmita. To him these are complementary and not antithetical.
3. On “Indian” I guess your my second example to whome Indian and Hindu are one and the same. Unfortunately this is misused and twisted out of shape by anti-Hindus. It weakens the Hindu argument for nationhood. For example, if Indian is the same as Hindu, then who is the Muslim or the Christian? Are they Hindu too? Do you think anybody outside of the Sangh’s RMM accepts this proposition?
4. ” But all these languages came from the single source, all the customs comes from practice of Hinduism and all the gods belong to a Hindu set of gods. Until we adhere to a single political identity we can not create enough resistance to protect our ethnic and cultural identities.”
- A better way of viewing this would be diverse castes, tribes and groupings have found a common home in the Hindu scheme. The Hindu scheme allows full expression to each of it’s constituents. Much like how I’d like this country’s polity to be framed.
I had asked elsewhere – what does the real Hindu elite think of the sacrifice to Devi Gadhimai?
5. Your wrong about me following the mullahs and missionaries. I’m not asking for persecution and nor am I cursing them. However, that’s not the same as accepting them as equal players in soceity. Families and children are very important in the Hindu scheme. In fact, for life itself. No marriage and no adoption. That’s all. That’s how it was before and no one felt persecuted.
Like i’ve been hollering at The Acorn, I don’t think there should be any legislation for or against homosexuality and prostitution. It’s there, it’s there. No big deal.
16. December 2009 - 1:21 AM
Sandeep this Guru Dakshina to Vir Sanghvi is marvelous.
But I am sure that the coward Vir Sanghvi will not accept it. He will just say – ‘hate-spewing “right-wing” ‘.
Great one ….
16. December 2009 - 1:28 AM
Also, I appreciate Siddharth’s thought.
16. December 2009 - 2:33 AM
1. “His argument is not bad” – really? Do you think that overall growth of Mumbai can only be attributed to Marathis ONLY? What about Parsis, Gujratis and Panjabi business men contributing to that economy? What makes you think that if only Marathis are allowed in Pune, would it make good enough destination for IT investments? What is so wrong with Biharis if they are working honestly and making a buck anywhere? Off course, if you ignore Indian-ness, you have a robust ground for strong regionalism. Something I am unable to agree.
2. That is a serious ground. That means except Gujratis, he does not accept that anybody has Hindu identity. Did he ever claim that?
3. “For example, if Indian is the same as Hindu, then who is the Muslim or the Christian?” – Do not you know? They are Muslims and Christians, nothing else. At least most of them claim to be so. Do not you know, a good portion of Muslims in India and nearly all in Pakistan discovered Arabian ancestors?
“Do you think anybody outside of the Sangh’s RMM accepts this proposition?” – I do and I do not belong to Sangh. Their version of Hindusim is too narrow for me although Sangh once had really dedicated serious men. Today they have influence and yet employ such people who believes that western music forces cows to produce less milk. I do not want to be associated with such geniuses.
4. “…what does the real Hindu elite….” – what makes you think that there is a Hindu elite in the country? Who are they? There are “accidental Hindus” and anti-Hindus in the ruling elite.
5. No adoption? So many kings have adopted children !!! (VP Singh was an adopted child – just an example with a known name). Karna in Mahabharat was an adopted son of someone who was not a Khatriya. If the entire idea of adoption was alien to our society, why do you think that would be there !!! On what ground do you think homo-sexuality is same as prostitution? Hindu scriptures never care for homo-sexuality. So if the God never punished them, why are we bothering with that.
“However, that’s not the same as accepting them as equal players in society” – why not? They are not missing any hand or legs.
“I’m not asking for persecution and nor am I cursing them.” – But this was exactly what the British made law was doing – persecution. So if the high court removed the option of persecution, why was the screaming?
I am yet to know anyone who is trying to legalize prostitution, however, it is necessary to extend a good measure of legal and social protection to former prostitutes so that they do not have to go back to that occupation after rescue. Something that we as humans need to ensure if we can not stop trafficking completely.
Last time, we spoke about this, we invested too much energy and both of us pretty much failed to see logic in each other’s argument. I do not see the point of continuing on Homo-sexuality.
16. December 2009 - 3:32 AM
Siddharth, by and large you have misread my comment -
1. The logic of Linguistic States is very clear. Going by that logic the locals of each State must get preference. No point covering under “Indian-ness” and ignoring the ruin brought about in States that are abandoned by these migrants. So who is accountable? In a city like Bangalore, its entire culture has changed. Locals will not forever take things quietly.
2. Wrong on Modi. I said he views Gujarati asmita and a larger Hindu asmita as complementary.
3. Wrong on Muslims and Christians. Within Hindusthan they always identify themselves as “Indian first”. That helps them and screws us.
The RMM btw is the Rashtriya Muslim Manch. The Sangh feels it can convince Muslims into buying the “ancestral Hindu” spiel.
4. Wrong on Hindu elite. The elite I’m talking about is the bunch of real Hindu opinion makers. Well meaning Hindu intellectuals.
5.Wrong on adoption. I meant no adoption right to homosexuals. Naturally, no marriage rights either. Homosexuals are obviously not equal to heterosexual couples.
Hindu society did not bother them nor bother about them. It also never encouraged the kind of nonsense being propounded in the name of “equality”.
Homosexuality is not the same as prostitution but legally falls in the same conundrum of the State over-reaching its legislative sway. There was no issue before the British legislated against.
So I’m saying de-legislate and let tradition regulate.
I hope I was clearer this time.
16. December 2009 - 5:28 AM
@Palahalli,
1a. The mandate for drawing state lines considered language as an important factor, but not the sole factor. Factors like economic viability were significant too. That is why eight districts of Madhya Pradesh did not belong to Maharastra even though most residents spoke Marathi (today these districts want to form a state called Vidarbha).
1b. I have never read any constitutional/governmental paper that says that linguistic basis of states allow state government to give preference to the people speaking the state language. Any reference? If the state language becomes the only de-facto language for official work then that is good enough barrier for an outsider for state government jobs. However, if there is a question of private capital/effort, there should not be any such barrier.
1c. The real-estate boom resulting from IT off-shoring turned quiet a few residents into crorepatis. Boom also solved certain unemployment problems. I do not know any Kannadiga who has expressed grief over this. But now the boom has created a high cost of living (with an extremely low quality of life). The information that the easy money will create vice is not a patented invention.
If Karnatakis knew that culture of Bangalore was more important than the huge flow of money that was coming to Bangalore, why did not Karnatak assembly pass a bill to prevent the flow of job and money? Any other state would have loved same amount of tax Karnatak government got without much effort. So now Bangalore needs to be cleaned of non-Kannadigas in the name of saving the cultures!! I am aware that a lot of Kannadigas visit this blog and now this response would be an invitation to many abuses, but rhetoric has never proven to be a good logic.
16. December 2009 - 5:44 AM
@Palahalli,
2. I indeed got it wrong on the point of “being complimentary”. But that does not mute my main point. Standing up for your cultural identity is a good thing, beating up others because you think your culture is superior has never been an acceptable idea. And you think Raj Thackarey has a point!!!
3. “Wrong on Muslims and Christians. Within Hindusthan they always identify themselves as “Indian first”” – Do you live in India? I mean, seriously? My state has more concentration of Muslims than your state has. I have always seen them considering themselves Muslims first. Not Indians. If they did, we would not have Islamist thugs gaining ground here. If most of the Muslims think they were Indians first, they would have taught their children to avoid Indian Mujahideen type groups the same way we tell our children not to throw brick at our neighbor’s window. The fact that they did not, pretty much validates my point about Indian identity.
4. “Well meaning Hindu intellectuals.” – Who are they? I am interested to find them. So far have not got enough people to make a good debate team.
5. So far court has abolished the clause that persecute them. I fail to see any social problem with them adopting or marrying each other. Your arguments come from long standing social dogmas introduced by foreigners i.e. maulavis or christian missionaries (just like that law). As I tried to show, as a Hindu this does not contradict any of our basic values.
16. December 2009 - 7:30 AM
Siddharth / Palahalli
Was following your interesting debate closely and thought I should chime in.
