Two Phases of Indian Secularism
Dost Mittar September 14, 2003
#185 Posted by urbashi on October 6, 2003 6:26:20 am
That`s precisely my point, that Sonia Gandhi`s Indian citizenship is not genuine, and by genuine I`m not referring to the ``technicality`` that she herself holds forth so blatantly as her excuse for misusing her position as Indira Gandhi`s favourite bahu.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#184 Posted by cosmic_citizen on October 2, 2003 9:04:45 am
Reg #181 acceptability of Sonia as a PM
My personal views are not very different from yours. But there are a few conscience problems....
Just because Sonia was not a born Indian would, in my opinon does not disqualify her... If her Indian citizen ship is genuine (which seems to be the case).... If congress party chooses her to lead them in case they come to power, there is nothing we can do stop her... for stopping her we would have to break some rules of Inidan democracy.
That she is not a fit candidate in view her ameteurship in politics and lack of statesmanship is a fact.
Anne Besant was not an Indian but no one had even for a moment thought it when the Home Rule Movement was launched by her (my history is a bit rust.. correct me if needed). Ofcourse the comparission btw Anne Besant and Sonia (congress seeks her leadership just because she is from the Nehru family) So opposing Sonias candidature would put us in an ackward position.
Indians settled in UK and US have are trying hard to make forays in their societies and standing for political posts. Will we not consider it unfair if the same treatement (opposing sonia just for being Italian) is meated to them?
In my opinion, the Congress men unable to make up their mind, made the mistake of pulling Sonia in. Stalwart politicians from Congress like P.V and Pawar were sidelined and some dynamic leaders never got a chance... This I guess is the biggest mistake congress has ever made.
Anyway.. Indian politics is going through an era of coalition politics and congress has proven itself a bad coalition partner... so for some time we wont have to answer the question ....
Bact to the original article under whose umbrella we are discussing this.
The absence of uniform civil code is an example of appeasement politics these self styled protectors of the minority play. The congress I would say gets a major portion of the blame. In the absence of Uniform Civil Code the phrase ``equality before law`` is a mirage.
Luv,
Cosmic Citizen
My personal views are not very different from yours. But there are a few conscience problems....
Just because Sonia was not a born Indian would, in my opinon does not disqualify her... If her Indian citizen ship is genuine (which seems to be the case).... If congress party chooses her to lead them in case they come to power, there is nothing we can do stop her... for stopping her we would have to break some rules of Inidan democracy.
That she is not a fit candidate in view her ameteurship in politics and lack of statesmanship is a fact.
Anne Besant was not an Indian but no one had even for a moment thought it when the Home Rule Movement was launched by her (my history is a bit rust.. correct me if needed). Ofcourse the comparission btw Anne Besant and Sonia (congress seeks her leadership just because she is from the Nehru family) So opposing Sonias candidature would put us in an ackward position.
Indians settled in UK and US have are trying hard to make forays in their societies and standing for political posts. Will we not consider it unfair if the same treatement (opposing sonia just for being Italian) is meated to them?
In my opinion, the Congress men unable to make up their mind, made the mistake of pulling Sonia in. Stalwart politicians from Congress like P.V and Pawar were sidelined and some dynamic leaders never got a chance... This I guess is the biggest mistake congress has ever made.
Anyway.. Indian politics is going through an era of coalition politics and congress has proven itself a bad coalition partner... so for some time we wont have to answer the question ....
Bact to the original article under whose umbrella we are discussing this.
The absence of uniform civil code is an example of appeasement politics these self styled protectors of the minority play. The congress I would say gets a major portion of the blame. In the absence of Uniform Civil Code the phrase ``equality before law`` is a mirage.
Luv,
Cosmic Citizen
#183 Posted by puyu on October 1, 2003 9:45:47 am
This is a chain letter said to be written by Rajdeep Sardesai of NDTV.
I am an optimist and I would like to see this as sign of the Indian conscience.I had posted it in another discussion but this is where it belongs
My dear Narendrabhai, Firstly, many congratulations on
your famous
victory in Gujarat. Elections are often only about the
end result, the means do not matter, only the ends do.
Let’s be honest. You ran a strategically brilliant
campaign, one that was based on whipping up public
emotion and stirring a religious identity. I still
remember the classic ad that you ran on voting day.
The Congress campaign ad was a long sermon by
Shankarsinh Vaghela on the development of Gujarat,
written in small type, and with very little that we
hadn’t heard of in the last 55 years. Your ad was
simple and direct.
In bold type, you just reminded the reader of the old
Haqueeqat
classic, “Ae mere vatan ke logon” and asked the voter
of Gujarat to treat their franchise as a homage to the
dead. No specific mention of Godhra or Akshardam, as
per election commission rules, but a clear recall of
recent events. Little wonder then that the next ad
club function should honour you and your faithful ally
Arun Jaitley with the copywriter of the year award.
I also remember your campaign pitch on the last day of
campaigning.
While a complacent Congress was relishing the concept
of cashing in on the anti-incumbency mood, you were
waving a news item that you claimed was a religious
fatwa asking the Muslims of Gujarat to vote hundred
per cent for the Congress.
Of course, you didn’t have to tell the voter the
entire truth: that
there was no real “fatwa”, that all that had happened
was that some unknown Muslim cleric in faraway Uttar
Pradesh had issued an appeal to voters to support the
Congress, and that the advertisement in Gujarati
newspapers had been inserted by members of the sangh
parivar. The fatwa worked, and you were able to ensure
that Hindus came out in large numbers to vote for you
and your party.
I will also not forget the manner in which you were
able to successfully use the demonisation of Mian
Musharaff as a vote-gathering technique. We all
dislike the Pakistani general, and his refusal to end
cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, but you were able
to translate anti-Pakistani sentiment into a potent
state election issue.
What Musharaff had to do with the Gujarat elections is
unclear, but
somehow you were able to convince the voter that
Islamabad was monitoring every move in Gandhinagar.
“If I win, the entire country will celebrate, if the
Congress wins, crackers will be burst in Pakistan.” It
was yet another classic one-liner, designed to stir
the kind of jingoism that may not end the
low-intensity conflict on the border, but will
certainly add to your unique brand of macho politics.
As a representative of the pseudo-secular English
language media in
particular, I admired the manner in which you were
able to blame the
media for virtually everything that had gone wrong in
the state, from the killing of innocents on the
Sabarmati express, to the loot and mass murders that
followed to the large-scale exodus of Muslim families
from their homes.
Let me also say that I will never forget the manner in
which you were
able to use the Godhra incident for political benefit
for months on end, and suggest that somehow all
Muslims in the state were linked to an act of villainy
by a group of criminals from the minority community. I
distinctly remember how you had posters put up all
over the state of the burning train compartment. I
also remember how you got a family member of one of
the Godhra victims to be present at the inauguration
of your party office.
