[Reader-list] Fw: Imran Hashmi takes a U turn

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Professor Rajen ji

Can you kindly inform the forum about those rabid Muslims who are posting on
this forum, so that we can discuss about them as well? It would be kind of
you personally to address this issue as well.

Also, boycott is not necessarily about egos but about injustice and lack of
freedoms as well. Gandhi asked for boycott of clothes to indicate the
injustice of the British Raj which they unleash on the people. And awareness
is not a necessary solution for problem solving. It's not that women of the
Khap panchayats of Haryana are not aware of their rights necessarily (though
lack of education can be a factor in that direction, as I have pointed out),
or about importance of women's agency. It's the social constraint which
restricts them as well, and awareness about laws is not going to help it,
though awareness of laws is a very important requirement in itself as well
as for its usage.

What is required therefore, as I said, is a sense of public discussion about
issues. Murali ji ran away by saying that public discussion will lead to
chaos. My reply back is that who gave the right to few people to decide that
they will decide for others? The only time this happened was when the
Constitution of India was being decided, and those few decided that
everybody has the right to decide just like them. And they did give that
right to everybody to amend the Constitution if they felt so.

I can't be a party to the infringing of rights of individuals, when those
rights are justifiable. Therefore, rather than laws and just awareness, what
we require is a public debate on issues to reach a social consensus. And
most of us have consensus on issues, except that on solutions that consensus
is not there. I agree on that, but that does not mean we shouldn't discuss
just because it will lead to chaos or not.

After all, that chaos would be 100 times better than misgoverning of the
govt, or infringement of rights of individuals. And even that chaos is not
supposed to take place, because when i mean public discussion, implicit in
it are the assumptions that a proper environment needs to be created for
discussions where people put forth their arguments and decisions are taken
on a rational basis, people have access to all information on the concerned
subject, and most importantly, they are given the right to express their
views.

That has now been made explicit.And I know saying this is easy, but not
implementing it. But then, (as my mother says)the only thing easy in this
world is to say anything at will (provided others can't hear). Even earning
money has its hardships, and here we are talking about political and social
participation. Of course it will involve some hardships and efforts, and we
shouldn't shy away from it.

And finally, while I don't personally like the RSS's views, that does not
mean I ask for a ban on it. I oppose the arguments posted by members who
support its' views, but still feel they should be given a chance to speak. I
still feel Vedavati jee should not have been banned because banning him (if
it's a her I am sorry, for I dont' know Vedavati's gender), is not the
solution. It's like boycotting individuals, who then go on and then become
dangerous for the society as well. While individuals have a right to
withdraw from the society, accepting the right for someone to put forward
his/her views is important.

Therefore, while I strongly oppose the arguments for Hindu nationalism as
proposed by the Sangh, I dont' want a ban on it. Neither do I think a ban is
required on SIMI, if it's just involved in the spreading of political
ideology. So unfortunately, members of this forum have to bear my replies to
your comments, and so too you, even though their freedom I feel is being hit
in the process.

My request is to them to keep me as spam if I disturb them, and I apologize
for the same. But I can't bear to see useless arguments being dished out.

Regards

Rakesh