[Reader-list] To Taha Mehmood

[Pawan Durani]

Dear Taha ,

I can understand why you and the 'secularists' would like to club RSS with a
terrorist orgainsation of International stature.

With whatever arguments you may provide , I think this quote of Ralph
Emerson suits you a lot ~~People only see what they are prepared to see. ~~

Regards & Happy Weekend

Pawan Durani

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Taha Mehmood
<2tahamehmood at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Dear Pawan
>
> Thank you for sharing those splendid words by Shakespeare.
>
> But may I suggest that even poetry, how so ever beautiful or profound it
> may be cannot hide a cold fact that in its essence and outlook an
> organization like RSS have a lot in common with an organization like
> Lashker than seem otherwise.
>
> RSS actively promotes a view that Muslims must be blamed for the historical
> illtreatment of Hindus and Lashker supports an argument that Hindus must be
> annihilated for the wrongs they have committed against Muslims.
>
> In doing so they both resort to a fallacy by conjuring up a mythical demon
> of the 'other'  based on a homogeneous religious identity.
>
> In practice there is no such thing as either 'Hindu' or 'Muslim'. There are
> no written or oral or traditional or theological or historical or customary
> or lingual or legal or philosophical evidence anywhere which can lay claim
> to a homogeneous imagination of either of these mythical identities. Yes,
> one can suggest that in so far as Islam is concerned, there is one book
> which is common to all Muslims, but I do not how many people even read that
> book let alone make some effort to understand it or interpret it.
>
> On the contrary there are ample evidence or counter assertions which point
> towards a heterogeneity of belief systems regarding these religions.
>
> Hence one can argue with a lot of confidence that in its outlook, the RSS
> is fundamentally similar to Lashker.
>
> And no amount of apples and oranges, or swans and crows, or elpahants and
> cheethas, or corcs and fishes, or plates and saucers, or Shakespeare and
> Chaucer, or Ghalib and Mir is going to change that.
>
> This is just an interpretation and not in any way a generaliation and I
> would like to know more about your thoughts with respect to the view that
> Lashker and RSS are in fact  fundamental dissimilar. Wherein you might want
> to assert that they are dis-similar because they do not demonize 'other',
> they do not actively promote a 'hatred' and a 'distrust' towards the other
> and in the name of nation or rashtra they do not intend the good of only few
> citizens.
>
> Warm regards
>
> Taha
>
>
>
>