[Reader-list] reader-list Digest, Vol 63, Issue 106

[rajendra bhat]

Here is a laconic reply from a moron who is considered as an "intellectual" but he feels that an intellectual can be occassionalyy a moron, laconic.

Get well soon, be intellectual, not with word play , not with barbs at others, bit with patience to hear, listen and understand others in the list without the labels to each of them.

 Affectionate hugs.of a laconis moron.




On the word 'MORON'

The word MORON (foolish, stupid, idiot) derives from the Latin  
'morus', which is a transliteration of the Greek μωρός (moros;  
fοοlish, stupid).

In modern Greek derivatives of  μωρός continue to be used for a  
wide variety of words, amongst them

α) μωρός: stupid, foolish [moros]
β) μωρία: folly, stupidity [moria]
γ) μωρό: baby [moro]
δ) μωρολογία: nonsense, idle talk [morologia]
ε) μωραίνω: stupefy, drive mad [moreno]

In 1911, French psychologists Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon created  
the first modern intelligence test, which measured intelligence  
(hence the "intelligence quotient". or IQ) based on whether children  
could accomplish tasks like pointing to their nose (honestly) and  
counting pennies.

The concept of "IQ" followed soon after, and psychologists fell so  
deeply in love with the scientific nature of the tests that they  
created classification systems. Any child with an IQ of above 70 was  
considered "normal," while those with scores above 130 were  
considered "gifted."

To classify scores below 70, psychologists invented a nomenclature of  
retardation. Those with IQs between 51 and 70 were called morons.  
Morons had adequate learning skills to complete menial tasks and  
communicate. Imbeciles, with IQs between 26 and 50, never progressed  
past a mental age of about six. And the lowest of all were the  
idiots, with IQ between 0 and 25, who were characterized by poor  
motor skills, extremely limited communication, and little response to  
stimulus.

Today the classification system is one category broader - moron,  
imbecile, and idiot have been replaced with mild, moderate, severe,  
and profound retardation - and diagnostic factors other than IQ are  
considered in making a diagnosis.

------

Now, I said 'Chancal, you moron' with a very precise intention. It  
was not meant as a term of abuse, rather, as a term that recognized  
Chanchal's formidable abilities. As an intellectual, I confess to the  
terrible crime of being partial to thinking carefully about the words  
I choose. Chanchal is clearly a person who can abundantly communicate  
his antipathy towards people who do not share his 'Hindutva' agenda  
and can people  complete the menial task of hitting 'send' after  
having composed yet another vitriolic mail. So, I though, calling him  
a moron, would be totally appropriate to my assessment of his  
intellectual abilities. Calling him an imbecile or an idiot would be  
clearly imprecise. He is far more intelligent and lucid, (no offence  
meant) in my opinion, in comparison to an imbecile or an idiot.

However, I have now realized, that the real problem and objection on  
this list (on the part of our 'hindutva-vadi' and 'indian  
nationalist' or 'patriotic' list members) is towards being considered  
an 'intellectual' (except, of course, if you can imitate the  
semanticl acrobatics of Praveen Swami). Any unqualified suggestion  
towards intellectual proclivities (even if empirically sustainable)  
is insulting in and of itself.

Hence, I apologize for the offence of inadvertently insulting  
Chanchal Malviya by calDEFANGED.1>
----- Original Message ----
From: "reader-list-request at sarai.net" <reader-list-request at sarai.net>
To: reader-list at sarai.net
Sent: Monday, 20 October, 2008 4:33:51 PM
Subject: reader-list Digest, Vol 63, Issue 106

Send reader-list mailing list submissions to
    reader-list at sarai.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    reader-list-request at sarai.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
    reader-list-owner at sarai.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of reader-list digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Apology of a Recidivist Intellectual (Shuddhabrata Sengupta)
  2. Re: When will Muslims join the mainstream? (Yousuf)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:29:08 +0530
From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
Subject: [Reader-list] Apology of a Recidivist Intellectual
To: sarai list <reader-list at sarai.net>
Message-ID: <78CCC64E-71D8-4433-B43E-5F2ADD115B43 at sarai.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; delsp=yes; format=flowed

Dear all,

Apologies for this mail, which should have come earlier, for a  
variety of personal reasons, and for the terrible misdemeanour of  
calling anyone a 'moron'. Let me add that I have been touched by the  
acute sensitivity that the patriotic pro-hindutva and nationalist  
subscribers on this list have for each other. It is genuinely moving  
to see such concern for what can be seen as assaults on their dignity  
and person by someone as crass and insensitive like myself. My heart  
goes out to them.