1. The logic for linguistic states may be clear – however I think there it finds no precedents in India’s social history. Essentially it reflects the european thinking that languages represent nationalities (as in Europe) and therefore deserve distinct sovereign space. In the Indian context statehood comes at the price of other culturally and socially distinct identities. The much villified caste is one of them. If my reading of history is correct then in the past caste provided a fairly eclectic identitiy which permeated linguistic or regional boundaries. Also regional identities based on shared history, tradition and culture as against language – the case of united punjab or UP comes to mind. The idea of language based state also comes with fairly loaded orientalist baggage like aryan-dravidian etc. Also linguistic states are no end-all definitions of identity. I think all big states must be broken up on the basis of regional cultural expectations. While it may or may not contribute to governance – at least it has the potential to fulfil regional expectations apart from breaking the stranglehold on artificial discourse that the concept of linguistic states has given birth to. If there are fears of political fragmentation then one must seriously consider legislation which will effectively allow only parties that are present in at least a third of Indian states to compete at the national level. Regional parties seeking a voice at the national level can c join hands to compete as single political parties (as opposed to alliances) at the national level. It goes without saying that we need a fresh look at the constitutional/governance architechture we borrowed (read swallowed whole) from the British.
2. I tend to attribute lack of research & insight, and elitism as opposed to outright malice to the seculars. This is not denying that many followers of social and religious ideas – communists, seculars, evangelists, dravidianists, islamisists etc are not outright dishonest . However to judge everyone by the same yardstick is a perilous enterprise. Namecalling, helplessness in the face of unreason etc is no substitute to actual awareness and action. I think that the real venom of Islam and Christianity lie in thier notions of exclusivism and hostility. Nothing less than a frontal assault on these ideas can stop them. This has already happened with respect to Christianity in Europe. This is not advocacy of harassing and hounding the practitioners of the those faiths – but rather a plea for a slow and patient process to wean them away from these. I think the RSS initiative is a very tentative step in that direction. I have said elsewhere that secularism plays both arbiter and mediator in relations between hindus and religious minorities. That must change – hindus must have a sustained direct dialogue with representatives and laymen alike of these faith traditions. Ultimately words are no substitute to power. Hence hindus must claim back agency over thier traditions. They can for example start a movement asking governments to cede control of hindu temples and places of worship – back to hindus. Currently money mobilized by Hindu temples cannot be used for hindu causes like upliftment of untouchables, charity and social work, preserving indegenous traditions, (re)building intellectual foundations of hinduism – by funding academmic research ,poverty alleviation, education etc etc – making us vulnerable to attacks at multiple levels by seculars and other faith traditions. Hindus are at a distinct disadvantage because of governmental control over all aspects of thier discourse. One does not have to look too far back to notice the resourcefulness of hindus. At one time chided by terms such as “hindu rate of growth” – hindus implicitly bore the blame for economic non-performance. Once government control was relaxed (not removed) the same people turned in above average economic performance year on year. I think the same has to happen to social and intellectual discourse in India – which is being controlled by relics of socialism.
3. I agree to a certain extent that robust traditions can be more useful and appealing than a thick lawbook. Indian traditions may be agnostic about homosexuality but nowhere is it downright slanderous, hostile and xenophobic towards homosexuals as Christian and Islamic traditions are. We must understand that the british era laws on homosexuality that were a part of our legal system are a throwback to that very social complex. Our english language faux-victorian education has ensured that we have Inherited quite a lot of those biases – there is no denying it. While strongly advocating homosexuals be treated with kindness and understanding, one should be careful about commenting on social contracts that apply to them. While personally I think homosexual marriage – being a social contract between two willinging individuals – should be allowed ; along the same lines I am more agnostic about adoption. Again of course I understand that questions of free will are trivial considerations to place before the well-being of the child – who in the case of adoption gets parents, social, material and psychological security. What I dislike about the homosexual discourse in India is that it has been hijacked by westernized secular-progressive elite who lose no oppurtunity to use it – very unjustly – as a stick to beat Indians and Hindus with. Coming back to the question of letting traditions be the arbiter of social constructs – while I advocat it – I would also like to point out certain problems here. Robust tradtions can only survive where indegenos agency is strong. Thus the same traditions that provide social coherence and security can be turn against the individual when external factors dictate its use. For example purdah, jauhar-sati, extreme subservience of women etc can be directly traced to the advent of islam in the subcontinent. Similarly dowry deaths, sati, antipathy towards homosexuals, caste consolidation and politics, etc can be directly laid the door of the british legal constructs and social expectations. So I would rather that law books provide a framework of social propriety while societies and traditions work out the actual details.
16. December 2009 - 11:38 AM
Dharmveer, you said -
“As for what to do with the muslims – the answer is clear. It will take centuries, but they must all be brought back to the Hindu fold. Indeed, we must begin by thinking of them as Hindus – Hindus who were forced out of our society at pain of death during the Islamic invasions.”
Do you seriously mean that we should consider them Hindus ? Because the fact is, they are as Hindu as the Baptist Nagas are. Get this thing straight – we don’t have much time left. In just 70 years (yes, that is right) Hindus will cease to exist in their homeland if the present trend of Islamization and Christianization continues. Europe faces the same fate and will turn into Eurabia in just 40 years. Get the hell rid of your Christian dreams of “converting” them to Hindu fold and concentrate on kicking them out of India. Just to add emphasis to my point – muslims have carved out Pakistan and Bangladesh from India in just the last century, even if you ignore Afghanistan, and they sure are in no hurry to revert back to their fate. Their forefathers MAY have been Hindu, but these people are just braindead savages.
16. December 2009 - 2:08 PM
Siddharth –
Ref – 1a. Can you have multi-language states in Hindusthan? If not, then language is the guiding factor.
Ref – 1b. I spoke of the *logic* of linguistic states. Wrt state language, I wish there were no “ifs”; but it were compulsory. Language is not a stand-alone. It is a carrier of local culture and tradition. If *outsiders* do not learn to speak and interact in the state language, that becomes a barrier between them and locals. So, *outsiders* who have learnt the local language and speak in it with locals have managed to nullify any possible ill-feeling.
The flow of migrants is always one-sided it seems. What stops Southerners from moving into other states as low wage workers? It’s language and culture.
What stops the non-South states from implementing a three language formula? It’s the logic of numbers and power.
There is no reason why the South must tolerate this nonsense anymore. Why should it?
1c. You speak as if Karnataka would have starved without *outsiders*. That attitude is part of the problem we are dealing with. Instead why not ask why the North was so incapable of creating boom towns with IT etc?
The allegation of ethnic-cleansing does not deserve response. Suffice to say it is the Kannadiga and his culture that is being cleansed out of their lands.
Interestingly, it is always the most accomodative of people who need to deal with allegations of intolerance levelled at them. Wonder why no one speaks of why none of the states outside of Karnataka face this peculiar situation? Please tell me why none of the Northern states don’t ever fear being overwhelmed by *outsiders* to it? Either they are so tolerant or the scenario is non-existant. Can you find me an Abu Azmi in say, Haryana? Or Bihar? Or UP?
2. The so called “chauvinists” don’t speak of superiority. They speak of preservation.
3. You miss the entire point of strategy and become emotional. Only an idiot Muslim or Christian would assert he’s a Muslim or Christian first, in Hindusthan. It does not help him. However, the reason why they play the “I am an Indian first” game is because this ensures an automatic say wrt the larger cake. Look what happened to Shahabuddin when he went about his “Muslim Indian” crap. No one would touch him. Not even the liberals. Not that they did not sympathize but it made their own situation untenable and left them open to charges of blatant pandering to seperatism.
This also makes sense in a scenario where the Muslim or Christian is a majority or in considerable minority. Then they shed pretence. Like I said, it’s strategy that the real Hindu elite happily and perhaps unknowingly buys into – I don’t know why.
The only thing that will solve this problem is a clear assertion of national identity by Hindus as Hindus. And for this to happen, the real Hindu elite will have to shed certain inhibitions and taboos.
I still wonder why I haven’t got a response on Devi Gadhimai.
4. “Well meaning Hindu intellectuals.” – Folks like you, Rajiv, Sandeep?
