hinduwoman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Privilege to advocate their faith or lack of it in mainstream society (including newspapers, TV shows, public functions, official functions, etc.). With the intention of gaining more adherents to their faith or lack of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ok, but in that case no fuss about saffronization either. However I am against overt preaching of religions in official functions.

__________________________________________________ _
2. Affirmative action to ensure that the way they live their lives is not subsumed within the way of life of the majority, PROVIDED it does not hamper civil society. For example, if a hypotheitical minority have a strange tenet that says that its adherents must urinate against a mango tree on every wednesday, the State must not discourage them from doing so; PROVIDED that they don't make a nuisance of themselves for other people living nearby. Affirmative action in this case could be the planting of an orchard on public land for the dual purpose of getting fruit and letting the urine flow. Zany example, but I didn't want to bring in cows, pigs, wars and witches into this.

__________________________________________________ __


OK. But what happens if people pick up customs of other religions/secularism through osmosis, which distresses the custodians of their community greatly, and the said custodians try to physically or economically intimidate the people? The mango tree example is zany precisely because it will never come up. If we are to be realistic we must deal with the actual things. For example, if Hindus play music in front of a mosque is it harassment or not? When a mullah produces fatwa saying that cows must be sacrificed during Id, precisely because it hurts Hindu sentiments, what do we do with such a one? I read a case in West Bengal where the local imam allowed his son to marry a Hindu girl without conversion; as a result he and his family has been made outcast and soon will be forced to leave their village --- so shall we allow the minorities to do this, while heaping abuse on a Hindu who tries to prevent his child from marrying a Muslim?


_________________________________________________
3. Privilege to special protection against onslaughts by the majority, whether these onslaughts are cultural (books, films, TV shows, etc) or physical (intimidation, assault, massacre). I'll expand on this theme later.
_________________________________________________


The physical bit is easy. But the cultural is not. Muslims and Christians would have to stop watching practically all films and serials made in India. If you mean hate literature, you try to dissect any religion and immediately its followers will accuse you of being a Nazi.



__________________________________________________
Protection from onslaught (cont'd) : The civil State has built-in safeguards against hegemonistic onslaughts of one or the other kind of world-view; unlike the Stalinist State (notice, I can blaspheme against Stalin, at least!). Stalinist and Fascist States, on the contrary, enforce one kind of world view. For a democratic State, I think it is important to incorporate in its rules some way whereby the weak shall be protected from the strong, if the strong suddenly decide on hegemony. What forms can such safeguards take? Job reservations in govt. departments? Repugnant from the point of view of meritocracy, and far too amenable to corruption as evidenced by our recent history. Tax exemptions and subsidies for minority-specific religious activity? Probably. I haven't given it much thought.
------------------------__----------------------------------------------------


Please, not tax-exemptions and subsidies that exclude the majority. The two are one of the greatest causes of anger. One frequent taunt I hear is "We are Hindus, so we are still paying jiziya".
What is more, minorities are given such aid, because they are perceived to be at a disadvantage. But is it really the case with Islam and Christianity? Oil-money and missionary funding is far greater than what VHP can get, even from NRIs.



__________________________________________________

Whatever form these safeguards may take (and better minds than mine will have to apply themselves to the issue), I maintain that democracy does not mean the despotism of numbers: it means accomodation of dissent, differences and alternative lifestyles through concessions offered by the majority to minorities.
__________________________________________________ _



And the problem comes when the majority feels they are being asked to concede too much, with the minority being ungrateful. That is what makes concessions tricky: and it includes subsidies. For example in West Bengal, 13 crores are spent annually on Madrasas, many of which teach only medieval Arabic and Koran but Sanskrit 'toles' are shut down on the grounds it is a useless language. So when VHP screams Hindubashing and Muslim appeasement, the 'secular' govt. has no leg to stand upon. Similarly if Islamic and Christian clergy abuses Hinduism or but Hindus are not supposed to answer back or analyze their religion critically, then that breeds resentment. Look at Ramkrishna mission incident: they actually went to court demanding minority status because it was perceived that being a minority grants you a number of privileges so that it is better to be a minority than be a part of the mainstream. Added to this is the condition of minorities in Islamic states against which Muslims do not protest while they expect rights for themselves on grounds of being minorities. (Similarly, in Christian countries there are frequent attempts to curtail Hindu activities and shut down Hindu temples). It is no use saying that we should be better, religion is too volatile and when the religious minorities do not protest against such behaviour by their Ummah, the question inevitably arises why Hindus have to do all the tolerating. The majority will concede, but not so much that the minorities feel they can get away with anything and make the majority feel they are being put upon.