However, let me, while offering my sincere apologies for any offence  
caused, take this opportunity to clarify certain things.

This list has frequently seen the term 'intellectual' hurled out at  
people as an accusation. And it is our 'patriotic', 'pro-Hindutva'  
and 'Indian nationalist' fellow list members who often use the word  
'intellectual' as if it were as pointed jibe. As if it were a crime  
or a perversion to think and to base one's life's work on thought and  
consideration. I have often been told that I am an 'intellectual',  
especially when I patiently try to argue a point which is never  
rebutted with a counter-argument, but with a series of ad hominem  
attacks, that bear no relation either to the facts under dispute, or  
to the substance, logical consistency or ethical implications of the  
arguments brandished as weapons. I do not dispute this tag, I merely  
try to understand what is wrong with being an intellectual.

I had once even asked, long ago on this list (after a particularly  
intense round of patriotic 'intellectual bashing'), whether living  
and earning ones living by the labours of one's mind, reason or  
imagination, with ideas, concepts (which in my limited understanding,  
is what being an intellectual means) was in anyway criminal or  
unhealthy. Unfortunately, I did not receive an adequate answer, (in  
fact I received no answer to my sincerely expressed question). I now  
realize that I did not receive an answer plainly because it was obvious.

Being an 'intellectual' is something that several people on this list  
(particularly those who stand on the 'right' side of things) would  
consider as being shameful, otherwise they would not use the term  
'intellectual' in a meaningfully pejorative sense, which they do.  
Laying claim to 'intellectual' activities makes one especially  
vulnerable to doubts and hesitations about things that many people  
like to feel certain about. An intellectual, in particular, sometimes  
has difficulty in committing himself or herself to the certainty and  
truth claim of a nationalist project, or other assertions of identity  
because he or she is plagued by corrosive doubts about the categories  
deployed by nationalism and its derivatives. It is this doubt that  
stands like a wall betweeen the aggressive assertion of notions of  
self, ideas of community, nation and identity.

Just as the congenitally deaf or mute cannot appreciate the bliss of  
legible vocalized speech, so too, an intellectual like myself has  
hitherto not been able to realize the immense worth of being blessed  
with an absence of 'intellectual' faculties. My doubts overwhelm any  
possibility of certainty.

And so, just as, in Lawrence Liang's excellent recent postings, in  
which we see the prosecutor advance the remarkably lucid plea that  
'homosexuals' are anti-social because 'homosexuality' is not  
'heterosexuality', we must accept, by the same logical principle,  
(which also covers the same ground as 'muslims are bad people because  
they are not hindus') the argument that 'intellectuals' are  
criminally inclined, well, because they are not 'morons'. I am  
afraid, that like many people who see nothing wrong with homosexuals,  
muslims and intellectuals, I too must confess my crimes. I hope that  
list members will indulge and forgive a brief 'self critical'  
digression, which is an intrinsic partof my sincere apology to Sri  
Sri Chanchal Malviya and all those offended by my previous posting.

  (Hindutva-vadi's have a great deal to learn, incidentally, from  
Stalinists and Maoists, who were and remain just as suspicious and  
hostile to 'intellectuals' and often subject them, to lengthy ordeals  
of 'self-criticism' for the sin or the shame of being, 'intellectual')

Now, for instance, if (by way of response to Aditya Raj Kaul's recent  
forward of M.V. Kamath's islamophobic text) I were to point out that  
a believing Muslim's objection to singing 'Vande Mataram' or 'Hail to  
the Mother' (which is an unequivocal salutation to a particular  
incarnation of a Hindu mother goddess, and this is evident if you  
read the words of its text, as written by its author, Bankim Chandra  
Chattopadhyay) is an echo of a believing Hindu's objection to either  
having to say, or to hear, 'Aazadi ka Matlab Kya, La Illaha,  
Illallah' (what does freedom mean, there is no god but god), a slogan  
that disturbs Shri Shri Chanchal Malviya so much, then no doubt I  
would be told, that I am behaving with the deviousness particular to  
intellectuals.

I am indeed, needlessly and perversely, showing how two phenomena,  
can be considered as identical based on a structural analyses of the  
reasons why a parallel set of objections are brought to bear on them  
by two mutually exclusive constituencies.