I remember your yatra to Godhra where you shared the
anguish of the
people who had lost their loved ones in the train
tragedy. Somehow, I don’t recall you ever reaching out
to those living in the Shah Alam camp, or Naroda-Patia
or the numerous other refugee camps in the state. Nor
did I ever see you in the company of Muslim children
who saw their entire families being burnt alive before
their eyes.
I must also admire the manner in which you were able
to use the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad cadres in the political campaign. Until
now, we were always told that the VHP was a
socio-cultural organisation that had little to do with
day-to-day politics. You made sure that the VHP
fiction was buried once and for all, and that Praveen
Togadia was transformed from surgeon to a political
rabble-rouser.
Finally, I must salute you for the way you stood up to
virtually anyone
who questioned the politics of Moditva. I will not
forget how you even put the prime minister in his
place.
When Mr Vajpayee asked you to follow the rajdharma,
you quietly
listened to him, and then went about doing your own
thing. A weakened Vajpayee was reduced to being your
self-appointed advocate by the end of the elections.
Indeed, in the last few election meetings, I didn’t
even see a single poster of Vajpayee or even of the
original Hindutva mascot, L K Advani. This victory
then is yours and yours alone.
While you celebrate your triumph, may I leave you with
a final thought?
Now, that you’ve won the battle, will you win the war?
Could you become the chief minister of each and every
one of the five crore Gujaratis, Hindus and Muslims,
you now claim to represent?
You could perhaps start with paying a weekly visit to
the homes of
those who still live in fear and despair. It may not
fit in with your worldview, but it would at least
convince some of us that Gujarat’s Chote Sardar is
more than just a hero of hatred.
Affectionately yours,
Rajdeep Sardesai.
The writer is managing editor, NDTV
I am an optimist and I would like to see this as sign of the Indian conscience.I had posted it in another discussion but this is where it belongs
My dear Narendrabhai, Firstly, many congratulations on
your famous
victory in Gujarat. Elections are often only about the
end result, the means do not matter, only the ends do.
Let’s be honest. You ran a strategically brilliant
campaign, one that was based on whipping up public
emotion and stirring a religious identity. I still
remember the classic ad that you ran on voting day.
The Congress campaign ad was a long sermon by
Shankarsinh Vaghela on the development of Gujarat,
written in small type, and with very little that we
hadn’t heard of in the last 55 years. Your ad was
simple and direct.
In bold type, you just reminded the reader of the old
Haqueeqat
classic, “Ae mere vatan ke logon” and asked the voter
of Gujarat to treat their franchise as a homage to the
dead. No specific mention of Godhra or Akshardam, as
per election commission rules, but a clear recall of
recent events. Little wonder then that the next ad
club function should honour you and your faithful ally
Arun Jaitley with the copywriter of the year award.
I also remember your campaign pitch on the last day of
campaigning.
While a complacent Congress was relishing the concept
of cashing in on the anti-incumbency mood, you were
waving a news item that you claimed was a religious
fatwa asking the Muslims of Gujarat to vote hundred
per cent for the Congress.
Of course, you didn’t have to tell the voter the
entire truth: that
there was no real “fatwa”, that all that had happened
was that some unknown Muslim cleric in faraway Uttar
Pradesh had issued an appeal to voters to support the
Congress, and that the advertisement in Gujarati
newspapers had been inserted by members of the sangh
parivar. The fatwa worked, and you were able to ensure
that Hindus came out in large numbers to vote for you
and your party.
I will also not forget the manner in which you were
able to successfully use the demonisation of Mian
Musharaff as a vote-gathering technique. We all
dislike the Pakistani general, and his refusal to end
cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, but you were able
to translate anti-Pakistani sentiment into a potent
state election issue.
What Musharaff had to do with the Gujarat elections is
unclear, but
somehow you were able to convince the voter that
Islamabad was monitoring every move in Gandhinagar.
“If I win, the entire country will celebrate, if the
Congress wins, crackers will be burst in Pakistan.” It
was yet another classic one-liner, designed to stir
the kind of jingoism that may not end the
low-intensity conflict on the border, but will
certainly add to your unique brand of macho politics.
As a representative of the pseudo-secular English
language media in
particular, I admired the manner in which you were
able to blame the
media for virtually everything that had gone wrong in
the state, from the killing of innocents on the
Sabarmati express, to the loot and mass murders that
followed to the large-scale exodus of Muslim families
from their homes.
Let me also say that I will never forget the manner in
which you were
able to use the Godhra incident for political benefit
for months on end, and suggest that somehow all
Muslims in the state were linked to an act of villainy
by a group of criminals from the minority community. I
distinctly remember how you had posters put up all
over the state of the burning train compartment. I
also remember how you got a family member of one of
the Godhra victims to be present at the inauguration
of your party office.
I remember your yatra to Godhra where you shared the
anguish of the
people who had lost their loved ones in the train
tragedy. Somehow, I don’t recall you ever reaching out
to those living in the Shah Alam camp, or Naroda-Patia
or the numerous other refugee camps in the state. Nor
did I ever see you in the company of Muslim children
who saw their entire families being burnt alive before
their eyes.
I must also admire the manner in which you were able
to use the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad cadres in the political campaign. Until
now, we were always told that the VHP was a
socio-cultural organisation that had little to do with
day-to-day politics. You made sure that the VHP
fiction was buried once and for all, and that Praveen
Togadia was transformed from surgeon to a political
rabble-rouser.
Finally, I must salute you for the way you stood up to
virtually anyone
who questioned the politics of Moditva. I will not
forget how you even put the prime minister in his
place.
When Mr Vajpayee asked you to follow the rajdharma,
you quietly
listened to him, and then went about doing your own
thing. A weakened Vajpayee was reduced to being your
self-appointed advocate by the end of the elections.
Indeed, in the last few election meetings, I didn’t
even see a single poster of Vajpayee or even of the
original Hindutva mascot, L K Advani. This victory
then is yours and yours alone.
While you celebrate your triumph, may I leave you with
a final thought?
Now, that you’ve won the battle, will you win the war?
Could you become the chief minister of each and every
one of the five crore Gujaratis, Hindus and Muslims,
you now claim to represent?
You could perhaps start with paying a weekly visit to
the homes of
those who still live in fear and despair. It may not
fit in with your worldview, but it would at least
convince some of us that Gujarat’s Chote Sardar is
more than just a hero of hatred.
Affectionately yours,
Rajdeep Sardesai.