Misra, you ended up by comparing the communist states with the cowbelt! They are called BIMARU for a reason. If they are only better than them, it is like saying that though India ranks 72 on the corruption index out of 92, Pakistan is still lower! I mean, do you really think Laloo should be the yardstick?

Wittekind

Are the privileges for the muslim minority in India (which are completely unjustifiable IMO) still there, after some years with rule of BJP? If yes, why hasn't the BJP already abolished them?

hinduwoman

Several reasons why BJP do not remove it:

1) it is a coaliation govt. It has a number of partners which depend on muslim votes and so any attempt at UCC makes them nervous.

2) Not unjustified fears of rioting on the streets. When the Supreme Court of India passed the verdict that a divorced muslim woman can get alimony from her husabnd, muslims took to the streets in large numbers and politicans were elcted on the cry of 'Islam in danger'. So if they try to pass the Uniform Civil code, there would be bound to be bloodshed.

3) Reaction of other countries. BJP is branded as a Hindu fascist party; imagine what a fuss the 'secularists' , multiculturalists and Islamic countires would raise at over-riding of shariah.

4) Most importantly, BJP is a political party. Most of its leaders use religion as a tool to become ministers and so are not anxious to do anything that would rock the boat. Added to this is the Prime Minister Vajpayee has a deepseated hankering to be called liberal by western countries --- easiest way of doing this is to let matters drift.

Amit Misra

Hinduwoman, I'm spreading myself thin. There's Aravindan waiting for me on another thread, and I feel guilty about first appearing to be patronising and then neglecting the man when he asks me a civil question. However, here goes:
In principle, I agree that official functions are no place for preaching religion. On the ground, in 2003, I am a little doubtful about seemingly innocuous gestures at official functions, like lighting ceremonial lamps, breaking cocoanuts, invoking Saraswati as a symbol of knowledge, (not, I acknowledge, as a goddess) and suchlike, with a blythe disregard for the fact that these pretty rituals are not appreciated by atheists and adherents of other religions.
I shall therefore request to be allowed to retain my right to protest against saffronization, even of this insidious kind, for underneath it lurks the nefarious design to Hinduttva-ise the State apparatus along with the majority community.
Depends on the music, of course. Soothe the heart of a savage beast, dothn't it? The frequent all-night rackets on loudspeakers that seem to form a part of popular Hinduism (often organized by people deeply into Hinduttva) are avowedly "musical" but they harrass even me to death. I'd like to take an extremely fundamentalist stand on this issue: forced exposure to loud music is harassment. I'd also like to relate a story. Near the Charbagh railway station, at Lucknow, there is a wayside temple, where a lot of poor people congregate in the evening to sing their prayers, to the accompaniment of a harmonium and a dholak (a sort of drum). The music they make is so poignantly sweet that it moves hard-bitten Lefties like your truly to horripilation. The wayside masjid, incidentally, is within earshot. There has been no dispute for the 4 years I've been here. Could it be that "music" played with the intent to bait people going to a mosque is the culprit rather than music itself?
Sic the police on him! Publicise the view that this man is spreading "communal hatred"-- it is a cognizable (spelt OK?) offence under the Indian Penal Code. Just don't let the Hinduttva types railroad you into starting another riot, killing people who kill cows. I'd also recommend asking your religious muslim friends to actually denounce such b***** as soon as they hear them-- be the first to file a First Information Report with the police.

muslim-hindu marriage story
Sorry, I missed the report. I do recall a rural bengali muslim girl with Marxist leanings who advertised for a husband, and whose father was very supportive... BTW, which community has outcast the father in law of the bride?
Which of us is trying to have their cake and eat it too? I’m saying that it is the minorities that need protection, including, probably, subsidies and affirmative action. I construe your arguments to imply that if any privilege is granted to the minority, it must be given to the majority as well. If we actually do this, we negate the ‘privilege’ in the first place. While I would love to argue that the function of the State is to provide as many benefits, subsidies and opportunities to all its citizens, this aspect of the Welfare State is not relevant to my plea for “extraordinary privileging and pampering” minorities. As I’ve said before, I have an axe to grind: I’m part of a minority opinion: the pink atheist!