  My sin would be all the worse because as far as I am concerned,  
since I am neither a believing Hindu nor a believing Muslim, I  
couldn't care less about how believing Hindus and Muslims continued  
to confuse either a) territory with a goddess unknown to me or, b)  
freedom with declarations of fidelity towards a deity towards whom I  
am indifferent.

All I care for is that people, especially me, should not have to do  
things they do not want to do. This includes singing 'Vande Mataram'  
which I do not sing, because my mother is a human being whom I love  
and cherish, nor a state that i pay taxes to or a goddess who  
controls my destiny. This also includes identifying freedom with the  
acknowledgement of the absence of Allah as much as with his presence  
in anyone's consciousness.

This includes whispering to myself, on occasion, in the spirit of  
Sarmad, the agnostic and free thinking Jewish-Muslim sufi poet of  
eighteenth century Delhi, (whose memory is dear to me),  'Azadi ka  
Matlab kya, La Illaha' (and so omitting, like Sarmad, to say '  
illallah' which changes everything). Freedom or 'Azaadi' would be  
hollow for me if it did not include the right to drop the 'but God',  
if one so wished, afer saying 'There is no God'. The muslim zealots  
of eighteenth century Delhi decapitated Sarmad for his quiet  
reticence with regard to 'illallah', just as many hindu zealots of  
today would no doubt have no hesitation in endorsing violence upon  
those reluctant to say 'vande matram'.

I say this in anticipation of my patriotic fellow list members rising  
to the occasion, with yet another round of 'intellectual bashing'  
because who but an 'intellectual' would defend the right to remain  
silent while 'Vande Mataram' is belted out. The sneer with which this  
word is written is not at all invisible, or inaudible.

So, I thought, that  since begin an intellectual is clearly a  
sickness at best and a sin at worst, calling a moron a moron would be  
paying an 'anti-intellectual' a compliment. After all, they might  
take great offence to being called 'intellectual'. In fact I did some  
thinking about what it is to be a 'moron'.

I apologize (again in advance) for the devious, seditious, anti- 
national, un-patriotic, deeply insensitive 'thought crime' of having  
looked up some etymological resources while writing this, (and the  
previous offensive post) and this is what I found.
--------ling him a 'moron' and imputing to him or her  
thereby a degree of intellect he or she clearly does not have and has  
no desire to possess.  If the word 'moron' which does indicate a  
borderline ability to marshall 'intellectual' resources, is deemed  
offensive, it can easily replaced by any one of the two other words  
('imbecile' and 'idiot' that are part of the (now largely disused)  
Binet-Simon diagnostic scale).

Since I do not wish to commit myself to further inaccuracy, I invite  
Chanchal Malviya to choose whichever of the two words he or she feels  
is more in keeping with his/her distance from the shameful state of  
being an 'intellectual'.

With an abject apology for the condition of being a recidivist  
'intellectual', which, try as hard as I might, I seem not to be able  
to repair, I appeal, if not to the understanding, then at least to  
the mercy of those who are lucky to be morons, (or even better)  
imbeciles and idiots. Truly, this blissful state is their patrimony.  
I can only feel envious of their confidence in themselves.

regards,

Shuddha.






- ------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yousuf <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] When will Muslims join the mainstream?
To: sarai list <reader-list at sarai.net>,    Aditya Raj Kaul
    <kauladityaraj at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <954839..56265.qm at web51401.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Dear Aditya

Thanks for forwarding the Organizer article.

It is fallacious to assume that Muslims are not part of the mainstream. Firstly, what is mainstream? If it is some kind monolithic superhighway expecting everyone to follow a jet speed, then why does everyone need to enter it? In India, despite having such superhighways we still have bullock carts and camel carts slowly traversing all the wrong and right paths and no one minds. What I mean it, let us first define what is mainstream? 

Secondly, why does representations in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha become the yardstick of any community's progress? That's really absurd. How about the representation in business, corporations, health sector, education, arts, sciences, music, literature, media, motor mechanics, academics, manufacturing, civil services, sports? Is there any sector among the above which is not represented by Muslims? In some of them in fact, they have done exceptionally well. Yes, their proportions maybe less than what it should be, but there are several reasons for it: (A) They certainly need to do better than what they have done so far, and (B) there is some amount of bias in corporations and other institutions against Muslims (please don't get wild on this - its a well-known fact). But yes, even that bias can be fought if you struggle harder.