5. You are wrong about where my understanding comes from. Please show me a Hindu tradition from any era, that allowed for homosexual marraiges and adoption. No living civilization would ever go down that tube.
Rajiv C –
1. I’m not sure where your going with this but do you by any chance feel that abolishing states is a viable option? How did we govern ourselves before the British? Was it not largely localized that led up to a soverign? How could this localized governance have worked without a common language between them?
I’m all for small states, but these must be based on common language. There is no other way.
2. I agree with direct dialogue and winning back Hindu autonomy. I don’t agree with the RMM platform only because this clouds our own thinking. We must remain very sharp always. The RMM is said to be the brain-child of Shri Bhagwat. *shudder-shudder-shudder*
3. No issues with point 3 – I think a fair baseline for Hindu traditionalism would be – anything that helps preserve and nurture the wellbeing of Hindus and their distinct cultures and traditions.
16. December 2009 - 2:09 PM
Sandeep – Comment in moderation Sir. Thank you
16. December 2009 - 4:11 PM
Palahalli,
Published sir. Thank you.
16. December 2009 - 5:21 PM
youve got yourself a fan!!
16. December 2009 - 7:01 PM
Palahalli
>> ” I’m not sure where your going with this but do you by any chance feel that abolishing states is a viable option? ”
Not my intent at all to suggest that. I think there is nothing particularly sacrosanct about linguistic identities. While not discounting the fact that it makes governance easier we must also grant other identities thier room for maneuver. So since states have already been formed on the basis of linguistic identities there is no harm in dividing them further into smaller manageable states based on regional aspirations for autonomy. This has already started to happen – for example the state of Jharkhand is not based on any distinct linguistic identity – but more on ethnicity. I think there is a case for further cultural-linguistic differentiation in various parts – most notably UP and Bihar – which may itself give rise to 5-7 new states, also Vidarbha in Maharashtra, Gorkhaland in Bengal etc, apart from the now well known cases in Andhra Pradesh. What I am saying is that language need not be the only criterion for creation of states – and that even linguistically similar states can be further divided on the basis of historical, cultural and ethno-linguistic identities. Of course all this – assuming that the locals want it that way, that it is practicable, and that it aids governance.
>>”How did we govern ourselves before the British? Was it not largely localized that led up to a sovereign?”
Most pre-british Indian kingdoms were multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic states with persian, sanskrit etc serving as official languages. Granted smaller constituents kingdoms sometimes had a single language – however they were certainly not the exclusive affairs they are today. There were multiple kingdoms with the same language – as much as there were single kingdoms with multiple languages. Also these kingdoms did not consider language as thier defining identity (that is a fairly recent phenomena) unlike now ; instead ruling clans, lineages, cultural affinity etc were considered paramount. I think one of the reasons we still have problems – inspite of (and 50 years after) the creation of linguistic states is that these cultural complexes and historical memories still endure.
16. December 2009 - 7:21 PM
Thanks Sandeep!
Rajiv C – I’m not suggesting One Language One State. I’m in fact saying Multiple States (where practicable) but each such State must have common language – predominantly. One must start from there, logically and I think sufficient precedents are there.
For instance – Vidarbha or Jharkhand would still not have come about with competing dominant languages.
That’s my point.
In the “kingdoms” example you shared, would it be correct to say that there was common language in the royal court and common language at individual grama panchayat levels?
Would that be a true statement?
16. December 2009 - 8:18 PM
@Palahalli,
is always multi-lingual. We do have multi-lingual states in India. My own state has two languages – Bengali is spoken in plains and a mixture of Nepali and Hindi is spoken in the hills. Even the accent and idioms change every few hundred miles within same state.
1a. India i.e. my India
1b. “The flow of migrants is always one-sided it seems. What stops Southerners from moving into other states as low wage workers? It’s language and culture.” – I consider this as Raj Thakarey -sque argument. There are good number of Tamils in Delhi/Mumbai/Pune/Ahmedabad/Kolkata. So are Marathis. Bottom line is, if there is money, there will be people trying to make a buck. What happened to Bangalore, also happened to Mumbai, Pune, Hyderabad and Noida. Bangalore is not an unique case study.
1c. “You speak as if Karnataka would have starved without *outsiders*.” – I am not sure how and when I said this. Either you are reading too much in between the lines or I do not know how to write English. Bangalore was there as a good city before the IT boom in the nineties. However, it is undeniable Karnataka govt has nothing to do with the IT boom that started. All MNCs came to the city because weather was cool for foreigners (that is why Chennai was not favored), people were friendly, not much political agitation (that is why Delhi and Kolkata even today are not favorites) and there was very good work ethic. Same happened to Pune. Hyd is a direct result of govt. effort to build it as IT hub.
Allow me to ask you this: when did migrants to Bangalore or Mangalore commit the cleansing of Kannadiga culture and language? Speaking a non-South language is not same as flushing out your language. Or did Bollywood numbers stop people from practicing Karnataki?
2. Yes, I get it. Beating up someone who do not speak your language is a nice way of preserving your culture. Beat up a few dude and burn some office buildings in Bangalore. That would definitely preserve your culture sir.
3. As I said, my experience is different. Minorities do not care if they are at advantage or not. They know that in current political climate minority card is a trump card and they can play it at will. I was prepared to live with secular ideals if the secularism did not give birth to minority intolerance and minority trump card. I do not know what has been your experience in this matter, but I do not agree with you.
4. As I said this is not good enough numbers. We need more.
5. Rajiv elaborated my point better than I did. You would not find such a tradition in your times because traditions changed in a bad way due to 800 years of slavery.
“No living civilization would ever go down that tube.” – Greeks did. So did Romans. In fact, Spartans instituted it in their army. Their claim was that, it consolidated brotherhood in the army.
Personally, I would be happy without this natural anomaly in our society. But just because few are different in our society, there is no point in persecuting few individuals who has no responsibility in it. By screaming against it, we are fighting the war of the Abrahamic radicals. We are not only giving outsiders a view that we are equally intolerant (a view that is definitely wrong) but also establishing that we are unable to fight the very prejudice and dogmas that foreigners instituted in our education and tradition.
Before resting my case, I would urge you to remember that Panjabis, Nagas, Biharis and thousand other ethnicity along with Southern citizens fought at Kargil to protect the lives of people like you and me, people they never knew in their life. This is a fact, not an emotional statement. X brigade did not think that because their brigade has disproportionate number of X speaking people, they do not need to fight for people speaking Y. If they did, we would have lost the war. Raj Thackerys of India does a great dis-service to India by helping to dis-integrate more. If it does, people like you and me will be the losers for we can not save our language and culture alone. But, then Mr. Thackerey would be enjoying his properties in Dubai where most of his investments are.
16. December 2009 - 8:43 PM
Rajiv,
There is nothing to disagree on point 1 and 3.
2. “I tend to attribute lack of research & insight, and elitism as opposed to outright malice to the seculars. This is not denying that many followers of social and religious ideas – communists, seculars, evangelists, dravidianists, islamisists etc are not outright dishonest .” – My experience with Secularists is different.
There is one section whom we can call followers of church of secularism. These are the people who believe that secularism as practiced in India is right no matter how convincing the evidence against it is. So you would not see any reason in their argument, but blind faith. This is instituted through the education governed by leftist system. The system itself failed, but the followers refuses to give up.
Dialogue is a nice thing to say, but until we get to be equal in terms of military power or economic power, we can not start dialogue with a Christian west or Muslim central Asia.
There is another section who are the theorists, the high priests and priestess of church of secularism. These people are dangerous because not only they are dishonest, but they also know that they are dishonest and do nothing about it. If dishonesty/hypocrisy bring you Padmasri or Booker prize, then that is a good premium on dishonesty.
There are some reasonable people who has secular views but are confused in today’s atmosphere. But these people are bullied so they had to hide their confusion. The confusion pains them but mostly they are unable to express their confusion for the fear of being branded “Hindu Bigot”, a term their education taught them to hate. If we are serious in self preservation, we have to win the support of these people.
16. December 2009 - 9:42 PM
Siddharth –
1a – Please tell me what language Gorkhaland will have? Would it be Bengali?
Karnataka itself has Tulu, Konkani, Kodava, dialects of Kannada and Marathi in Belgaum. The reason Kannada is state language is because it is dominant.
