brahma

Good <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58173-2002Mar7.html" target="_blank">editorial in the Washington Post</a> by Salman Rushdie on the situation in India.

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: brahma ]</p>

Barney Gumble

<strong>
"The political discourse matters, and explains a good deal. But there's something beneath it, something we don't want to look in the face: namely, that in India, as elsewhere in our darkening world, religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of "respect." What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? How well, with what fatal results, religion erects totems, and how willing we are to kill for them! And when we've done it often enough, the deadening of affect that results makes it easier to do it again.

So India's problem turns out to be the world's problem. What happened in India has happened in God's name. The problem's name is God."

</strong>



When's the last time you saw an opinion of this nature expressed in a major US publication?

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Barney Gumble ]</p>

Seeker196

"The problem's name is God."

Now why can't anyone say that over here?

freemonkey

I love Salman Rushdie

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: freemonkey ]</p>

britinusa

Yes, the Washington Post should be congratulated for having the courage to publish this article; especially in the current climate.

Oresta

freemonkey:
I love Salman Rushdie

Me too.

Hugh Jass

This too:-

the VHP is determined to destroy that secular democracy in which India takes such public pride and which it does so little to protect; and by supporting them, Naipaul makes himself a fellow traveler of fascism and disgraces the Nobel award.

Doesn't believe in sacred cows either, does he?

hinduwoman

Yes, but would it have the courage to do the same if it is a christian-muslim riot?

britinusa

Good point. They probably wouldn't.

hinduwoman

Brahma, one thing I find very irritating amidst all these discussions in India is that no one is mentioning the real reasons why the VHP which did not even exist 20 years ago and whose parent organization was practically unknown came into prominence.

(i) no common law. The muslims are allowed to follow the shariat while hindus have their own code. How ridiculous is this in a democracy where all are supposed to be citizens? Yet any attempt to reform muslim law, like stopping three talaqs, have always been regarded as a plot to drown the minority community in majoritaniasm. Same with polygamy. The argument goes: By law polygamy is prohibited in hinduism; therefore to try to make muslims accept monogamy is an attempt to hinduinize them. Of course what the women want is always ignored.

(ii) Haj subsidy, to the tune of 78 million. But hindus have to pay for their own pilgrimages while paying taxes for mulsims to go to mecca.

(iii) shahbano case: the supreme court ruled that an 80 year old woman who had been divorced is entitled to Rs. 500 alimony per month. The muslims took to the streets threatening riots because it went against the shariat. the govt. gave in and a bill was passed overturning the verdict. So is the court a hostage to muslim violence and votebanks?

(iv) constant harping of intellectuals that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, while hinduism is too evil to be borne. any criticism of islam is enough to label you a nazi and affect your job prospects in govt. and academia. If in the Islamic community itself someone speaks for modifying Islamic practices watch the fur fly! A professor at Jamia islamia said that since hindus revere the cow, then the muslims during id should sacrifice some other animal. The other professors and muslim students demanded his resignation for being unislamic. But not a single intellectual protested. And the habit of saying 'we' and 'our side' have won, when Pakistan wins a match against India doesnot help. So that is what the hindus see --- a community who refuses to be integrated.

(v) Salman rushdie case and the contrast with the Hussein case. Both muslims and so called progressives were in favour of banning rushdie's book becuase it hurts islamic sentiments. But when hussein paints nude goddess of education, (there were many goddesses known for chasing men and he could have painted them)the hindus were
expected to accept it in the interest of free artistic expression. It is the hypocrisy that enrages the average middle-class.

(vi) refusal of Muslim imams in public to pray for India in Kargil war, because no muslim can pray for the victory for kaffirs over a Islamic jehadi (yep, that was the term used by one).

(vii) hindu religious institutes are governed by govt. who appoints even communists to supervise them, while muslims have a free run in their religious institiutes.

(viii) koran is beyond criticism but gita is the legitimisation of feudalism. Denials that muslims had ever broken temples or forcefully converted hindus. Instead the latest theories being taught in text books is that there were hardly any religious conflicts between the two and all such evidences were fabricated by the British to divide them. (This is such a blatant lie that no one can have any respect for the self-appointed intellectuals). Islam brought equality of men, freedom to women and a sense of nationhood and culture. hinduism had none of these things before Islam. Alongside an extremely negative image of a static Brahmin dominated pre-islamic society that had never contributed anything, is being presented. Unfortunately, the muslims themselves have come to believe this propaganda.

(viii) about 75 000 hindus had been killed by Islamic militants, but they are hardly mentioned in press and articles. Instead a great deal of space is devoted how savagely the Indian troops are treating the militants: the rights of Muslim militants are sacroscant, but the same upholders of human rights never even go to express sympathy to the families of the bereaved. when the figures are raised it is always brushed aside. The question that naturally rises in hindu minds is that don't we matter?

(ix) In Kashmir the militants have succeded in driving out 50,000 Pandits and made them refugees in their own land. No mulsim leader had spoken on their behalf. The pseudo-secularists' argument is that while this is deplorable, well Kashmir is muslim and the majority surely has a right to decide whether they can live in peace with other communities. Naturally that raises the point that since hindus are in a thumping majority all over India ...

Perception is important. The hindus felt they had become secondclass citizens in their own country and any attempts to be proud of hinduism is labelled 'illberal'. That is why the BJP slogan 'Say with pride you are a hindu' was so successful.

Religion is a poison in blood all right, but the Indian brown sahibs had strengthened it. Even now they are ignoring their own culpability. when the godhra train massacre happened no one, certainly no muslim leader expressed sympathy for those burned to death, which included children. Today many are saying that the VHP deliberately set fire to the train killing their own people, to ignite passions --- a majority of hindus were already saying that now 'they' will put the blame of hindus and 'they' obligingly did.

unless real grievances are addressed, the problems will not go away. most of the muslims being killed have nothing to do with the grievances, but they will be killed as their leaders play politics and the intllectuals try to improve their standing in international seminars.