The writer is managing editor, NDTV
#182 Posted by dost_mittar on September 22, 2003 1:59:04 pm
urbashi:
We are not that far apart. Her role in Bofor, her motivations for various acts of omission and commission, the legitimacy of dynastic rule, are all fair game for people to ask her as to any other politician. Our only point of departure is her Italian origin. To me this is immaterial. And this is not my position, this is the position of the Indian constitution which does not distinguish between an Indian by birth and by domicile (unlike the US where only a born American can become its President).
We are not that far apart. Her role in Bofor, her motivations for various acts of omission and commission, the legitimacy of dynastic rule, are all fair game for people to ask her as to any other politician. Our only point of departure is her Italian origin. To me this is immaterial. And this is not my position, this is the position of the Indian constitution which does not distinguish between an Indian by birth and by domicile (unlike the US where only a born American can become its President).
#181 Posted by urbashi on September 22, 2003 9:32:27 am
I think I didn`t make myself clear enough. Whether Sonia Gandhi`s really Indian or not shouldn`t matter to us if she were a private citizen - then it would matter only to her immediate family. But since she has launched herself as a Prime Ministerial candidate (forget about the irony at this point!) her background and possible motives do become of some relevance. Fine, she looks after her own interests and those of her family (her Italian relatives included), and why not, but if these interests include the Indian polity, as they do, then they need closer scrutiny. I object to her calling herself an Indian when she never thought of becoming an Indian until Rajiv came next in line to the throne, and to her using the known Indian response to white-skin condescension to ensure that the raj-gaddi goes to her children.
Anyway, I think the topic`s over and done with as far as I`m concerned.
Anyway, I think the topic`s over and done with as far as I`m concerned.
#180 Posted by urbashi on September 22, 2003 6:31:51 am
dost-mittar, I think we should just agree to disagree. I object to Sonia Gandhi calling herself an Indian for the sake of votes, i.e., for the sake of power and MONEY for herself and her children and relatives abroad, you don`t. If she were just a nobody on the political horizon, and had no political ambitions, I feel we could overlook these things, and even perhaps the fact that it was her Italian friends who were allegedly behind the Bofors kickbacks. But since her aim is to become India`s Prime Minister (interesting, isn`t it, that it was she who was supposed to object to Rajiv`s entry into politics, but once he did begin to ``help mummy`` in the family business she became the power behind the throne) I feel we have to keep that in mind. Is India in fact her in-law` jagir, by the way? And who among them sacrificed anything for India? Nehru himself did pretty well out of his contribution to the freedom struggle, didn`t he? Have we forgotten Lohia`s famous statement about the contents of Nehru`s will? But I do agree that Nehru was in fact the founder of today`s India - whatever`s right and wrong with India today goes right back to him.
And I`m certainly no supporter of the BJP or what they call the Sangh Parivar. I believe they`re completely anti-women, among other things. If Hindutva is just another name for Indianness, as they would like us to believe, why is it that they can`t accept that plurality is the basis of both Hinduism and the Indian identity?
But I respect your right to your opinions, just as I assume you respect mine.
And I`m certainly no supporter of the BJP or what they call the Sangh Parivar. I believe they`re completely anti-women, among other things. If Hindutva is just another name for Indianness, as they would like us to believe, why is it that they can`t accept that plurality is the basis of both Hinduism and the Indian identity?
But I respect your right to your opinions, just as I assume you respect mine.
#179 Posted by dost_mittar on September 21, 2003 1:12:21 pm
urbashi#178
[I wrote Nehru hang-up because somehow Nehru seems to come into everything, whether you agree with him or not!]
I plead guilty. All I can say in my defence is that India owes to Nehru, more than to anyone else, what it is today - good, bad , beautiful and ugly.
[The point is not just her shortcomings (her lack of awareness of Indian mores, her apparent involvement with dubious smuggling rackets, etc, etc - who would deny Laloo his Indianness?), but the way she`s managed to manipulate her citizenship (condescending to it only because it would help her immediate family, and so on) for personal gain.]
...If doing something for the family is a sin, is she the only sinner?
[why does she insist on making a parade of something she has no commitment to simply to show her Indian credentials for the sake of votes?]
..every politician does that, and not just in India.
[The utter cynicism and vote-politics that Sonia encourages shows how far she is from the Indian/South Asian ethos. Remember the saying about the ``fine Italian hand``? How long are we to remain slaves to our worship of the white skin?]
This utter cynicism is very much a part of the Indian political ethos today, isn`t it? We should not remain slaves to the worship of the white skin, but let us not hold anyone`s white skin against her, either.
[I wrote Nehru hang-up because somehow Nehru seems to come into everything, whether you agree with him or not!]
I plead guilty. All I can say in my defence is that India owes to Nehru, more than to anyone else, what it is today - good, bad , beautiful and ugly.
[The point is not just her shortcomings (her lack of awareness of Indian mores, her apparent involvement with dubious smuggling rackets, etc, etc - who would deny Laloo his Indianness?), but the way she`s managed to manipulate her citizenship (condescending to it only because it would help her immediate family, and so on) for personal gain.]
...If doing something for the family is a sin, is she the only sinner?
[why does she insist on making a parade of something she has no commitment to simply to show her Indian credentials for the sake of votes?]
..every politician does that, and not just in India.
[The utter cynicism and vote-politics that Sonia encourages shows how far she is from the Indian/South Asian ethos. Remember the saying about the ``fine Italian hand``? How long are we to remain slaves to our worship of the white skin?]
This utter cynicism is very much a part of the Indian political ethos today, isn`t it? We should not remain slaves to the worship of the white skin, but let us not hold anyone`s white skin against her, either.
#178 Posted by urbashi on September 21, 2003 9:12:44 am
I wrote Nehru hang-up because somehow Nehru seems to come into everything, whether you agree with him or not!
And I still think her foreign origin is an issue, because of when and how she chose to become an Indian. I wouldn`t say Nellie Sengupta`s , or Mirabehn`s, foreign origin an issue, nor that of the numerous Christian missionaries and priests who have lived in India so long that they`ve forgotten what it was like back home. The point is not just her shortcomings (her lack of awareness of Indian mores, her apparent involvement with dubious smuggling rackets, etc, etc - who would deny Laloo his Indianness?), but the way she`s managed to manipulate her citizenship (condescending to it only because it would help her immediate family, and so on) for personal gain. And it`s a mark of an incorrigibly patriarchal society that just because a woman has married an Indian we have to regard her as one too. First let her want to become a part of her husband`s family/tribe/clan/country/etc because she`s married him, and not because that`s the only way she can cling on to her husband`s family`s ``virasat``.
