[Reader-list] Amaranth Land Issue

[radhikarajen at vsnl.net]

Dear Tapas,

   your write up made very interesting read, but alas, for me being hindu is way of life, in this way of life, there is place for all other ways of life, being an athiest is also okay in this way of life just as a ritualist life for some one, for many rituals are just rituals with out even knowing the reasons for the rituals, but even that is alright in hindu way of life. My mother is this part of continent, I rever it as my haven, without any quotes, I feel we can make it haven for all good, as laws of land are supreme if implemented properly, sternly without fear or favour. Any one in governance when he takes oath of governance without fear or favour time and again it is proved that in free India, sixty years of governance has been with fear and favours to the caste, faith and region, it is then not democratic rule of law.

  All of us have friends who may follow different ways of worship, lifestyles or beliefs but what matters is huamne approach to life, compassionate, considerate and responsive to all in our lives. Rule of laws which should not be, never be discriminative in sharing and caring every citizen irrespective of his color, faith, region and caste can make India heavenon earth.

   As to RSS, no doubt even that organisation is now seeing the winds of changes in societal life, chinthan baitaks of austere meetings are much comfortable in holding , ministers and every one are no more in the same platform in common seating arrangements, as some are becoming more equal than others in seating arrangements.! But basically, when nation was divided on the faith of being a nation for muslims, it is logical that muslims have to get relocated in the nation that they wanted. ?

   And just for the sake of arguments, hindus you say, are in majority, but the truth of the matter is hindu society after british rule is most divided society, thanks to the game of caste feel of the society. Only the movement of pride united the hindu society against the barbaric riots of the fanatics, acknowleding the fact that riots bring miseries to all even if they are muslims. ?

   As of today, it is the turn of united muslims who are now divided as shias, sunnis, and one can count another half a dozen denomination of the divisive sects. 

   But for me basically, all the communes united in the nation, makes the nation a force to reckon with which none dare to violate even in their dreams. All sections of the society need to be united as threads of a stron rope that is our nation, just as all sections of thesociety shall be governed fairly without fear or favour to any segment. Only then we can say that we are successful in democratic life of live and let live. That comes only with lot more tolerence and patience. Shraddha and saburi, that is faith in ourselves to be good, patience in each of us to be tolerent of each other is the need of the hour to the nation.

  Regards.

----- Original Message -----
From: Tapas Ray <tapasrayx at gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, July 5, 2008 1:27 am
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Amaranth Land Issue
To: sarai list <reader-list at sarai.net>