It is stupidity again to assume that you are mainstream only if you can sing Vande Matram. No one should be forced to prove one's love for the mother land simply by singing a poem. My children and many other Muslim children in Delhi happily go to mainstream schools where they start the day with Hindu prayers, and I don't mind that. Prophet Muhammad has said that to love your mother land is a sign of faith (Iman). So, loving your country is part of religion too for Muslims. But unfortunately, the media (such as Organizer) will never highlight such positive aspects of the community.

I believe in (and agree with) India's constitution, which I hope every mainstream Indian does. The constitution defines India as a secular country, and gives everyone the right to follow their own religion, culture, language and norms. Singing Vande Matram (as far as I know) is not an essential item in the constitution. Through that song, you can pledge your love and respect to the country. If I want to express my love and respect to Mother India in Urdu, Bengali or Kannada, I have the right to do that (because expressing something in your mother tongue brings out your emotions better). If I find Vande Mataram's sanskrit too difficult to follow, why can't I sing a similar song in Assamese for instance? Many "Muslim" schools in India start their day with Iqbal's Sare jahan se achchha - can that song be considered less in patriotism than Vande Mataram? 

Also, having a Muslim President or vice-president or Prime Minister is the least of Muslims' concern today. It does not mean anything. It is the middle level secretariat that runs the govt and this country. That's the sector that needs reforms and a better representation of all communities. 

Yousuf Saeed

(Sorry, I didn't mean to write all this to you Aditya - I know you only forwarded the message - but it is meant for everyone).