I also object to the way she`s indulging in what is now called ``soft Hindutva``. When Digvijay Singh of MP does it so shamelessly for the sake of votes at least there`s no doubt about his ``Hinduness``, but when she doesn`t profess any religion, or so it appears - whenever asked about her religious beliefs she`s studiously silent (not that`s any disqualification, one can be an atheist/agnostic/Christian/whatever and be a good Indian, the agnostic Nehru had his faults too, and terrible ones at that, but was resolutely an Indian) - why does she insist on making a parade of something she has no commitment to simply to show her Indian credentials for the sake of votes? The Nehruvian brand of ``pseudo-secularism`` has no doubt led India into this ``Hindutva`` mess, as dost-mittar points out, but at least there was no cynicism behind it. They were stupid, but they meant well. And with all their excesses they were less dangerous than the fundamentalist goons of whatever denomination or ``relgious`` belief.The utter cynicism and vote-politics that Sonia encourages shows how far she is from the Indian/South Asian ethos. Remember the saying about the ``fine Italian hand``? How long are we to remain slaves to our worship of the white skin?
And I still think her foreign origin is an issue, because of when and how she chose to become an Indian. I wouldn`t say Nellie Sengupta`s , or Mirabehn`s, foreign origin an issue, nor that of the numerous Christian missionaries and priests who have lived in India so long that they`ve forgotten what it was like back home. The point is not just her shortcomings (her lack of awareness of Indian mores, her apparent involvement with dubious smuggling rackets, etc, etc - who would deny Laloo his Indianness?), but the way she`s managed to manipulate her citizenship (condescending to it only because it would help her immediate family, and so on) for personal gain. And it`s a mark of an incorrigibly patriarchal society that just because a woman has married an Indian we have to regard her as one too. First let her want to become a part of her husband`s family/tribe/clan/country/etc because she`s married him, and not because that`s the only way she can cling on to her husband`s family`s ``virasat``.
I also object to the way she`s indulging in what is now called ``soft Hindutva``. When Digvijay Singh of MP does it so shamelessly for the sake of votes at least there`s no doubt about his ``Hinduness``, but when she doesn`t profess any religion, or so it appears - whenever asked about her religious beliefs she`s studiously silent (not that`s any disqualification, one can be an atheist/agnostic/Christian/whatever and be a good Indian, the agnostic Nehru had his faults too, and terrible ones at that, but was resolutely an Indian) - why does she insist on making a parade of something she has no commitment to simply to show her Indian credentials for the sake of votes? The Nehruvian brand of ``pseudo-secularism`` has no doubt led India into this ``Hindutva`` mess, as dost-mittar points out, but at least there was no cynicism behind it. They were stupid, but they meant well. And with all their excesses they were less dangerous than the fundamentalist goons of whatever denomination or ``relgious`` belief.The utter cynicism and vote-politics that Sonia encourages shows how far she is from the Indian/South Asian ethos. Remember the saying about the ``fine Italian hand``? How long are we to remain slaves to our worship of the white skin?
#177 Posted by ballukhan on September 20, 2003 11:29:28 am
What has happened to our Dost-m itter? Praising Shahin`s analyses which thrives on Pakistani understanding of Secularism by mixing truth with lies. This is what propoganda is about!!!
Policy of Encirclement - It only a response to the on going war on India since 1971 ``surrender`` which the Paki Generals wants to avenge.(they blame all the losses to Pakistan`s weak and incompetent political machinery).
``issue of Iran, that its ties with Tehran are non-negotiable`` this has always remained as the Indian position.
``In return for the Phalcon radar system and sensitive intelligence reports on terrorism, for instance, Israel asked India to disavow anti-Israel resolutions in the UN and other multilateral bodies. ``
I am sure this story must have been planted by the Paki propoganda machinery- How can this guy have access to such quid-pro-quo (if there is any) understandings between India and Isreal????
``Hindu fundamentalists called the Sangh Parivar abide by the Hindutva philosophy of ``cultural nationalism``, which looks at the world Muslim community as one nation``
This two nation theory is actually the Paki postion. Indian constitution has rejected any talk of nationhood, nationality, citizenship or person of indian origin being determined by a person`s professed religious faith. Another piece of propoganda.!!!
``The idea of a Muslim monolith is so deeply ingrained that even if they try to do so, Hindutva ideologues confess that they are unable to distinguish an Indian Muslim from a Pakistani or that of any other nationality. ``
The position of Indian muslims as distinct entities (including the categories of Bengali muslims, wahabi muslims, ahmedi muslims etc.) is well understood.
``Then the term used for Muslims by top Hindutva politicians is invariably jihadi or terrorist. This is essential if an irrational fear of Muslims has to be instilled in the largely secular Hindu majority nurtured for millennia on the eclectic and large-hearted Hindu philosophy that never closed its doors on new ideas or religions.``
What do you men by ``top``??? You mean the BJP spokesman?? This is again a piece of propoganda to re-inforce the stereo-types??
``Secularism is the foundation of the Indian constitution and its democratic system, but one can almost daily watch on television Hindutva leaders railing against the so-called secularists and reiterating their vow to root out secularism from the country. But this Hindutva vision of a terrorist Muslim monolith oppressing the world, including India, runs into a direct clash with India`s mature conduct of its foreign policy aims based on its perception of its national interest and requirements of realpolitik. The BJP`s Hindutva ideology, for instance, would demand that it go the whole hog with Israel and the United States in destroying Iran, the second destination, after Iraq, in President George W Bush`s war against his ``axis of evil.``
All lies about Indian ``secularism`` and Indian understanding of the Islamic countries . A typical paki understanding of what seularism is about in India. This is what I meant when I said something to the effect that that Dost-mitter has all his intellectual inputs from PTV.
The fact remains that india understands the fragmented nature of the so called ``Ummah`` and understands that it is not pan-islamism that is a problem on the contrary pan-islamism is a welcome thought. It is the extremists who want to use guns and bombs to enforce their brand of pan-islamism that is a problem beacuse they threaten the existence of non-muslim brothers by assuming identities like ``Ghazis``, ``Ghaznavis`` Kafir-killers, Mujahedeens out to kill if they cannot persuade conversion to their faiths.
#176 Posted by dost_mittar on September 20, 2003 6:41:03 am
[Shahin Sultan`s brilliant analysis of India`s relaionship with the Muslim world. Worth reading every word of it.]
South Asia
India sticks with Iran, for now
By Sultan Shahin
NEW DELHI - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon`s recent visit to India and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee`s present trip to Turkey have brought to light the complicated balancing act India is forced to play in its foreign policy. Israel, Turkey and, more important, the United States are all unhappy with India`s close strategic ties with the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran. But if India has to continue to pursue its policy of encirclement of Pakistan, it needs to maintain close ties with Iran, Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries bordering Pakistan.