> Radhika,
> 
> Your post touches on important issues. I will address the most 
> important 
> one - indeed, the core issue - after getting the others out of the 
> way.
> 1. It seems to me that if we are to be proud to be anything, it 
> should 
> be our common humanity, and not a particular religion, caste, 
> language, 
> ethnicity, etc. Because, this kind of "pride" leads to bloody 
> conflict 
> all the time. Religious pride and tolerance may coexist in you, 
> but this 
> is not universally true.
> 
> It is certainly not true that every Hindu hates Muslims, but my 
> experience tells me that some in fact do. And I would be 
> interested in 
> knowing how many riots have been initiated by Muslims rampaging 
> after 
> Friday prayers, and what percentage of all riots these represent.
> 
> 2. Since you are aware that the "pseudo-seculars" also play 
> identity 
> politics like the BJP, though to a different degree and in a 
> different 
> style, I think you will agree that their best interest lies in 
> appeasing 
> the majority community first and foremost, and only after that, 
> the 
> minorities. In fact, this is what they have been seen to do in 
> practice. 
> If you remember, the Babri demolition took place when Congress was 
> running the government with Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister. So, 
> it is 
> wrong to say that "pseudos" like Manmohan Singh appease only 
> Muslims. 
> That is, and has to be, their second priority.
> 
> 3. I do not see the connection you seem to make between being a 
> proud 
> but tolerant Hindu, on the one hand, and your anger at the all-
> round 
> misery and discontent, on the other. Isn't this anger the natural 
> reaction of anyone who has any humanity left in her/him? Has the 
> party 
> that is essentially based on Hindu pride made the slightest 
> effort, in 
> the country when it ran the national government, or any of the 
> states it 
> has ruled, to bring about any fundamental change that would help 
> eliminate the sufferings and discontent?
> 
> 4. As for the RSS, I would not call it a socio-cultural 
> organisation as 
> long as it has its members in the BJP at all levels - from the 
> grassroots to the party's top leadership, which govern whenever 
> and 
> wherever the BJP is in power. It is a full-fledged political 
> organisation.
> 5. It goes without saying, as you have pointed out, that true 
> democracy 
> must address the needs of every citizen. Since the "pseudos" play 
> identity politics, they are clearly unable to live up to this 
> ideal. But 
> can the BJP do it, when its ideology is constructed around the 
> idea of 
> citizenship based on religion? Is religion-based consolidation of 
> Hindus 
> - which you support - consistent with liberal democracy? I am 
> going to 
> argue that the very logic of the Parivar's ideology disempowers 
> both 
> Hindus and Muslims, and makes violence an inalienable part of itself.
> 
> Since Hindus enjoy a numerical majority in India, the Parivar 
> equates 
> its Hindutva ideology with nationalism. But this is majoritarian 
> thinking, not democratic thinking. Also, it is against our 
> constitution. 
> That little document views citizenship as something that is not 
> related 
> to any particular identity, such as religious and ethnic, and the 
> political preferences of the citizen as being contingent upon 
> various 
> factors that affect her/his life.
> 
> Now, if religious, ethnic, and other kinds of identity determine 
> these 
> preferences, there can be little scope for the citizen to vote 
> outside 
> the Hindu "bloc". This acceptance of an immutable bloc means 
> giving up 
> all political choice. This, in turn, means the citizen - even a 
> Hindu - 
> is stripped of her/his political agency, thus of all rights. In 
> this 
> scheme of things, (s)he has some privileges as a member of the 
> majority 
> community, but no rights as a citizen of India.
> 
> On the other hand, Muslims and other minorities have neither 
> rights, nor 
> privileges in this scheme, unless the Hindu majority graciously 
> throws a 
> few tidbits their way. Now, if these minorities, out of sheer 
> bloodymindedness, insist on having a few rights, what are the 
> things 
> they can do? Either get out of the country - which the uncles, 
> aunts, 
> nephews and nieces in the Parivar always suggest as the best way - 
> or, 
> if they refuse to do that out of their inborn perversity, try to 
> carve 
> their own country out of Indian territory. If they are willing to 
> learn 
> from the Parivar, this new country can run on the same principles 
> as 
> "mother" India, who continues to be the Parivar's possession, as 
> any 
> good wife should, after giving birth to this monster baby.
> 
> But then, neither option can be acceptable to both communities at 
> the 
> same time. The minorities don't want to get out, unfortunately. 
> Which is 
> why the Parivar provides a little encouragement now and then. Not 
> only 
> in deed but also in word. One hears things like, ‘‘Jâo Pâkistân yâ 
> kabristân’’ (‘‘Go to Pakistan or to the graveyard’’), or ‘‘Let 
> Muslims 
> understand that their real safety lies in the goodwill of the 
> majority’’. In this, at least, no one can accuse the Parivar of 
> leaving 
> a gap between word and deed.
> 
> It may be that they don't want to go to Pakistan, about which they 
> have 
> probably heard all kinds of bad things. So they may want their own 
> country. But which family would let any monster child cut a little 
> flesh 
> out of its Bahus's body?
> 
> Result: the get-out option will be resisted by the minorities, and 
> the 
> carve-out option by the Hindu majority. Thus, the only thing that 
> can 
> possibly mediate between Hindus and Muslims (and other minorities) 
> in 
> this scenario is violence.
> 
> Tapas
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with 
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-
> list 
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>