- --- On Mon, 10/20/08, Aditya Raj Kaul <kauladityaraj at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Aditya Raj Kaul <kauladityaraj at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Reader-list] When will Muslims join the mainstream?
> To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 2:46 PM
> When will Muslims join the mainstream?
> By M.V. Kamath
> 
> Organiser
> 
> It obviously does not occur to some mullahs and other
> reactionary
> Muslims that by refusing to sing Vande Mataram and
> threatening to
> withdraw Muslim children from schools where it is routine
> to sing
> it, they are only telling their co-religionists to withdraw
> from the
> Indian mainstream.
> 
> Like the Muslim League of pre-Independence days, one
> Minister of
> Uttar Pradesh has called for the formation of a separate
> Muslim
> state within the Indian Union instead of Harit Pradesh in
> western
> Uttar Pradesh. It is one more divisive step that the Muslim
> community is taking which is self-destructive and will only
> alienate
> Muslims from their Hindu brethren further.
> 
> Refusing to sing Vande Mataram on extremely illogical
> grounds is bad
> enough. Demanding a separate communal state is inviting
> more
> trouble. Not that the idea will ever get accepted. But what
> it
> reveals is a sick mind that continues to be rooted in the
> medieval
> era. The argument one frequently hears is that Muslims are
> under-
> represented in every State Legislature as well as in Lok
> Sabha. But
> then whose fault is it.
> 
> If Muslims refuse to jo in the mainstream and insist on
> being
> treated as a minority, they can hardly expect popular
> support. Past
> experience plainly shows that when communal peace prevails
> Muslims
> get more seats in the Lok Sabha. It is true that in the
> last
> fourteen Lok Sabha elections only a fraction of the number
> of seats
> they should normally deserve proportionate to their
> population were
> won by Muslims. The truth is that they had, on their own,
> forfeited
> the confidence of their Hindu brethren. If a minority lives
> apart
> and stays apart from the majority community how can it
> possibly win
> the trust, let alone affection, of the latter?
> 
> Consider the following figures: In the first Lok Sabha
> elections, if
> one goes strictly by population percentage Muslims should
> have got
> 49 seats. Instead, they got 21 seats. In the second Lok
> Sabha
> elections, the population percentage remained the
> same—but the
> passions aroused by the Partition was subsiding and the
> Muslims won
> 24 seats, three more than in the first elections. In the
> third Lok
> Sabha elections, population percentage-wise Muslim should
> have
> received 53 seats but they won only 23. The highest number
> of seats
> Muslims won was in the seventh Lok Sabha elections when,
> though
> population-percentage wise they should have received 53
> seats they
> managed to secure 49—not bad.
> 
> Since then, largely because of emotional estrangement, the
> number of
> Muslims elected to the Lok Sabha has been falling. From the
> tenth to
> the four teen Lok Sabha elections they should have got 66
> seats but
> they could barely manage to get between 28 to 36 seats. The
> fourteenth Lok Sabha elections were in 2004 when Muslims
> joined
> different political parties, primarily to beat the BJP.
> Muslims got
> ten seats in Congress, seven in the Samajwadi, four in the
> CPM, four
> in the BJP, three in the RJD and one each in other local
> parties.
> 
> They can win more, if they get over their antediluvian
> ideas and
> become a modern, liberated people, instead of a people
> suspect of
> terrorism and anti-Indian motives. They can't get votes
> by putting
> their women in burqas and sending their children to
> madrasas when
> they should be sent to normal primary and secondary schools
> to be
> one with their Hindu and other students from the majority
> and allied
> religions.
> 
> There is another lesson that they should learn which is
> that hating
> the BJP and trying to curry favour from the likes of Laloo
> Prasad
> Yadav or Mulayam Singh Yadav or Mayavati will not help
> them. They
> will continue to remain estranged from the majority
> community, no
> matter what arguments the so-called secular parties may put
> forth to
> win their favour.
> Neither in Bihar, nor in Uttar Pradesh has the condition of
> Muslims
> changed because they voted against the BJP. As Chaturanan
> Mishra, a
> former Union Minister of Labour (1996-1998) and a prominent
> figure
> in the Leftist movement in the country aptly noted in
> Mainstream
> (August 17) , the Congress, allegedly the largest secular
> party
> nominated 39 Muslims in 1991 and 1996, of whom only 12
> could win.
> Similarly, 32 Muslims were nominated by the Congress in
> 1998 but
> only seven could succeed.
> 
> Religion can never be the base of getting a ticket. Muslim
> citizens
> must come up in front and be seen as social workers,
> serving people
> of all religions. If they insist to live in the past as in
> the Shah
> Banoo case, or if they seem to be supporting SIMI, an
> ISI-financed
> student organisation—no matter how wrongly—then they
> doom themselves
> to being eternally marginalised. And they should not blame
> the
> majority community. As Shakespeare might have said to
> Muslims, the
> fault, dear sires, lies not in the majority but in
> yourselves that
> you want to stay separate.
> 
> Turks are not less Islamic because the Ataturk threw out
> the
> Caliphate and liberated Turkish women.
> 
> The Indonesians are not less Islamic because they continue
> to adhere
> in many ways to their ancient Hindu traditions. They are
> not
> hesitant to call their airlines Garuda Airlines; they are
> not
> hesitant to give their children Sanskrit name like
> Meghavati or
> Saraswati (a daughter of former President Waheed); nor are
> they
> hesitant in putting the figure of Ganesh on their currency
> notes. An
> Indonesian production of Ramayana would put some of our own
> Indian
> artists to shame; but here in India a section of
> reactionary Muslims
> refuse to sing even the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram
> because
> somewhere down the line in the song there is a reference to
> Durga.
> And Indonesia is 98 per cent Muslim!
> 
> If Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a great Islamic scholar who had
> his
> training in Islamic law and jurisprudence in the famous
> Islamic
> University in Cairo, could respect Vande Mataram and stand
> to
> attention when it was sung at AICC meetings, surely lesser
