[Reader-list] No Burqa, No teaching in West bengal

[Inder Salim]

well, it is quite naive to think that we human beings misuse the
religion, signifying that everything is right with the sacred word ,
but alas we human beings,

Left in India has behaved abnormally since it inception, Right was
always hopeless, and the the middle was always opportunistic. so it is
not surprising that we have a situation in WB where veiled teachers
are acceptable , sad

our understanding of society is stinking with numerous mindsets and
most vulnerable suffer

let us unambiguously protest such systems which inflict pain in the
name of sacred.

with love
is







On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Anupam
>
> To just state my point:
>
> a) In any society, we always do live by some basic conventions, norms or
> ideas which we value as a society, or individual or both. It's important and
> imperative for us to come to a consensus on these based on rational and
> informed discussions. Mind you, these can change over a period of time too,
> to a point where what was considered right now may be considered wrong
> later.
>
> For example, a woman may herself feel that she wants to commit Sati earlier
> (not to say that Sati was not forcible in India), but today as a society we
> may not consider it appropriate for a woman to get flown away in emotion and
> kill herself. Or for that matter, in Indian society about 40-50 years ago,
> gay and lesbians would not have been accepted, but today they are. Partly
> this may be because there was lack of rationality and informed discussions
> taking place, but partly in certain cases it may be because certain
> situations may not have arisen earlier.
>
> b) These conventions or ideas however are arrived at on basis of certain
> bias. And the conclusion or consensus we do reach may still not be
> acceptable to some. That however does not mean that those people should not
> be allowed to speak. And at the same time, it should be clear to them that
> freedom is one thing we should all value, in both individual and in communal
> sense. This means that individuals should have the freedom to take decisions
> for themselves, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedom of other
> individuals or society as a whole. Now to arrive on what takes freedom away
> or not, is in itself a matter of subjective debate.
>
> For example when I asked once my friend if parents have the freedom to
> decide the bride for their son or not, he said that it's for the son to
> decide if the prospective girl is suitable for him or not and the same also
> is true for the girl, and that parents should not force their sons to wed
> certain girls, as the boy's freedom is being taken away. I however had a
> doubt if the parents' freedom is not being taken away by the boy's decision
> to not marry the girl of their choice. To which he answered that the boy has
> the freedom and the parents just have the will of forcing their son to marry
> the girl of their choice. On the other hand, I looked at this situation as a
> clash of freedoms of two parties or entities who are worried at the loss of
> their freedom. And while I do agree that the boy being an adult can decide
> which girl to marry or not (as can the girl also), I do feel it's a
> subjective assessment of who must decide which freedom to value here, or
> which freedom must be valued. To me, the decision of the boy deciding upon
> the girl (or vice-versa) is bound by the fact that while the two families
> may have to live together, it's the boy and the girl who have to spend the
> maximum time with each other, understanding and talking to each other. And
> if they are incompatible with each other, it's a wastage of their times and
> emotions, something we as a society can ill-afford (as also individuals).
>
> Sometimes, individual freedom may have to be sacrificed for social freedom
> also. I may have the right to cut off the supply of water from my well
> (which may be the only source of water in my village), but the society may
> value water as an essential commodity to which every human being has a
> right, and hence my individual freedom would have to be curtailed to ensure
> that every human being has the freedom to use water to satisfy his needs.
>
> c) The words 'misuse of a religious text' in this context mean that
> religious texts should not be used for misinterpretation in order to take
> away freedoms which are valued in a society. For example, women in a society
> may value freedom to move out without any restrictions, and they may value
> also not putting the purdah. To force them by misinterpreting the Koran in a
> wrong way would be wrong and should be criticized.
>
> Now who will decide whether there is misuse or not. The question may have to
> be decided by someone who knows the religious text well. But as you know
> (which is why you raised this question), opinions can be subjective and also
> can vary across texts. Therefore we come to two things here which I
> mentioned in a) and b).
>
> It's for our society to determine what are the conventions or things to be
> observed (which are valued) by us, and this can take into consideration
> religious ideas as well. But equally the decision of valuing which things
> itself requires debates and discussions (rational and informed) which would
> require the nature of the discussions to be democratic as well, i.e., free
> and fair. Free because everybody must be able to express their views. Fair
> because everyone should be heard patiently and opinions must be put for
> counter-questions without any bullying or submission and decisions must be
> arrived at through some consensus if possible.
>
> So the misuse of a religious text too will have to be decided on the basis
> of some debate or discussion on a larger level among people who have read
> that text completely (not those who have read the text selectively or not at
> all). And to that I would add again that those who misuse the religious text
> to infringe upon the freedoms of other individuals (which we value) must be
> questioned and subjected to punishment, particularly when the right to life
> is being threatened (as in the case of Hafiz Sayeed and the RSS-VHP)
>
> 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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>



-- 

http://indersalim.livejournal.com