[Reader-list] Love Jihad- A New Phrase Being Added to Lexicon of Hate Politics!

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Sudeep

I am sorry,  but I have lost the habit of  making mockery (by using sarcasm)
of someone else's statements to prove my point, at least to an extent.
Having said that, my response (as this was for my mail, as opposed to
Shuddha's or someone else's):

1) First, while I do know about this so-called 'envy factor', I am not a
part of it. That way, I have to start envying other boys as well (be it
Hindu/Muslim/Christian). And that way I won't have any girl to marry. And I
have better things in life than to worry about this.

So I request you not to make generalized presumptions like this.

2) I don't know about Aamir, but I heard from some friends that Shahrukh's
in-laws did have an issue, and he had to sort that out. Anyways, it's not
for me to comment.

And as for Hindu in-laws having or not-having an issue, it's more due to
social fear/pressure and religious propaganda ingrained into human beings
which ensures that inter-caste or inter-religious marriages are opposed.

I have one more request to make: If you wish to say that what I have said is
known to you already, please don't denigrate it or make fun of it.

3) You are referring to a 'veiled threat' which I made. I only wish to say
that the existence of the VHP is a reality and not a bad dream, so people
should be careful of it. What has to be done is organize not only a larger
debate across the society towards acceptance of inter-religious and
inter-caste marriages, but the understanding of the opposition towards these
and putting forth points and reasons as to why these can/can't be accepted.

That's the only way to counter the VHP propaganda, as opposed to ignoring
them. After all, we ignore a lot of things, the police fake encounters, the
corruption around us, and other wrong things. What's the use finally? It's
ultimately we who suffer, right?

In that sense, if it's a veiled threat, yes, unfortunate though it is,
that's what I mean.

4) Yes, the statement which sounded baseless to you was based on an
assumption, which I had stated later. I request you to read this as well,
which I sent later (as reply to Mr. Venu):

*You are right. I should have made it clear in my reply that I have assumed
for once that the reports are true. Of course, they can be baseless. And
considering how the Indian police operates, they can be certainly baseless.
Hence, my apologies for the same.*

5) It's not me who assumes that women are objects. Continuing with the
assumption I made (which is false and baseless in your words, and I accept),
I made the other arguments. And considering that we have a patriarchal
society, I made the argument that it's the girls who will be seduced, for
this would further instigate communal trouble, and achieve the objectives
the jihadis in mind.

However, since you have put the article stating that my assumption is
baseless, this doesn't come at all into the picture. But then again, I had
already stated that my assumption could be baseless or wrong.

Hence, I request you to kindly read the previous mails as well before
replying, and also promise I will also take care before making assumptions.
While believing in something passionately is fine, sarcasm and anger never
help in discussions or mails.  (That's what I have come to learn on Sarai at
least).

I also thank you, for putting the article you sent. I have already read it.

With love

Rakesh