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

Fri Jul 30 05:13:11 IST 2010

Amen Inder.

I am yet to see the context in which you said this. All the structures need 
to be challenged all the time; and, if possible, destroyed when they 
stagnate. We should be bold enough to dare disturb the universe; in fact 
disturb universes. Throwing stones in to it does a lot of good to the well 
and to the people benefiting from it. We need to generate a lot of heat to 
thaw the ice that doesn't let the waters meet with other waters.

As Dushyant Kumar said, and it is high time for that:

Is himalay se koi Ganga nikalni cahie.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Inder Salim" <indersalim at gmail.com>
To: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] No Burqa, No teaching in West bengal

> 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
> _________________________________________
> 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/> 