[Reader-list] Ultras target Amarnath yatra; explosive defused

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Malik jee

The definition of equality and secularism you and others on this forum are
giving about, while highlighting things as 'biased reporting' or 'biased
scheme implementation' etc., are actually based on Western definitions of
equality and secularism.

By western definition of secularism, biased reporting is not at all allowed.
By this definition, the 'Cultural and Educational Rights' granted to
minorities is certainly not secular. By this definition, giving reservations
to Muslims in government or private jobs, or even for educational purposes
is not secular. By this definition, the wearing of hijab or burqa by women
is not secular. Also, such instances are also not instances of equality, but
of non-equality or partial treatment being given to minorities (which favors
them). And the reporting by media is another addition to this.

In contrast, by the Nehruvian definition (to which others have added their
bits I believe), secularism is very different in meaning from its western
counterpart. By this, I mean that in the West, the idea of equality means
that every person, weak or strong, should expect the same treatment from the
state or its institutions. In India however, the realization is that the
weak are so weak that certain measures have to be taken to bring them upto
the level of the strong, but certainly the treatment in case of wrong doings
committed by either of them should be the same.

This is why the Constitutional and Educational Rights are provided.
Similarly, the reservations are also asked for under the same principle by
the minorities. And this is why we in India don't stop a woman from wearing
a hijab or burqa.

Now coming to your point. According to you, the media reporting is biased.
My understanding is that this may not be completely true. Since you talk
about Hindus getting killed, I believe that the incidents in Kashmir are
generally not reported to a great deal in the rest of the nation, because
the media perception is that violence for Kashmir is considered normal as
far as the rest of the country is concerned. However, the blasts across
different parts of the country are a good way to get TRP's, especially as
they are unexpected, and nobody knows which city can get attacked, when,
where and how.

The Muslims getting killed in Kashmir also doesn't generally generate a
great report, except that now cases are slowly coming to light. The reason I
believe is that now the level of violence has gone down in Kashmir, at least
due to the terrorists/militants/freedom fighters. Therefore, there is more
focus.

Also, since in the above mentioned case, nobody was killed, I don't think it
was mentioned in that detail. Otherwise, things could have been different,
even if Hindus were killed.

I have another point to make here. I am not a nationalist. Moreover, I find
it hilarious that you being a nationalist, support such moves which
antagonize the minorities. You should be actually proud that reservations do
take place in this nation, for this reservation has helped in improving the
national unity. If the Dalits and the Scheduled tribes wouldn't have been
provided reservations, more of them would have joined Naxalism, than what
the no. is now. At least they can hope to be in political, educational and
employment-based institutions. Isn't that itself a success to begin with?

If your idea of equality would be implemented today, and reservations
totally scrapped, large no. of people would protest, and beyond a point if
they see no chances of their voices being heard, they would ask for a
separate nation. May be separate nations of their own. Are you ready for
more partitions? Are you ready to see an India broken down into Jat India,
Dalit India, Tribal India, Muslim India, Brahman India and so on? That would
be the death of Indian nationalism.

The Indian idea of equality, I remember, Ashish Nandy once said, is that 'I
won't scratch your back, you don't scratch mine'. This means that
compromises would have to be inevitably made if India has to exist as a
nation. Otherwise, the prophecy of Churchill will be proven true and India
will break into 25,26 or even more no. of nations.

Of course, the Shuddhas and the Anupams won't care about that, I know, and
so won't I necessarily, except that the structure of that state would not be
different from the current Indian one, except the size factor, and it still
wont' solve the problems of the people.

One last point. The Hindus constitute the majority of the population, so
Hindu communalism is a greater danger and threat to the unity of the nation,
rather than Muslim communalism. Of course, this does not mean communalism of
one kind be allowed and not the other. Both have to be crushed. But more
importantly, the former is a bigger threat for there are more Hindus. The
dangers of that were seen in post-Godhra.

Regards

Rakesh