[Reader-list] India on a list of countries which have failed to protect its religious minorities adequately

[Murali V]

Profess, practice and preach is fine, but not seduction.

Democracy takes atmost significance.

Regards.

V Murali

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Rakesh Iyer<rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Kshamendra, Shuddha, Rajen and Murali ji (and rest as well)
>
> If the issue is simply that whether the minorities must be allowed in any
> nation to profess, practice and preach their religion and have the right to
> construct monuments (subjected to certain restrictions like not destroying
> the right of others to do the same etc.), then it must be allowed. And if
> Islamic nations don't allow it, then it's wrong and incorrect to do so. And
> if anybody says that India should also do the same for its minorities, it
> shall also be wrong.
>
> However, we can't control the actions of any other state except for
> protesting against their unjust actions. What we can do is control the
> actions of our own state (simply meaning the state which we are a citizen
> of) through public action/pressure and public discussion. Therefore, even if
> Islamic states don't allow minorities the right of worship, it's the duty of
> the Indian state not to deprive the minorities of the same if they
> (minorities) exist in its territory. It's against human rights, and also the
> Constitution of India.
>
> Therefore, how does it matter whether a nation is Islamic or not is
> something I don't understand.
>
> And to portray the Muslims of the world as a homogeneous entity (as those
> believing in the Ummah or the Al-Qaeda) or even painting them in the same
> color, is something I have strong reservations about because each individual
> has some particular thoughts or beliefs of his/her own, which are influenced
> by society, but which can be different from it as well. All of them can't be
> regarded to speak in one single voice. Therefore, it's wrong to portray the
> actions of some of the states (which even their citizens may not support
> necessarily) as the true picture of Islam.
>
> In Afghanistan, people watched Amitabh Bachchan and Shahrukh Khan movies
> through piracy before the Taliban ruined it all. And this returned to a
> certain extent once the Taliban was out of power. In Pakistan, people
> watched saas-bahu serials like in our Indian cities, when relayed through
> Indian TV channels (useless anyways, but shows similar interests of women on
> either side of the border). People protested when their relaying was banned
> by the govt. there. And recently, there were protests on the issue of
> political freedom in Iran (to have a govt elected by fair means), another
> Islamic country where election results were supposedly manipulated, and
> which have been discussed in this forum as well.
>
> Therefore, to assume that people of those nations don't want freedom or
> dont' require it, is to suffer from collective amnesia, or be out of touch
> with reality. (Even if they don't want it, they deserve it, if nothing else,
> then just for rejecting the choice to have choices). Just because the elites
> form policies and the clergy supports it doesn't mean that the policy has
> the support of all the people whom the elites rule over. Believing so would
> mean that Babur's and Aurangzeb's policies of war and destruction of temples
> (and even discrimination) had whole-hearted support from both Muslims and
> Hindus living in the territories of the Mughal Empire. And that, all would
> accept, is a foolish thing to believe.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
> _________________________________________
> 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/>