You have not refuted the logic of States on basis of language. They cannot run Karnataka if they have working documents published in all of the above languages.
1b – There is nothing “Raj Thakarey -sque” in what I have said. These are verifiable facts. Looks to me you ignore the issue totally. The Tamilians and Maharashtrians in the North do not speak Tamil and Marathi with locals there. They learn Hindi or whatever the local language is.
A far cry from what non-Southerners do in the South and especially in Karnataka. Why?
1c – Your own reasons for why IT developed in the South is my argument. What’s wrong with the North? Can they not develop a good work ethic there? It’s the same people right? What then makes the big difference in the South? Local people perhaps?
You don’t seem to want to realize the power of people, language and opportunity synergy.
Please explain why the North resists a three language formula? Why?? That will explain how *outsiders* can dominate Bangalore.
2. Are you telling me a Northern Hindu will not learn Kannada unless he’s threatened?
3. Where is the disagreement wrt Muslims and Christians?
We were debating Labels (Hindu vs Indian) and not attitude.
4. We’ll make more…
5. Your missing the point again. I’m not saying lock the homos up. Please show me a Greek homosexual married couple. Or a Roman homosexual married couple. We all know they had the institution of heterosexual marriages. Can you show me something comparable for homosexuals? I’m assuming you couldn’t find a similar Hindu tradition.
6. I’m actually pretty tired of the Armed Forces red-herring. I’m not sure how many Kannadiga soldiers would agree with the loss of cultural and linguistic space in the name of a larger good? What and whose larger good?
It then boils down to – do we have a part to play in the larger scheme or not? Where are my roots?
It’s not just Hindusthan but every living society that thinks like this. We are not unique at all.
17. December 2009 - 1:14 AM
@Palahalli,
1a. Gorkhaland does not exist yet. If that happens, they will decide what it would be. I guess not bengali. All I wanted to point out is that the language was not the sole consideration, it was one of the considerations. As for Bengal and Gorkhaland, our own elites failed the entire state including residents in north. When Bengal had jobs, there was no demand for Gorkhaland. There is no surprise that frustrations are used by con-men to find a route for loot.
“Karnataka itself has Tulu, Konkani, Kodava, dialects of Kannada and Marathi in Belgaum ” – Thanks for reminding me. According to your logic, then without looking at economic considerations, should your home state be broken into multiple states along the line of language?
1b. Dude, I know a little Kannada, Marathi, Tamil and Malayalam. Because I stayed all of the related states for some time. I have better skills in Hindi simply because I used to watch Hindi movies more and Hindi is closer to Bengali than these languages. I picked up some skills in those languages, because I found that it would help me navigate cities better. But learning a new language with fluency takes time and effort, so people never go beyond the basics. Even southerners communicate in broken Hindi and broken English in North and East, they are not fluent there.
1c. “Please explain why the North resists a three language formula? Why?? That will explain how *outsiders* can dominate Bangalore. ” – I am not out here to play devil’s advocate for a Northy. I am an Indian and therefore standing up for it because your language-ism hits it hard. Some of the north-Indians are more hostile than you in their Hindi-centric demand. I will not answer this question simply because I have no idea about three-language formula.
1d. South is not the only place, where good work ethic exists. Mumbai/Ahmedabad are western cities that have a lot of hard-working people. Places like Noida in north grew well. Consequently other industries grew well there. Basic point is, behind every large growth, there exists the contribution of locals as well as outsiders.
2. “Are you telling me a Northern Hindu will not learn Kannada unless he’s threatened?” – I am surprised at your ability to read more than I have written. My comment in this regard was a satire which apparently missed it’s goal. Three decades back, few people in north had similar ideas. Beat up non Panjabis and demand Delhi for Panjabis only. We all saw the consequences.
3. Indian is not a label, neither is Hindu. Calling these identities as labels (as in a medicine bottle) is an insult. You claimed that Muslims claim themselves as Indians which I believe is not reality. At least most of them do not consider so.
4. Yes.
5. “I’m not saying lock the homos up. ” – Then what is the grief about decision in high court? As far as I can recall, there is no law certifying gay marriage (not that, I am against it) or any tax relief for being gay (Oopss!!! The last part was a satire in case it misses the mark again!).
6. Would you do me a favor? Would you send me a list of Kanndiga soldiers who thinks that by joining armed forces they have lost their language or culture and how? The list of soldiers from any other community who thought that joining armed forces made them loose their identity? It is the job of the armed forces to protect Indians…..people with the same political identity. A socio-cultural identity has nothing to do with it.
To form a society an individual has to abide by certain rules on the basis of his expectation from the society. The community must not harm that individual’s right to the point where the protection of the rights does not harm the right of another individual in the same community. India is a community of communities. Each community has a right to it’s socio-cultural identity. But in the name of protecting it, if the community violate another’s community’s basic rights then the bigger community i.e. India cease to exist.
A group of countries, each of whom has blood of another in last few centuries, is trying hard to assemble themselves as a big community so that they can be recognized as a World Power. I am talking about EU. At the same point of time, we are not only contend with division, we are trying to redraw and re-enforce the boundary lines that would keep us busy for another few decades. I used to have deep contempt for politicians for doing this, but then politicians are a reflection of the society. If well meaning people who has some understanding of reasons love to keep those well heard arguments (I have heard such arguments in relation to ULFA, north-eastern groups, Vindranwale and now Raj Thackarey) alive, then India will cease to exist. Each time those arguments are rehashed, bloodshed happens, Indians kill Indians and the killings are interpreted as X community kills Y community. If we undo the Indian political identity, we also undo the last chance of protecting our culture and our heritage.
17. December 2009 - 2:22 AM
Many people do not identify with Hindi language. A language is associated with a culture. I would like my kids to speak the Pahari dialect I know or Kashmiri like my husband speaks. I don’t like Hindi–so its easy to see how someone in the south might not like it either.
17. December 2009 - 1:37 PM
Siddharth –
1a. Was Gorkhali also used in the Bengal Assembly? I guess not, because Bengali is the dominant language.
So my point is simple – You cannot proceed with organizing or re-organizing states without first starting from language. Of course “viability” is very important too, but if more than one language in a proposed state is dominant, then that state becomes non-viable from the word – Go; no matter what it’s other advantages are.
1b. Non-Kannadigas (particularly Northern Hindus and to a lesser extent Tamilians) who are born and brought up in Bangalore do not learn and speak the local language. This phenomenon is unique to the state of Karnataka and it’s urban areas. This same never happens in Tamil Nadu – I wonder why? Because in TN the locals will not speak another language than Tamil, even if they know another.
I have folks in office who have bought property in the state and plan on settling down permanently but exert zero effort to learn and communicate in the local language.
At the moment, Kannada speakers in Bangalore have become a minority.
1c. May I then suggest that you please start getting some basics straight?
The three language formula is in force in schools in Karnataka and I suspect all of the South. This stipulates a third language that a student must learn in addition to the state language and English – These can be either Hindi or Sanskrit. This in itself is tragic because Sanskrit is made an unnecessary scapegoat and brackets it like it was a North Indian language.
However, the rule to learn a third language remains.
My question is what prevents the North or the Non-South from adopting a third South Indian language? Why cannot these students learn Telugu, or Kannada or Tamil or Malayalam? This will help them communicate with South Indians in the North, surely just like the reverse happens in Karnataka.
1d. I won’t debate this point anymore. The figures show which places attract more migrants. As for Mumbai, there is already a problem with migrants there. I’d like to know the ratio in Ahmedabad. Would you have the data?
2. What were the consequences? It’s still Hindi and Punjabi dominated – just like it’s always been.
3. Names given to identities are nothing but labels. We are debating the content and how the labels themselves are used strategically to position content in the market. The usage of “Indian” by Muslims is strategy. Why is that so difficult to follow?
5. Marriage and adoption are logical consequences to “legalization” or a general withdrawal of specified deterrent legislation. You need to think about this more. There was never any *legislation* for or against homosexuality in Hindu tradition of whatever kind. Behavior was regulated by tradition and culture. Therefore it was contra tradition for homosexuals to marry and adopt. Society, including homosexuals understood this clearly.