New Delhi has, therefore, made it clear to the Israeli leader, who raised the issue of Iran, that its ties with Tehran are non-negotiable. India could accommodate Israeli concerns on some issues, but not on its ties with Iran. India has not initiated anti-Israeli resolutions in the United Nations on the question of Palestine for several years, as it used to do during the Cold War era; Israeli leaders have noted this fact with satisfaction. But India could not completely abandon Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or support Israel`s stated desire to eliminate him, even by killing him.
Similarly, India agreed not to pass Israeli defense technology on to Iran. Sharon was assured of this at the highest level. But India could not give up its strategic ties with that country, he was also told. This was in response to Sharon demanding from India what he called ``reciprocity``. He insisted that this must constitute the basis of Indo-Israeli ties. In return for the Phalcon radar system and sensitive intelligence reports on terrorism, for instance, Israel asked India to disavow anti-Israel resolutions in the UN and other multilateral bodies. More significant, it also asked India to be mindful of Israel`s security concerns before developing even closer ties to Iran.
If Israel, with its superior military prowess, known nuclear capability and unquestioning support of the sole superpower is so wary of growing India-Iran ties, then the latter has even more reason to be wary of growing India-Israel ties. Since 1981, when Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, Iran, possibly with its own nuclear-weapon ambitions in mind, has been particularly fearful of a similar Israeli attack on its reactors. Israel has signed a treaty with Turkey that allows it to take advantage of its air bases. It has also developed relations with Azerbaijan. This has given Israel the possibility of coming closer to the Iranian borders, heightening security concerns in Tehran with regard to its northern and northwestern borders.
No wonder Iran is making all-out efforts to improve its air-defense capability against air raids by the Israeli air force. But after it had started breathing somewhat easily after testing its Shahab-3 missiles in July 2000, as these missiles can threaten Israel directly, it now finds itself surrounded by the chief Israeli patron, the United States, on both sides. In its perception, the predatory US imperialism on the rampage in the region represents an even greater danger than the Israeli presence.
Iran is thus bound to feel more concerned than ever. The difference in US attitude and behavior toward North Korea, suspected to have already developed a few nuclear weapons, and Iraq, which was known to have no nuclear capability, and perhaps also known to US and British intelligence to have no other weapons of mass destruction, could not have escaped the notice of the ruling clerics in Tehran. In this situation the development of an India-Israeli-US nexus cannot but heighten their worries. But apparently India has told them that its relationship with Israel and the United States, too, is equally non-negotiable.
India`s close strategic ties with Iran worry other friends of India as well, as does its developing relationship with Israel. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is a Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalist country that spawned al-Qaeda. Though a US ally, it is no friend of Israel. It could not possibly be pleased with India coming closer to a Shi`ite fundamentalist country like Iran, which considers the Sunni Wahhabi Taliban to be Islamic deviants. During the Vajpayee visit to Iran a couple of years ago, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, in fact, made an entirely unsolicited reference to growing ``terrorism, violence, rebellion and narcotics trafficking`` in the then Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and added that he was ``deeply regretful that such crimes are committed in the name of Islam``.
He also condemned the destruction of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan and regretted the misuse of Islam by the Taliban forces. This could not have been music to Saudi ears, but India managed to maintain its close relations with both countries.
Similarly, despite its closeness with Iran, forged first by the then prime minister Indira Gandhi with the Shah of Iran, Reza Shah Pahlavi, in the 1970s, and renewed with the fundamentalist regime by then prime minister Narasimha Rao in early 1990s, India continued to maintain close ties with Iraq under Saddam Hussein. A secular dictatorship, Iraq was the only Muslim country to support India unhesitatingly on the question of Kashmir or in its war against Pakistan in 1971 for the struggle that resulted in the creation of Bangladesh.
India is, of course, not the only country that has to walk a tightrope in maintaining friends with widely divergent and sometimes entirely contradictory or even hostile perspectives. Many countries, or perhaps all countries, do so at one time or other, in one case or another. This has particularly been the case since the end of Cold War. But India is faced with unique problems in maintaining its relations with Iran because this relationship does not only expose inconsistencies in its foreign policy, but also contradictions in its domestic political dynamics.
India`s coalition government is led by the Hindu fundamentalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP`s mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), and sister organizations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP or World Hindu Forum) and Shiv Sena (Shivaji`s Army) etc that constitute the extended family of Hindu fundamentalists called the Sangh Parivar abide by the Hindutva philosophy of ``cultural nationalism``, which looks at the world Muslim community as one nation.
Hindutva`s cultural nationalism predates Samuel Huntington`s ``clash of civilizations`` theory by almost a century. The idea of a Muslim monolith is so deeply ingrained that even if they try to do so, Hindutva ideologues confess that they are unable to distinguish an Indian Muslim from a Pakistani or that of any other nationality. Then the term used for Muslims by top Hindutva politicians is invariably jihadi or terrorist. This is essential if an irrational fear of Muslims has to be instilled in the largely secular Hindu majority nurtured for millennia on the eclectic and large-hearted Hindu philosophy that never closed its doors on new ideas or religions.
Secularism is the foundation of the Indian constitution and its democratic system, but one can almost daily watch on television Hindutva leaders railing against the so-called secularists and reiterating their vow to root out secularism from the country. But this Hindutva vision of a terrorist Muslim monolith oppressing the world, including India, runs into a direct clash with India`s mature conduct of its foreign policy aims based on its perception of its national interest and requirements of realpolitik. The BJP`s Hindutva ideology, for instance, would demand that it go the whole hog with Israel and the United States in destroying Iran, the second destination, after Iraq, in President George W Bush`s war against his ``axis of evil``.
A nuclear-powered Islamic fundamentalist country that supports terrorist organizations in Lebanon, Palestine and Pakistan would be a greater danger to the world and should obviously be stopped before it acquires nuclear weapons. A Muslim Turkey run by an Islamic party - in all but name - might help Israel and the US encircle and destroy Iran, or at least its nuclear reactors when the time comes, which may be sooner rather than later. Yet an India run by Hindutva ideologues is maintaining ever-growing close strategic ties with that country and considers its relations non-negotiable. And this at a time when even the majority of Iranian people want to get rid of Islamic fundamentalists and go back to secular democratic governance denied to them by the greatest proponent of democracy in the world, the United States, which overthrew the democratically elected Mossadeq government in 1953 and installed a king.