> Islamic
> scholars can take a leaf from his book.
> 
> Many Muslim organisations increasingly seem to be taking
> their cue
> from fundamentalist Islamic organisation in Pakistan. It is
> not
> going to help them one bit and it is time they realise it.
> Muslims
> should not consider themselves a minority. India is a
> democracy and
> all citizens are equal. Hindus are not that stupid as to
> want to
> hurt Islamic sentiments of Muslims. But we need to live
> under a
> Common Law as citizens are equal in every way. For Muslims,
> especially, separatism should be deeply abhorrent. It
> should be
> shunned like the very devil.
> 
> We are one people and India, as Mohammad Iqbal once wrote
> belongs to
> everyone, irrespective of caste, creed, religion or
> community. Sareh
> jahan seh achcha Hindustan hamara should be our guiding
> mission.
> Then everything will fall in its place and—who
> knows—the time may
> come when under sound Muslim leadership, Hindus themselves
> may vote
> for Muslims. Who, today, is our President? Who, our Prime
> Minister?
> And who the leader of the Congress Party, oh?
> http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?
> name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=
> 
> 150&page=12 ---
> ......................................................................
> ....................................
> http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/india-usa-blog-column168.htm
> Indian Muslims: Dealing with Past
> Mayank Patel
> 
> Across the world, Present generation grapples with past
> wrong
> committed by previous generation. From South Africa to
> Germany and
> from America to Australia, Most groups have acknowledged
> past
> misdeeds and apologized for the suffering caused by their
> action
> toward others. Thus, making genuine progress on path of
> truth and
> reconciliation.
> 
> However, Indian Muslims have taken opposite path of denial,
> distortion and deflection. They=2 0have received more than
> generous
> help from allies like Marxist, Fabian Socialist, Islamist
> etc. who
> are co-travelers on this path. In fact, it is the allies
> who have
> encouraged and lead Indian Muslims on this path. On behalf
> of Indian
> Muslims, Allies have used denial, distortion and deflection
> tactic
> to justify even the most unjustifiable mistakes like
> partition.
> 
> Indian Muslim"s pro-partition role is proven beyond
> reasonable
> doubt. 1945-46 Provincial Elections were fought on a single
> agenda
> of partition. Partition became possible only because
> overwhelming
> majority of Indian Muslims indirectly voted for it in that
> election.
> Any objective analysis of current course and arguments
> favoring
> course correction is usually greeted by an old tactic of
> shooting
> the messenger. Three bullets are very popular with
> shooters.
> 
> First bullet is "Present Generation of Indian Muslims
> should not be
> blamed for Partition". Shooter conveniently and
> cleverly presumes
> non-existent intent behind analysis. This is absurd. A
> course
> correction and acknowledgement of past generation"s
> mistake could
> never imply culpability of present generation. On the
> contrary,
> Acknowledgement would reassure all that apple has indeed
> fallen far
> from the tree. This would strengthen trust, improve
> communal
> relations and lead to reconciliation and closure.
> 
> Second bullet is much more lethal. It is "165 million
> strong Indian
> Muslims cannot be wished away". Let me clarify, I=2
> 0would not wish
> away anybody regardless of numerical strength. There is
> also certain
> belligerence behind this quote. This virulent belligerence
> is quite
> understandable if not agreeable. After all, Indian Muslims
> are 165
> million strong and allies who have vice like grip over
> India"s
> media, academia and politics are stronger. However, it does
> not
> changethe fact that current path of denial, distortion and
> deflection could never lead to peace, truth and
> reconciliation. On
> the contrary, The Logical end of this path is civic strife
> if not
> civil war in which there are no winners and all losers.
> 
> Third bullet is the denial bullet. There are dozens of
> denial
> bullets. One of the most popular Denial Bullet is silence
> hypothesis. It claims that Indian Muslims are silent and
> allies who
> claim to be speaking and acting on behalf of Indian Muslims
> are not
> true representative of Indian Muslims. It further touts
> this alleged
> silence as proof that there is no alliance and Indian
> Muslims
> disagrees with current path of denial, deflection and
> distortion.
> There are many holes in this hypothesis.
> 
> Firstly, Silence is not same as acknowledgement of past
> mistakes.
> Secondly, there is no such thing as silent disagreement.
> Disagreement is always vocal. On the Contrary, Agreement
> can often
> lead to conspiracy of silence. Thus, Alleged Silence can
> never be
> interpreted as a disagreement with current path. Finally,
> Indian
> Muslims are speaking with their votes and participation in
> massi ve
> political rallies. They consistently vote for allies who
> favor
> denial path.. In fact more an ally denies and asserts
> innocence of
> terrorist outfits more vote it receives. These votes
> provide allies
> a claim to speak and act on behalf of Indian Muslims.
> 
> The current path of denial is compounding past mistakes.
> More-over,
> it makes Indian Muslims over reliant on Allies. This over
> reliance
> is unhealthy and dangerous. Allies have their own
> ideological beef
> against Hindus and have selfish interest is making matters
> worse.
> There are many reasons for breaking the alliance and
> changing
> course. Perhaps the best reason is to end a history of
> wrongdoing
> and leave a legacy of honesty for future generation.
> 
> Related story:
> 
> Forgive, not Forget History @
> http://indiaview.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/forgive-but-never-forget-%
> e2%80%93-history/
> _________________________________________
> 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:
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo..com


- ------------------------------

_______________________________________________
reader-list mailing list
reader-list at sarai.net
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list


End of reader-list Digest, Vol 63, Issue 106
********************************************


Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger. Download Now! http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php