When a *anti* legislation was brought in – it automatically became a purely legal issue and went out of the sphere of societal regulation. The law stipulated specific do’s and don’ts. Now, when the law is reversed, the opposite becomes true. If the law previously said homosexual acts and legal marriage is unlawful, logically it should now say these are lawful.
That is the reason why this question is not settled yet. That is also the reason why the Union govt passes the ball to the courts for their final decision.
I believe these legal eagles were smoking something strong when they decided to “decriminalize” instead of merely withdrawing all legislation on the subject and allowing for a social consensus to form.
This could have been easily done through a referendum or by making it a poll issue in the next election – state or Union.
6. I guess your totally confused here. A political identity does not work in a vacuum. That’s the first reality liberals must grasp thoroughly. A political identity is always built upon a socio-cultural identity. To make sense of the former, you must grasp the essentials of the latter.
To answer you straight – No Kannadiga Hindu soldier would enlist in a Hindusthan Army if he thought he would have to give up his language and culture and adopt something else.
Can you find me one soldier who would, from anywhere in this country? Just one?
In the following write-up you sort of try to divorce socio-cultural identity from “community” and marry it(the community) to “rule-of-law”. Again a hollow liberal wish. It doesn’t work that way in real life. This liberal thought process is also the main cause for so much of our current problems.
Please try to remember that “rule-of-law” is like artificial life-support. Culture and tradition is life itself. The veritable soul of the living being. You cannot extinguish this soul and place “community” under life-support of rule-of-law without killing the community eventually.
I have my thoughts on the EU and those are not the ones that can be printed here. Suffice to say the day the nations of Europe give in to EU’s diktat totally, is the day Europe dies.
Such a monster as this has been brought into being only after the likes of Ceaser, Napoleon and Hitler failed in the same endeavor.
17. December 2009 - 2:28 PM
>> “would it be correct to say that there was common language in the royal court and common language at individual grama panchayat levels?”
Yes that is generally true. And I never denied it.
I would like to summarize my position :
1.India has never had a tradition of states coalescing strictly around the identity of language. Language may have been a functional necessity for, or purely incidental to, the process of state formation in the pre-british past – but never a defining presentiment.
eg : marathas may bave created a state to protect thier ethnic interests, they may have spoken marathi or maharashtri – but they didnt define thier state as a state for the marathi in exclusion of every other identity. Thier state consisted of different communities which were usually left alone – and not forced to conform.
Todays linguistic states are not like that – thier defining rationale is language. The idea itself is somewhat exclusivist. It does not adequately address concerns of bi-lingual or multilingual communities, linguistic minorities, different and non-standard dialects, immigrants, migrants etc. Todays linguistic states (with thier mechanism of governance in strictly one language) implicitly demand conformance and compliance to certain monolithic ideas about language and identity. These ideals are actually borrowed from the European experience – and thier language based nation states. This borrowed assumption may be misplaced.
2. This has also generated an artificial and latent linguistic nationalism – which has had a profound impact on the psyche of the Indian people. So there are people who would otherwise not have thought so – thinking in terms of cultural seperateness and exclusivism, xenophobia, linguistic purity, geographical integrity, demographic integrity etc all on the basis of language-based identity. In is this process of linguistic nationalism all grievances are easily moulded and defined in terms of insider-outsider syndrome.
3. While discussing the apparent threats from north-indians etc we miss the real problem. Currently there is not a single Indian language in which one can pursue higher education in sciences, medicine, etc. Even to become an administrator or a clerk one has to learn English. Our metropolitan cities, including bangalore and Mumbai try to culturally mimic the west. Our middle class, our media and entire swathes of our society has inculcated the same aspirations as well. English is thier vehicle of choice for fulfilling these aspirations. Very few people even see this as unnatural. The world over, India seems to be the only significant nation that conducts its national discourse, higher education, governance legal functions etc all in a foriegn language. Ever other region – Russia, China, Germany, France, Japan conducts it’s affairs in thier own language. So while english (and western culture) encroach into our physcial and phsychological space we are busy bickering over our own linguistic inheritance. Then we complain about how alien culture is encroaching into our space – all the while conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room – namely english.
4. Ethnically I am southerner but was born and brought up in the north. I find the linguistic bashing of northerners – and hindi speaking people – particularly appalling. I can state that as a general rule (in spite of juvenile jibes and name calling) southerners are highly respected in northern india. I am yet to see a single instance of the kind of demonization directed towards other linguistic group identities in the north. instances of which we see now quite frequently south of the Vindhyas – like dravidianism, thackeray-ism etc – which is quite shameful.
17. December 2009 - 3:14 PM
Rajiv C – You are making some very basic mistakes.
But first, I was only making the point clearer on socio-political organization. Btw, it proves how important language is as a component of organic society.
1. Could Hindusthan have done without language? Why is language being pushed to the background needlessly?
What does the example of the Maratha empire prove? Only that there was no imposition of Marathi? Even this is somewhat disputed by historians but I can live with the point.
I strongly dispute the “foreign” construct on Hindusthan’s language based states. I’d make a simple point and say that Hindusthan has never witnessed similar kind of organization or political set-up in it’s history before. So when the time did come to think about organizing; it naturally fell upon certain categories, of which language was seen to be defining. Btw, linguistic states in Hindusthan are not a British idea. It was first mooted by the Congress under Gandhi and then the logic was followed up post independence and gained momentum particularly after Potti Sriramulu’s death.
2. Your argueing on a false premise and therefore you see such identity as bad. My assertion is that even in Hindusthan of yore, a local identity, if threatened, would never have been tolerated in the nebulous name of some larger common good.
Can one imagine what would have happened if some Northern Hindu had thrust, say, Bhojpuri on Vijayanagara in the name of common nationalism??
The so called Kannada chauvinists are no less Hindu nationalist – is a point that is simply not recognized. Why?
3. Let’s settle this question first.
Otherwise don’t we all know how and why Tamil Nadu, that had one of the most number of Tamilians learning Hindi in the pre and early post independence era – turned fanatically anti-Hindi?
English, dear Sir, is seen as a far lesser evil than Hindi, in the South.
Languages are by themselves not evil or bad. It’s the people’s attitude that’s resisted.
I’d like you to start speaking only in Malayalam or Tamil or Kannada or Telugu in the Northern city you live in (with locals there) and encourage fellow Southerners to do likewise and then we can discuss feedback.
Kindly explain, if you can, why the three language formula is not an all Hindusthan phenomena? Why should Northern Hindus not learn a Southern language? Why should they not learn and speak it when they are born and brought up in a Southern town?
Please tell me of a rare Southern Hindu born and brought up in the North who does not know and speak in Hindi?! Even the mere thought is laughable isn’t it?
And we are accused of demonization.
Note – I think this debate can progress from emotion to reason only when the point of three language formula is addressed by Rajiv and Siddharth. Until then, it will be seen as obfuscation of the core issue at hand – that is, Northern domination of the South.
17. December 2009 - 10:42 PM
@Palahalli,
1a. “So my point is simple –” – no, it is not. Your first few poists led us to believe that you supported creation of state based on languages. Now you would like us to see that from point of view of “dominant” languages. Who would decide what is dominant? Dominance can be decided based on a selected area, but if area is chosen with certain result in mind, the dominant languages change quickly. For example, in the plains of Bengal, Bengali is dominant. In the hills, a mix of Nepali and Hindi is dominant. If you call the hills a separate area (or state), dominant language would be different. The basic idea that ONLY language defines the state is a gross over-simplification of the complex array of attributes of Indian society. Thus it is not acceptable.
1b. “At the moment, Kannada speakers in Bangalore have become a minority. ” – Prove it with a statistics. For your other examples, I have seen counter-examples. The entire administration speaks Kannada.
1c. I did not know that was called a three-language formula. But I have studied Sanskrit as a third language. I have never studied in North India, so I have no idea whether they study a third language or not and if they do, what language.
In stead of a third language, do you want students to study third/fourth/fifth/sixth language? Because the variety of languages is overwhelmingly high in south. Sanskrit, being the third language, is good enough.
1d. All disputes over migrants is made-up problem. Do you have the data that proves migrants are a problem in Mumbai? This is what that started the debate.
