[Reader-list] Feudalism in Pakistan

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Rajen jee

First of all, it's you who keep on constantly arguing about discrimination
being made against Hindus in the name of minority appeasement and religious
basis. And in this mission, you are not alone but served by the likes of
Murali ji and others as well.

My simple argument to you on that would be that are there facts and figures
which prove your statement at all. If yes, please do present them here.
Manmohan Singh and Congress and other 'secularist' parties can say many
things, but the ground realities are totally different, going by the data
collected through the Census and other surveys.

Secondly, I have stated again and will again state that issues should not be
mixed. And what's more, we need to talk about issues which actually concern
the people of this country, most of whom are poor, economically destitute,
deprived of food, health, proper sanitation and education. On top of that,
they are socially and sometimes racially discriminated. And then, they are
politically powerless. So we need to look about them.

Instead I see you and others (and here I blame myself as well) for
discussing issues which simply are of no value at all. We instead talk about
minority and majority politics all the time. And now I am supposed to have
been charming all with grace and arguments to be in politics. For your kind
information, if politics would have been my forte, Sarai would have been the
last resort for me. The first would have been ground work and trying to do
something for people, with the objective of gaining votes. I am not one of
the Arun Jaitleys, the Arun Shouries, the Manmohan Singhs, the Pranab
Mukherjees (at least till pre-2004) who try to gain backdoor entry through
the Rajya Sabha without even trying to face the people, without even
understanding issues or electoral politics properly.


When I look at such kind of arguments, I seriously feel that people should
try to behave as per their age. I can understand ignorance of issues, and
misunderstandings are also common, but such kind of statements do make me
feel as if I am making a child understand, and yet the child refuses to
listen to me. Pardon my language on this count, but I really don't know how
to say it in a better way.

By the way, unlike your idea, I have not perceived you as the 'other' who is
'religious'. If that were the case, like Anupam jee, I would have simply
refused to reply to your argument. I am in the hope that people like you
would realize the importance and priorities of what is to be done for the
people at large, and come over to support it. This 'other' is within us, not
outside us.

Lastly about proselytization. The reason Gandhi is against proselytization
is because people are simply changing their faith, without even reasoning
out as to why they should do so. And because some agencies are utilizing it
for an irrational purpose, Gandhi's grouse against them is perfectly
acceptable. However, if people are that much ready to change their faith
without reasoning out at all, some fault does lie with those changing their
faith. Moreover, there's a difference between conversion and proselytization
too.  Gandhi wasn't against conversion (which meant changing your faith by
reasoning out) but against proselytization.

What's more, if you feel it's wrong, simply discard those who proselytize as
'bad Hindus' and take them as 'bad people'. What's wrong about that?
Instead, today's arguments about proselytization seem to bring to mind the
insecurity that if all poor and destitutes were to become Christians, then
upper caste Hindus would have no one to boss around, and would also become
politically powerless (as these Christians may be asked to vote for secular
parties, on the plank of communalism and protection of their rights). Why
then should not we talk about reconversions (also a kind of
proselytization), that too of tribals, who have never understood what it
means to be a Hindu?

Infact, how many on this forum, who consider themselves to be Hindus,
actually know what it means to be a Hindu? I would be glad to know that as
well.

By the way, even Christ was against conversion, and would have been apalled
at such proselytization by Christian missionaries. But then there should be
a proof of this happening. Inspite of the Freedom of Religion Act passed in
Gujarat, in 10 years, only 3 cases were registered of conversions under
'allurement or force'. And if this is still taking place, then it's wrong
and let's protest it. What's wrong with that?

But not from the religious angle. From the reasoning angle.

Regards

Rakesh