A Hindutva-run India has also no problem in maintaining close relations with Saudi Arabia, another fountain of Islamic fundamentalism. This, of course, is demanded by India`s national interests, as perceived by nearly all political parties. India`s Iran policy, too, has bipartisan support. In fact most of the initiatives of Indian foreign policy as it exists today were embarked on by the secular Congress party now in opposition and by and large followed by socialist and communist parties that had influence in the central government before the BJP came to power.
This is deeply embarrassing for the Hindutva politicians. But they cannot run a foreign policy as dictated by the situation India finds itself in today if they treat the Muslim ummah (world Muslim community) as one terrorist monolith. They were pleasantly surprised last year when, after the large-scale massacres of Muslims in Gujarat, in which the BJP state government was directly implicated, the only countries that did not criticize India were Muslim. While the Christian West spoke up and denounced the government in no uncertain terms, asking it to provide justice to the thousands of victims and rehabilitate the millions of uprooted, the world Muslim community remained silent.
As pre-election communal cleansing of minorities constitutes an essential part of election strategies of ruling parties - the main opposition Congress party, too, thought so while it ruled, but seems to disagree now - and as the BJP moves inexorably in this direction in the election year ahead, it can only count on the support of Muslim countries and Israel: the rest of the world will denounce another communal conflagration in equally severe terms if the number of killed again starts going beyond a thousand, the benchmark the West seems to follow in such situations.
The BJP still recalls with gratitude the response of the Muslim world, particularly Iran, to the demolition of the 16th-century Babri mosque in December 1992, a joint Congress-BJP operation conducted by a Congress-run central government and a BJP-controlled Uttar Pradesh (UP) state government. While the country was still nursing the wounds inflicted by the demolition and the widespread massacres that had followed, the then Iranian president Rafsanjani visited UP`s capital city Lucknow and declared that he had full faith in India`s secularism and the ability of its constitutional system to safeguard its Muslims.
It goes to the credit of Hindutva leaders that they did not allow their ideological proclivities to cloud their vision and have pursued a foreign policy that by and large has near-unanimous support from the entire political spectrum. Despite Pakistani pretensions of leading the Muslim world, India has maintained and further developed close ties with almost all Muslim countries, while remaining firm on its stance on Kashmir and Pakistan. This is no mean achievement and the credit should go to Vajpayee, who succeeded in doing this in a very difficult situation. He obviously learned well the lessons of his first stint as minister in 1977-79 when he handled the external affairs portfolio with great aplomb.
But this complicated and fascinating balancing act that is the conduct of Indian foreign policy is soon going to get even more complex. That Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons is not proved yet, but apparently UN inspectors suspect it. They have found hidden reserves of enriched uranium at Iran`s gas-centrifuge project at Natanz, being ostensibly developed as a civilian nuclear power plant. Since the declared intent for Natanz` single-centrifuge ``test stands`` was to optimize centrifuge designs, which normally involves the enrichment of trace amounts of uranium, the question is naturally being asked: where did the extra radioactive material come from? The Iranian explanation that the damning uranium probably found its way to the site ``inadvertently`` from an overseas supplier has only swung the needle of suspicion still more its way.
Iran knows, as does the world, that its survival as an independent country depends on how fast it develops nuclear weapons. Right now may be the best time. The United States is stuck in quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, on both sides of its borders, unable to move to invade and occupy, as Iran justly fears. Even if Iran agrees to all of the nuclear watchdogs` conditions - by October 31 - it would still not stop the country from trashing the Non-Proliferation Treaty at some point and going ahead with its weapon-building project, if it indeed has one. So, to take the worst-case scenario, or the best case, depending on which side of the fence you are, Iran could have a nuclear weapon or two ready within a year.
It is inconceivable that Israel would allow this to happen. It may not have much time left to engage in an Osirak-like attack against Iranian nuclear reactors. But will Iran use its Shahab-3 missiles then to rain mayhem and destruction on Israel? And will the United States then wait for further proof of Iranian ``evil`` to march next door from its sanctuaries in Iraq and Afghanistan? India must be ready with its response to such not very unlikely scenarios.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
South Asia
India sticks with Iran, for now
By Sultan Shahin
NEW DELHI - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon`s recent visit to India and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee`s present trip to Turkey have brought to light the complicated balancing act India is forced to play in its foreign policy. Israel, Turkey and, more important, the United States are all unhappy with India`s close strategic ties with the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran. But if India has to continue to pursue its policy of encirclement of Pakistan, it needs to maintain close ties with Iran, Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries bordering Pakistan.
New Delhi has, therefore, made it clear to the Israeli leader, who raised the issue of Iran, that its ties with Tehran are non-negotiable. India could accommodate Israeli concerns on some issues, but not on its ties with Iran. India has not initiated anti-Israeli resolutions in the United Nations on the question of Palestine for several years, as it used to do during the Cold War era; Israeli leaders have noted this fact with satisfaction. But India could not completely abandon Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or support Israel`s stated desire to eliminate him, even by killing him.
Similarly, India agreed not to pass Israeli defense technology on to Iran. Sharon was assured of this at the highest level. But India could not give up its strategic ties with that country, he was also told. This was in response to Sharon demanding from India what he called ``reciprocity``. He insisted that this must constitute the basis of Indo-Israeli ties. In return for the Phalcon radar system and sensitive intelligence reports on terrorism, for instance, Israel asked India to disavow anti-Israel resolutions in the UN and other multilateral bodies. More significant, it also asked India to be mindful of Israel`s security concerns before developing even closer ties to Iran.
If Israel, with its superior military prowess, known nuclear capability and unquestioning support of the sole superpower is so wary of growing India-Iran ties, then the latter has even more reason to be wary of growing India-Israel ties. Since 1981, when Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, Iran, possibly with its own nuclear-weapon ambitions in mind, has been particularly fearful of a similar Israeli attack on its reactors. Israel has signed a treaty with Turkey that allows it to take advantage of its air bases. It has also developed relations with Azerbaijan. This has given Israel the possibility of coming closer to the Iranian borders, heightening security concerns in Tehran with regard to its northern and northwestern borders.
No wonder Iran is making all-out efforts to improve its air-defense capability against air raids by the Israeli air force. But after it had started breathing somewhat easily after testing its Shahab-3 missiles in July 2000, as these missiles can threaten Israel directly, it now finds itself surrounded by the chief Israeli patron, the United States, on both sides. In its perception, the predatory US imperialism on the rampage in the region represents an even greater danger than the Israeli presence.
Iran is thus bound to feel more concerned than ever. The difference in US attitude and behavior toward North Korea, suspected to have already developed a few nuclear weapons, and Iraq, which was known to have no nuclear capability, and perhaps also known to US and British intelligence to have no other weapons of mass destruction, could not have escaped the notice of the ruling clerics in Tehran. In this situation the development of an India-Israeli-US nexus cannot but heighten their worries. But apparently India has told them that its relationship with Israel and the United States, too, is equally non-negotiable.