2. “It’s still Hindi and Punjabi dominated – just like it’s always been. ” – Yes. But by consequence, I meant the blood shed, loss of lives.
3. “The usage of “Indian” by Muslims is strategy. Why is that so difficult to follow? ” – I do not care what their strategy was. Those jihadists are a bunch of dangerous morons. But this is hardly the point. If, in your mind, you think “Indian” is only a strategic word placed by Islamists and their sympathizers, then please do remember that thousands died not so long ago in there desire to be known as Indians instead of British subjects. This would not have happened if “Indian” was a strategic label.
5. Why can not you answer this simple question: Why were you guys screaming when the law was interpreted by the judges as something that can not persecute gays? After all, you do not want “homos to be locked up”. Does the campaign against high court’s decision reflect your opinion? If you claim to be indifferent about gays, you would not write big web posts against the high court decision, would you?
About gays, I guess our personal respective opinions are not going to change any soon.
6. Answer the question: do you know any Indian soldier who thinks that his cultural and linguistic rights are taken away after joining the Indian army? If so, how? I am struggling to understand how could that happen. There are cousins and friends who are in the army. This is the first time I am hearing such a claim.
Forget army, is there any other Indian institution, that has forced various communities to abandon their cultural and linguistic rights?
You yourself stated that you are “tired” of this Indian army “myth”. So why do not you debunk it? Why this detour of proving that army tries to take away cultural and linguistic rights? I myself never said so.
Law or not, a community is found on a set of agreements that are created based on certain expectations of all Individuals in the community. I do not care what liberals wish, but merely calling the points a liberal wish would not cut. If you do not agree to what I wrote about communities, do provide your reason on why I am wrong. Your current response is as good as Vishnu Som’s effort to label everybody who did not agree with him.
If tradition is the only rule, then a nation would never change. For example, when Ram Mohan Roy went against Sati pratha, Sati pratha was believed to be a part of the tradition at that point of time. Because there was a legal framework available and the framework worked on basis of discussion , it was possible to remove that stupid tradition despite extreme opposition. Compare this to Saudi Arabia, where legal frameworks are not solid and despicable traditions like slavery continue till today.
Artificial it may be, “rule-of-law” help a nation to come together and promote the discussion to reach agreement about common good. Adopting the law and making it a part of life is what tradition does over time. Rule of law is not a replacement of tradition, it is complimentary to tradition. To build a nation, one needs both.
But then you do not believe in Indian nation at all. This gap between your and my belief system is pretty much irreconcilable.
“….likes of Ceaser, Napoleon and Hitler failed in the same endeavor.” – They failed because they never tried to assimilate everyone. If culture and identity of every community is ravaged, then consensus can not be successful. EU avoids such an approach.
It is possible to create organizations of communities without destroying individual attributes of the community. That is why political identity of India, the bigger organization, is important. It is also important to recognize that such a political identity is not in disagreement with individual cultural identities. In fact, such a political identity provides political support for protecting the right of individuals to retain cultural identity.
Any time, you speak against hindi-centrism, I am with you. But what you are proposing is jingoism that would eventually weaken us, our political identities. If you believe Kannadiga (or Marathi) culture is under attack, go to parliament and get a bill passed that would make it mandatory for people arriving at Banaglore airport to take a Kannada test. Beating up people never solved anything. At best, it would give people like Mr. Thackarey some political mileage.
17. December 2009 - 11:04 PM
Rajiv,
Your point is taken. But what are the choices if we avoid English?
For example, Tamils would not speak Hindi, Palahalli would like every Indian to speak Kannada, Raj Thackarey would like you to refer yourself as “mi” and there is no denial that there are people in my own communities who are inclined to see every marwari in Barrobajar in Kolkata to speak in Bengali.
18. December 2009 - 12:26 AM
Sidharth – Please start reading my comments accurately. Stop using your imagination.
1a. – The principle of dominance is what works at all times. Tulu and Kodava speaking people might assert, but if they created states for themselves, their states would fail because of a lack of various other factors. However, the reverse condition (available resources but more than one dominant language)is not possible to acheive in our scenario.
So the various new demands arise and live on or fizzle out based on feasability. Language is constant.
1b. Facts – http://www.thehindu.com/2007/08/21/stories/2007082152810400.htm
Ref. to the stats in that link.
“The entire administration speaks Kannada.” – Pray what else must they conduct their business in in Karnataka?
1c. You have been very sensitive to the situation. Can we now agree that students in Karnataka will study Kannada, English and (optional)Sanskrit? That’s still one more language than what the North studies.
As for the multiple Southern languages, they can always have a choice of one of them. Is that difficult?
1d. I’m not sure if Marathi “chauvinists” have been faulted on merits yet. Why not look up Railway recruitment figures? Also see these two good links –
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/28sai.htm
http://retributions.nationalinterest.in/globalization-and-marathi-manoos/
2. “But by consequence, I meant the blood shed, loss of lives.” – What? Where?
3. “Indians instead of British subjects”?? Really? What about Pakistan? Your talking about Hindus? Please realize that no one opposed linguistic identities.
5. Please read what I have written. The HC decision has a logic of it’s own that is now lying strangulated. The homosexuals are not happy nor are their keepers in the NGOs. Those who opposed the move are also not happy because they know only too well what the logical conclusion is, of this misadventure; when it picks up again. The matter has not ended yet.
I suggest you read Ashok Row Kavi and what he thinks about where it should end.
6. “Answer the question: do you know any Indian soldier who thinks that his cultural and linguistic rights are taken away after joining the Indian army?”
- Please show me where I have said or alluded to such a thing.
“If culture and identity of every community is ravaged, then consensus can not be successful”
- I rest my case.
18. December 2009 - 12:39 AM
This is from the link I pasted above, I’d like to end with this warning coming from a Tamilian living in Mumbai –
“You can blame the soft-hearted, decent Maharashtrian for meekly standing by while the rest of us made the most of the opportunities in the City of Gold if it soothes your conscience, but the fact is the rest of us have misused and abused the hospitality and warmth shown by the Maharashtrians to us. I am not sure how much longer he will remain a mute spectator.
And when that happens, we will have it brought upon ourselves by consistently downgrading Marathi, denying Mumbai its Maharashtrian heart, and being terrible citizens in a great city.”
Anyday the Kannadiga “chauvinist” will agree with that.
Thank you
18. December 2009 - 1:16 AM
I agree with Pala on this one at least.
Even while being a Maharashtrian living in Hyderabad, my grandfather, my father, and myself included, have done every single possible thing to integrate ourselves into the Hyderabadi society–my father got married to a lady from telangana, I was educated with Telugu as my first language, and I got married to a lady from telangana as well. Today, telangana people would identify us as one of them without a hint of doubt… regardless of my first and family name.
That is a satisfying feeling.
19. December 2009 - 2:11 AM
@Palahalli,
1a. “….but if they created states for themselves, their states would fail because of a lack of various other factors…” – There you go. So you agree that language is not the ONLY factor. I rest this case here.
1b. “Pray what else must they conduct their business in in Karnataka? ” “Please start reading my comments accurately. Stop using your imagination. ” – The first quote indicates the awesome accuracy you are displaying in reading my post. I just stated a fact, not a complaint. This is very similar to your understanding of the sarcastic comment I made in my earlier post.
The article in your given link states: “Such disconnect between a state and its capital (country and town) is not unique to Karnataka;”. The stat is from 1991. The same stat also shows that Kannada speakers represent 61% of the population then. This information makes me think – early nineties when the survey is carried out, Bangalore was not a boom town and hence not much filled with “outsiders”. So there was non-kannada speaker Karnatakis in the city. I have not heard about grievances then. So if there was no threat to Kannada language and culture then why would it be now?
1c. “Can we now agree that students in Karnataka will study Kannada, English and (optional)Sanskrit? ” – I am yet to understand where I ever disagreed with the position? Everybody should study their own language, one second language (given the options in the present scenario, I do not see any substitute to English) and an optional third language (may be Sanskrit). “That’s still one more language than what the North studies. ” – I do not know about schools in North, so I can not comment. Rajiv studied there, he can tell better.