India`s close strategic ties with Iran worry other friends of India as well, as does its developing relationship with Israel. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is a Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalist country that spawned al-Qaeda. Though a US ally, it is no friend of Israel. It could not possibly be pleased with India coming closer to a Shi`ite fundamentalist country like Iran, which considers the Sunni Wahhabi Taliban to be Islamic deviants. During the Vajpayee visit to Iran a couple of years ago, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, in fact, made an entirely unsolicited reference to growing ``terrorism, violence, rebellion and narcotics trafficking`` in the then Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and added that he was ``deeply regretful that such crimes are committed in the name of Islam``.
He also condemned the destruction of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan and regretted the misuse of Islam by the Taliban forces. This could not have been music to Saudi ears, but India managed to maintain its close relations with both countries.
Similarly, despite its closeness with Iran, forged first by the then prime minister Indira Gandhi with the Shah of Iran, Reza Shah Pahlavi, in the 1970s, and renewed with the fundamentalist regime by then prime minister Narasimha Rao in early 1990s, India continued to maintain close ties with Iraq under Saddam Hussein. A secular dictatorship, Iraq was the only Muslim country to support India unhesitatingly on the question of Kashmir or in its war against Pakistan in 1971 for the struggle that resulted in the creation of Bangladesh.
India is, of course, not the only country that has to walk a tightrope in maintaining friends with widely divergent and sometimes entirely contradictory or even hostile perspectives. Many countries, or perhaps all countries, do so at one time or other, in one case or another. This has particularly been the case since the end of Cold War. But India is faced with unique problems in maintaining its relations with Iran because this relationship does not only expose inconsistencies in its foreign policy, but also contradictions in its domestic political dynamics.
India`s coalition government is led by the Hindu fundamentalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP`s mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), and sister organizations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP or World Hindu Forum) and Shiv Sena (Shivaji`s Army) etc that constitute the extended family of Hindu fundamentalists called the Sangh Parivar abide by the Hindutva philosophy of ``cultural nationalism``, which looks at the world Muslim community as one nation.
Hindutva`s cultural nationalism predates Samuel Huntington`s ``clash of civilizations`` theory by almost a century. The idea of a Muslim monolith is so deeply ingrained that even if they try to do so, Hindutva ideologues confess that they are unable to distinguish an Indian Muslim from a Pakistani or that of any other nationality. Then the term used for Muslims by top Hindutva politicians is invariably jihadi or terrorist. This is essential if an irrational fear of Muslims has to be instilled in the largely secular Hindu majority nurtured for millennia on the eclectic and large-hearted Hindu philosophy that never closed its doors on new ideas or religions.
Secularism is the foundation of the Indian constitution and its democratic system, but one can almost daily watch on television Hindutva leaders railing against the so-called secularists and reiterating their vow to root out secularism from the country. But this Hindutva vision of a terrorist Muslim monolith oppressing the world, including India, runs into a direct clash with India`s mature conduct of its foreign policy aims based on its perception of its national interest and requirements of realpolitik. The BJP`s Hindutva ideology, for instance, would demand that it go the whole hog with Israel and the United States in destroying Iran, the second destination, after Iraq, in President George W Bush`s war against his ``axis of evil``.
A nuclear-powered Islamic fundamentalist country that supports terrorist organizations in Lebanon, Palestine and Pakistan would be a greater danger to the world and should obviously be stopped before it acquires nuclear weapons. A Muslim Turkey run by an Islamic party - in all but name - might help Israel and the US encircle and destroy Iran, or at least its nuclear reactors when the time comes, which may be sooner rather than later. Yet an India run by Hindutva ideologues is maintaining ever-growing close strategic ties with that country and considers its relations non-negotiable. And this at a time when even the majority of Iranian people want to get rid of Islamic fundamentalists and go back to secular democratic governance denied to them by the greatest proponent of democracy in the world, the United States, which overthrew the democratically elected Mossadeq government in 1953 and installed a king.
A Hindutva-run India has also no problem in maintaining close relations with Saudi Arabia, another fountain of Islamic fundamentalism. This, of course, is demanded by India`s national interests, as perceived by nearly all political parties. India`s Iran policy, too, has bipartisan support. In fact most of the initiatives of Indian foreign policy as it exists today were embarked on by the secular Congress party now in opposition and by and large followed by socialist and communist parties that had influence in the central government before the BJP came to power.
This is deeply embarrassing for the Hindutva politicians. But they cannot run a foreign policy as dictated by the situation India finds itself in today if they treat the Muslim ummah (world Muslim community) as one terrorist monolith. They were pleasantly surprised last year when, after the large-scale massacres of Muslims in Gujarat, in which the BJP state government was directly implicated, the only countries that did not criticize India were Muslim. While the Christian West spoke up and denounced the government in no uncertain terms, asking it to provide justice to the thousands of victims and rehabilitate the millions of uprooted, the world Muslim community remained silent.
As pre-election communal cleansing of minorities constitutes an essential part of election strategies of ruling parties - the main opposition Congress party, too, thought so while it ruled, but seems to disagree now - and as the BJP moves inexorably in this direction in the election year ahead, it can only count on the support of Muslim countries and Israel: the rest of the world will denounce another communal conflagration in equally severe terms if the number of killed again starts going beyond a thousand, the benchmark the West seems to follow in such situations.
The BJP still recalls with gratitude the response of the Muslim world, particularly Iran, to the demolition of the 16th-century Babri mosque in December 1992, a joint Congress-BJP operation conducted by a Congress-run central government and a BJP-controlled Uttar Pradesh (UP) state government. While the country was still nursing the wounds inflicted by the demolition and the widespread massacres that had followed, the then Iranian president Rafsanjani visited UP`s capital city Lucknow and declared that he had full faith in India`s secularism and the ability of its constitutional system to safeguard its Muslims.
It goes to the credit of Hindutva leaders that they did not allow their ideological proclivities to cloud their vision and have pursued a foreign policy that by and large has near-unanimous support from the entire political spectrum. Despite Pakistani pretensions of leading the Muslim world, India has maintained and further developed close ties with almost all Muslim countries, while remaining firm on its stance on Kashmir and Pakistan. This is no mean achievement and the credit should go to Vajpayee, who succeeded in doing this in a very difficult situation. He obviously learned well the lessons of his first stint as minister in 1977-79 when he handled the external affairs portfolio with great aplomb.
But this complicated and fascinating balancing act that is the conduct of Indian foreign policy is soon going to get even more complex. That Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons is not proved yet, but apparently UN inspectors suspect it. They have found hidden reserves of enriched uranium at Iran`s gas-centrifuge project at Natanz, being ostensibly developed as a civilian nuclear power plant. Since the declared intent for Natanz` single-centrifuge ``test stands`` was to optimize centrifuge designs, which normally involves the enrichment of trace amounts of uranium, the question is naturally being asked: where did the extra radioactive material come from? The Iranian explanation that the damning uranium probably found its way to the site ``inadvertently`` from an overseas supplier has only swung the needle of suspicion still more its way.
Iran knows, as does the world, that its survival as an independent country depends on how fast it develops nuclear weapons. Right now may be the best time. The United States is stuck in quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, on both sides of its borders, unable to move to invade and occupy, as Iran justly fears. Even if Iran agrees to all of the nuclear watchdogs` conditions - by October 31 - it would still not stop the country from trashing the Non-Proliferation Treaty at some point and going ahead with its weapon-building project, if it indeed has one. So, to take the worst-case scenario, or the best case, depending on which side of the fence you are, Iran could have a nuclear weapon or two ready within a year.
It is inconceivable that Israel would allow this to happen. It may not have much time left to engage in an Osirak-like attack against Iranian nuclear reactors. But will Iran use its Shahab-3 missiles then to rain mayhem and destruction on Israel? And will the United States then wait for further proof of Iranian ``evil`` to march next door from its sanctuaries in Iraq and Afghanistan? India must be ready with its response to such not very unlikely scenarios.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
#175 Posted by sigalph235 on September 19, 2003 11:04:44 pm
re 170 Sonia Gandhi
Sonia Gandhi has more than her share of shortcomings but her origin is not one of them. From where most of us subcontinentals come from, the accepted fact is that a woman, upon marriage, becomes part of the family, clan, tribe, nation etc of her husband. Calling her a `foreigner`, in this case, goes against some pretty basic tenets of our culture and customs. It is a pity that the BJP, which prides itself on upholding traditional values, seems to intentionally ignore this facet of culture.
Sonia Gandhi has more than her share of shortcomings but her origin is not one of them. From where most of us subcontinentals come from, the accepted fact is that a woman, upon marriage, becomes part of the family, clan, tribe, nation etc of her husband. Calling her a `foreigner`, in this case, goes against some pretty basic tenets of our culture and customs. It is a pity that the BJP, which prides itself on upholding traditional values, seems to intentionally ignore this facet of culture.
#174 Posted by harimau on September 19, 2003 8:40:57 pm
Ref Urstruly #168
[harimau
I wish you were not such a defensive and scared person, I could have learned a thing or two from you.]
You still can, by reading my posts.
Just because I carry a 2x4 and bash everybody in sight -- those who are unable to think for themselves, that is -- doesn`t mean that I am scared.
[harimau
I wish you were not such a defensive and scared person, I could have learned a thing or two from you.]
You still can, by reading my posts.
Just because I carry a 2x4 and bash everybody in sight -- those who are unable to think for themselves, that is -- doesn`t mean that I am scared.
#172 Posted by dost_mittar on September 19, 2003 12:35:28 pm
bandhook_ram#171
``But subsidising their trips to Haj. Or preventing the construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya. These are totally unacceptable.``
These are two separate issues. I have in one of my posts recommended that haj and other such subsidies should be gradually eliminated.
Nobody is preventing the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. It is the construction of the temple at the very site where the Babri masjid stood that is being opposed. Here, the law of the land must be respected by everyone, including the VHP and its assorted support groups.
``But subsidising their trips to Haj. Or preventing the construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya. These are totally unacceptable.``
These are two separate issues. I have in one of my posts recommended that haj and other such subsidies should be gradually eliminated.
Nobody is preventing the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. It is the construction of the temple at the very site where the Babri masjid stood that is being opposed. Here, the law of the land must be respected by everyone, including the VHP and its assorted support groups.
#171 Posted by bandhook_ram on September 19, 2003 12:21:08 pm
dost mittar
Because that is the sign of a tolerant society. Most democratic societies have constitutions which protect minorities from the potential tyranny of a majority.
Tolerating the minorities and being pro-minority are two different things. Hope you see the difference.
Tolerating as in I dont mind if they worship the way they do. I dont mind the kind of schools they have. I dont mind the way they dress. I dont mind the number of wifes they have.
But subsidising their trips to Haj. Or preventing the construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya. These are totally unacceptable.
Because that is the sign of a tolerant society. Most democratic societies have constitutions which protect minorities from the potential tyranny of a majority.
Tolerating the minorities and being pro-minority are two different things. Hope you see the difference.
Tolerating as in I dont mind if they worship the way they do. I dont mind the kind of schools they have. I dont mind the way they dress. I dont mind the number of wifes they have.
But subsidising their trips to Haj. Or preventing the construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya. These are totally unacceptable.
#170 Posted by dost_mittar on September 19, 2003 11:45:20 am
``I do admire your Nehru hang-up.``
It`s ironic that you say that. In my circle and here at chowk, I am more of a Nehru-baiter than Nehru lover. Even in this article, I am clearly suggesting that the first phase of secularism, led by Nehru, sowed the seeds of the second phase.
Re. Sonia Gandhi, I agree that she did not commit to India until her husband became the PM. It is a well known fact that she tried her best to prevent her husband from getting into politics and succeeded until Sanjay died in an accident.
However, that was then. Now, she is an Indian citizen. She agreed to lead the party only after the party went begging to her to lead it. Since then, she has given every indication that she is fully committed to her party and the country. Whether one should support her or not for the top job of the country should depend only on whether she is fit for the job, her race, or foreign origin should not enter into the equation.
It`s ironic that you say that. In my circle and here at chowk, I am more of a Nehru-baiter than Nehru lover. Even in this article, I am clearly suggesting that the first phase of secularism, led by Nehru, sowed the seeds of the second phase.
Re. Sonia Gandhi, I agree that she did not commit to India until her husband became the PM. It is a well known fact that she tried her best to prevent her husband from getting into politics and succeeded until Sanjay died in an accident.
However, that was then. Now, she is an Indian citizen. She agreed to lead the party only after the party went begging to her to lead it. Since then, she has given every indication that she is fully committed to her party and the country. Whether one should support her or not for the top job of the country should depend only on whether she is fit for the job, her race, or foreign origin should not enter into the equation.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- _arjun30: #64 Posted by... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- laddu: The more Islamist thinking... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- _arjun30: #48 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- _arjun30: #51 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- Urstruly: It came as a... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- chaltahai: BJ, it wasn't fear... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- pinku: badi sharafat se baat-cheet... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- tahmed32: BJ2: writes "A great... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