“You have been very sensitive to the situation.” – When there is a claim of having a reason to beat up a group of innocent people, one needs to be sensitive about such claims.
1d. There are thousand articles like that on net. If there was a validity in the claim (i.e. a logical basis, not rhetoric) why would not Raj T go to supreme court to challenge Railways recruitment? Challenges like that are an essential part of governance based on discussions and common agreement. Since when beating up people became a good way to express your frustration? It is the logic of eighties blockbusters.
Palahalli, if I loose my job and then send my neighbor to emergency ward bed because his existence increases the population and hence my employer has other choices than me, what sort of good logic is that?
2. “What? Where?” – Every jingoism leaves a trail of blood and misery. Latest example is Islamic jingoism. The latest example of linguistic or sectarian jingoism is the rise of ULFA in Assam. That too is now dying it’s natural death. Raj T’s movement is another example in making and if he fails to make it a cause of national concern, congress would make sure that it becomes such.
3. “Your talking about Hindus?” – Yes. “Please realize that no one opposed linguistic identities. ” – That was not the point. Those who fought for it, believed that the identity they had and the identity they were fighting for do not have any inherent conflict.
5. “……nor are their keepers in the NGOs.” – That is what is very disturbing. Gays or their acceptance no longer matters in the fight. However, I still do not see any reason for all of us to align ourselves with Abrahamic radicals. These radicals are much more harmful than a bunch of gays asking for marriage.
6. “Please show me where I have said or alluded to such a thing. ”
Your first response in this regard:
“I’m not sure how many Kannadiga soldiers would agree with the loss of cultural and linguistic space in the name of a larger good”
to my following point related to army:
“X brigade did not think that because their brigade has disproportionate number of X speaking people, they do not need to fight for people speaking Y.”
Nowhere I have asked soldiers to forget their cultural identity. All I wanted to say that mixing political identity with cultural identity would weaken us all and elaborated. When that is your response, I have to assume that you know people in the army who believe opposite is the case.
”
“If culture and identity of every community is ravaged, then consensus can not be successful”
- I rest my case.
”
Indian, the political identity, neither requires people to forget their cultural identity, nor it proposes to ravage cultures. The only time Indian state came closer to do anything like it is when congress government proposed to make Hindi national language in the sixties. If they were successful, the life of Indian state would be shortened. But they had to back out.
20. December 2009 - 7:39 PM
“But Hindus are also sometimes to blame when they try to argue that Ram was a historical figure and thus display their own ignorance–”
So, when pope argues that Jesus Christ was a historical figure, was he also displaying his ignorance? I do not know whether Rama was historical figure or not, but, to us, he is as important as that mythical man of peace to you or that dude in white robe living in Vatican City.
No that not what I am saying–they bring into debate whether or not Ram was an actual historical figure and by doing so detract from the ‘real” debate, namely that the issue is a civilizational one and is not a question of whether someone was a historical figure, and argue like Christians and detract from the essential issues making themselves laughable just like Christians. And I am not Christian. My point is simply that there are foolish Hindus who make themselves ridiculous like foolish Christians. That is all. Please read before commenting. Its annoying when people are slow to comprehend what you are saying.
22. December 2009 - 3:12 PM
Palahalli
I think you are being quite unfair in your attribution of mistakes to me. I shall clarify these here.
1. “Could Hindusthan have done without language?”…
Nobody questions the importance or the validity of languages here – it is an erroneous extrapolation on your part to imply the same . What is being argued is that identities need not necessarily coalesce around languages – and language though important is just one of the various ways in which people may identify themselves. Not too long ago and even now – religion was an extremely divisive identitiy. The point being that all identities can be divisive if they become exclusive. Linguistic states by thier nature are exclusive entities for reasons explained earlier. And hence most states based on language (UP/Bihar included) – wherever possible – must be broken into smaller states to accomodate other cultural identities.
2. “Btw, linguistic states in Hindusthan are not a British idea”..
Our beaureocracy, our legislative bodies, our apparent historical inheritence, our cultural self-perceptions, our ideas of caste, creed, color etc, our perceptions of public and private moraility etc, are all so heavily influenced (read warped) by inherited western ideas – we do not even question that. We claim that Nehru, Gandhi and several other leaders were products of a western system – more western than indian. Our nation spent fifty years wallowing in warped ideas of society, economy and nation state primarily based on these borrowed western ideas. From this Is it really such a leap of faith to understand that our leaders who demanded linguistic states drew inspiration from the same source viz, western ideas of state and identity ? Well, application of fabian socialism too wasnt done by the british – but didnt we adopt it ?
3 “English, dear Sir, is seen as a far lesser evil than Hindi, in the South. ” / “Languages are by themselves not evil or bad”
Don’t you think the above statements are contradictory ? I dont think any south indian language is seen at all as evil in the north – just difficult to learn and unviable. So dont you think based on your own statement there is an obivious demonization – for whatever reason ? I understand that there are hindi chauvinists in the north – but in my view they form a miniscule minority – whose appeal and ideas find no purchase amongst the general public (hence my assertion that there has never been a case of violence directed at linguistic minorities in the north) . However a persistent campaign against hindi and hindi speakers (a la Raj Thackerey) in other regions may just scratch that itch – and we may manage to unleash a larger demon of linguistic conflicts. Therefore my plea that we need to be very careful of how we proceed on these issues.
3. “Why should Northern Hindus not learn a Southern language? Why should they not learn and speak it when they are born and brought up in a Southern town?”
These are generalization to which I will briefly answer – but will strictly NOT dwell on henceforth – as they do not contribute to the discussion and introduce an unecessary emotive element. I have known UP-wallahs and Bengalis born and brought up in Kerala who speak better malayalam than I do. Similarly I know a paanwaallah from Sitamarhi (Bihar) in Chennai who learnt to speak Tamil in one year and is more fluent than many expat Tamilians I know – ditto an autodriver in Chennai. So per me the assertion that northerners dont learn south indian languages is wrong. Of course these are convenient generalizations that bypass substantive issues. Discussing along these lines leads nowhere. In any case people learn languages per thier needs, not because the state plays big brother and dictates what they should learn. States dictating such terms leads exactly to the case of linguistic exclusiveness i mentioned earlier. When a state is formed with language as its basis – it becomes the business of the state to be a custodian of that language and thereon determine/promote/dictate its use. Look at Tamil Nadu where the state has been actively trying to invent an ostensibly ‘unadulterated’ Tamil – free of Sanskritic influences – for the past 30~40 years. We can well imagine where such tendencies would lead our nation – were they to become widespread.
4. “Three Language Formula”
There are far wider issues concerning implementation of the three language formula than linguistic parochialism. Problems with language policies exist in almost all other nations – EU, Sri Lanka, Singapore. Only place where it does not exist is perhaps China – where the non-han languages have been practically driven to extinction in the past 50 years. Language policies generally have to accomodate identity, relevance, requirements for governance, and economic utility etc. States in India were formed to accomodate linguistic identities, for a person from himachal pradesh it might be relevant to learn punjabi but not malayalam or kannada, use of hindi as an official language eases requirements of governance over large swathes of india, english the link language is still used because of its economic utility.
Before we proceed to discuss the ‘Three language formula’ let me cite that article 343 of the constitution and the official languages act say that official language of the union will be Hindi. This makes sense too since hindi is spoken as first language by 490 million people and as second language by 120-225 million making it percentage wise the language with far numerous following and reach than any other language – individual or combined. By your own hypothesis of dominant languages should not HIndi be spoken by every Indian and all business transacted in Hindi ? I (along with a lot of people in India) do not agree with the dominant language theme which is why for the last 60 years we have not acted on making Hindi the defacto pan-indian language – which is how it should be – sections of populace seeking to maintain a degree of autonomy should be allowed to do so. Tamil Nadu’s objections to imposition of Hindi (which unfortunately some hindi-chauvinists stridently sought) was not grounded as much on the fear of hindi replacing tamil as on the then dominant dravidian paradigm. The objectives of this movement – otherwise grounded on false history and divisive ideas – was and is divisive and exclusivist. It is following these objections that the three-language formula was setup as a compromize and not as a replacement for hindi as national language. Furthermore the three language formula makes it only optional because as per this formula ” National Policy on Education 1986 provides Hindi, English and modern Indian language (preferably one of the southern languages) in the Hindi speaking states and Hindi. English and the Regional language in the non-Hindi speaking States”. So evidently 3-language formula is not a panacea for the apparent northern domination that you refer to. I thought all norhtern states have implemented this – please cite examples of states that have not.
My personal view of the matter is that the 3-language solution is hackneyed and overloads the educational system with unrealistic burdens. The reason people from other states migrate to states with jobs and growth is seperate from the language question. Again we see that only english-speaking people seem to get the best jobs best education etc. Is this not harmful to the local culture / language etc ? If people did not need an additional layer language (english) to gain higher education ie if states were able to provide the higher education to all levels in the local language not only would it spark indegenous agency by making education, knowledge, skill available and accessible in local language – but it would also make education cheap and less exclusivist. Then of course we would need only a single language to act as a link as well as national language which could be either hindi or sanskrit (more preferable). Let me clost by quoting a very valid observation on this debate by Harold Schiffman (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/540/handouts/indiapol/indic2.html)
“What is lacking from the current policy is the `unity at the top’ levels that I mentioned earlier; the three-language formula does not make it clear what is at the top, and this is perhaps its fatal flaw. Perhaps the best that could be achieved would be to enshrine Sanskrit as India’s national language, and then go ahead and use any other language at the instrumental level, with no claims to sanctity, purity, antiquity, or whatever that seem to be inherent in the current quest for a language that fills the bill. What seems to have gotten lost is the symbolic function that special languages often have in various polities; India lacks a candidate for the symbolic function, though Sanskrit used to suffice. Now individual languages such as Hindi and Tamil have taken on symbolic functions, and the instrumental value of either language is diminished;”
22. December 2009 - 3:25 PM
On a lighter note – I commented on Vir Sanghvi’s article “Ayodhya for dummies” and renamed it
“Ayodhya by dummies”
but another commentator beat me to it when she renamed his article
“Ayodhya for Dhimmies”
23. December 2009 - 12:07 PM
I’m sorry I was away so long – There’s been only work and some twitter for me these past few days, that’s all
Siddharth,
1a. I get the feeling your argument around language does not have fixed goals – they seem to be moving always. Here’s my final attempt – There are of course non-language attributes that go into state-formation, however, the “dominant language” rule cannot be discarded whatsoever. A state in Hindusthan must have only one administrative language. This language would be the dominant language of the people residing in that state. Without this sorted out – no state.
1b. Siddharth, it becomes very difficult when you relate my factual complaints with your plain facts. Naturally I tend to think they are complaints too
# Is there no difference between 61% and 35%?
There are two things to consider –
Migrants who do not learn and speak the local language
Migrants that do
If the trend was the latter, we would not have a problem
In case you continue to believe that since “migrants bring in money” there is no cause for grouse – your wrong
1c. I’d like you to please state why the North or the Non-South, refuses the three language formula. Right now, I’m inclined to believe your avoiding this issue.
There is no claim “for reason to beat up people”. There is certainly the accusation of arrogance against migrants. They are being inconsiderate.
If you think every such matter should be addressed to the Supreme Court or “billed” in Parliament then I fear for any kind of possible positive social dynamic.
1d. So what do you think? Are you saying there is no substance in the charge – without a Supreme Court judgement saying there is?
It’s a fact that people are frustrated beyond measure. Two things, in such cases, cause this frustration – 1. The inability of the migrants to listen and acknowledge local concerns 2. The insensitivity of the system.
Let me add for good measure that the only reason I do not support Raj Thackeray is because he’s without credibility. Not because his arguments are wrong.
2. I get the feeling you do not understand the problem yet.
3. “Those who fought for it, believed that the identity they had and the identity they were fighting for do not have any inherent conflict.”
- Absolutely. Because their respective identities were never threatened quite unlike now. That’s the reason why Hindus did not refuse states based on language
5. I’m sorry. I’d much rather go by merits of each case.
6. Please re-read my quoted points and you will know your deduction is fallacious.
Political identity and Cultural identity – How are these different? They cannot be, at least not in a healthy polity. In a liberal polity, yes.
My simple point was if the soldiers knew their cultural identity is threatened – they would not fight with their heart. Only the threat of a firing squad would make them fight under such circumstances.
Any political identity must per force be married to a cultural identity for it to have substance. Else it becomes an empty shell.
23. December 2009 - 1:10 PM
Rajiv C – Any unfair attribution is unintended. My apologies rightaway.
1. To put it simply, we need to address the points of divergence and not exclusivity in itself. In other words, what is it that makes something divisive? Let’s address that.
Smaller states do not mean multi-lingual states. Divided UP and Bihar will still have Hindi or local dominant dialects ruling.
2. I maintain this – Linguistic states was not a British idea. They did not use it themselves to organize Hindusthan.
Trivia – Fabian Socialism – http://www.answers.com/fabian%20socialism
3. I’m afraid it is this blindness that has made matters worse. Thought excercise for you –
# Please gather some data on how many Southern migrants speaking their own languages with locals – in the North
# Please gather some data on how many Northern migrants speaking their own languages with locals – in the South
# Now try to reason where you think would arise “chauvinists” and why?
# Try also to gather data about how “numbers” in parliament can help the most “important” states to manoeuvre policy in their favor.
“Difficult and unviable” – Ludicrous is not the term strong enough to describe such reasoning. Sorry.
3a. Your examples of Kerala and Tamil Nadu – minus Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh; are classic. Kerala never did attract the kind of migration other Southern states did. I’d say Tamil Nadu’s headstrongness saved the South from ever more Northern dominance. Of course one has to learn Tamil if they want to live there.
So, are at least Malayalam and Tamil more viable and less difficult to learn for the Northerners?
4. Hindi is the Official Language (whatever that means) of Hindusthan with English as the link (official?)language for administrative reasons.
Hindusthan has multiples of what may be termed, National languages.
Whilst it may be more relevant for the Himachali in Himachal Pradesh to learn Punjabi than Kannada – it is very relevant for this Himachali to learn Kannada in Karnataka. That’s the point I’m making and being opposed for it, so assiduously.
Btw, perhaps you can help – You studied in the North. How many Southern languages were studied in school? If none, why not? A rational answer is possible to give. I’ll let you give it.
I studied in Delhi. Not one Northern student was conversant nor knew any language from the South.
The three language formula is a huge failure in the North wrt Southern Languages. I really wonder why considering the flow of migrants.
Hindi is not the dominant language in the South.
All the rest of your argument will succeed in doing is to sell English much better in the South.
24. December 2009 - 1:00 AM
Hey, hey…RC, Palahalli — why digress into a totally unrelated area? And such a
protracted debate, wow! Of course, I do appreciate your willingness to discuss rather than pick up an axe
5. January 2010 - 9:34 AM
Vir Sanghvi does it again on PVNR
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Praising+PV+in+order+to+damn+Sonia&artid=s/L1SXjanFk=&SectionID=d16Fdk4iJhE=&MainSectionID=HuSUEmcGnyc=&SectionName=aVlZZy44Xq0bJKAA84nwcg==&SEO=
6. January 2010 - 10:56 PM
Well, I did not agree to the part where he is doubting Ayodhya as Lord Rama’s birth place. He should go to Kashi/Haridwar/Mathura/Dwarka and ask the Brahmin kids learning Vedas or their parents who have maintained Vedas by orally passing on to thousands of generations and know our history very precisely and uncut…..Re-installing the pride of Hinduism is MUST at every cost. Don’t Christians and Muslims maintain Rome and Mecca-Madina respectively at every cost ? Where is the center of Hindu religion? THERE IS NONE as IT HAS BEEN DESTROYED. It is our moral,ethical,religious and national duty re-instate our Lord Rama’s Temple. After all whether BJP/Advani is right or not, fact of the matter is, we Hindus only have one single nation on this planet earth we can call “ours” and live peacefully on….It is sad we don’t take such issues seriously until they are resolved. We start strong, leave unfinished. Sadly that’s how we Hindus are.
15. February 2010 - 8:00 PM
You are an amazing storyteller. I am laughing my ass off!!