Who speaks for this resentful majority? I am firmly of the opinion that the silent majority feels no such resentment. It is only when Hinduttvaites plug in with their propaganda that resentment is born. Incidentally, I should like to bring in a bit of Leninism here as well. Lenin, as some of us know, was all for "going to the people" and "generating class consciousness." Until such a movement takes off, I feel that societies do not feel resentment, do not turn to revolution. The fundamental difference between Leninist propaganda and Savarkar-Golwalkarite propaganda is that while the first uses economic inequity as the basis of evoking popular responses, the other cynically uses cultural diversity to define the other. (I hope Aravindan's found time to read this...)
Ramakrishna Mission incident: Good for them! In seeking the safeguards that our constitution guarantees, the Ramakrishna mission did the right thing. It also challenged the construct of the Hinduttva forces that Hinduism is monolithic. If the RK-ites want a separate identity (as, incidentally, do Sikhs, Buddhists and animists of various hues. Savarkar the cowardly bully was opposed to this idea), we should support them. Another among a thousand flowers...
I'll start off by saying that I'm rather proud of being Indian because our State is relatively enlightened as compared to many of our neighbours. Islamic States are an aberration; a time-warp thing. Their citizens had better get their act together and boot them out. They are as reprehensible as a putative Hindu Rashtra. But back to the topic. Aren't you saying that a muslim is part of some kind of international community, and should disregard the sovereignity of a neighbouring State by condemning its treatment of minorities? While I would urge muslims or any other kind of citizens of various states to ensure protection of their minorities, I don't think it would be very civil of me to instruct, for example US citizens in the time of such a patently unjust war, to do something about the lunatics who are in power in their country (not that I'd be heard anyway...either by the americans or muslim citizens of islamic states above).
Also some of your answers to Wittekind (is that "white child" BTW? or is 'white'= Alb?) need some rejoinders. Maybe later

hinduwoman

Official functions in a multireligious country should either be strictly neutral or incorporate elements of all religions. However while protesting against saffronization, one should not go overboard. For example prayer or invoking Saraswati is too blatantly religious. But what about lightning lamps, garlanding dignitaries, doing pranam etc. customs which had their origins in religion but had long ago simply become a part of social manners? I am sure you greet people with 'namaste' with folded hands: but that also has religious connotation and an atheist mightn't approve being greeted this way. Again all when a minister snips the ribbons to inaugurate a project it can equally be argued that he is following colonial British imposed custom. If we pay too much attention to the original symbolism behind every formal gesture of officials, then practically no work would be done.

About loud music, I am in favour of police hauling away people who exceed the legal decibel limit. But I am speaking of Hindu processions going through a mixed locality (I am assuming that they would not go through Muslim ghettos); no deliberate malice need be involved.
About the cow-fatwa, glad to see you agree. However something seems to prevent the cosmopolitan Muslims from speaking out. In private they would denounce the mullahs and ask why the govt. accepts the fundamentalists as spokesmen for the community, but they would not do so in public. I conjecture this is due to the sense of being a minority community, but it simply gives more ammo to hate brigade, and frankly in the case of some, one cannot help wondering what lies beneath the apparently respectable façade. The man who led the call for death to the Japanese translator of Rushdie was a very educated liberal decent man outwardly: except when he suddenly went berserk at the insult(?) to his prophet.
After all Arun Shourie's World of Fatwas which records the fatwas of Indian ulema even upto 80's, had been in circulation for many years. Except for usual screams that he is spreading hatred, not a single Muslim scholar had refuted any of the fatwas or any moderate Muslim organization condemned them for their hatred. Not to mention there are thoroughly disgusting fatwas. Look at this: a husband tells his wife, "If I cause you pain, you are divorced"; then he goes and purchases a female slave for his use. This bringing home of the female slave causes pain to the wife and so she stands divorced. Only a very twisted mind can come up with such examples and people who are unwilling to denounce such a man should have no place in civil society.

About the West Bengal wedding, I don't know about the bride's family. Apparently the boy went to college in the city and they met there. The outcasting was done by the Muslims.

I am saying that in India the minorities do not need subsidies, because their co-religionists have enough funds to donate to them to preserve their religion and they do so regularly. Similarly affirmative action is needed if they are discriminated against in employment and education --- while this applies to dalits, does it apply equally well to Muslims and Christians?

Have you ever considered that the silent majority is silent precisely because they are afraid of being branded Nazis if they give vent to their resentment. Some of the steam is generated by propaganda, but there had always been fissures in society which was never treated, only plastered over. The VHP exposed them and manipulated them, and they were successful in their propaganda because the resentment was already there. (Hitler's anti-Semitism succeeded because Germany had a long history of Jew-hating). In my own circle, people do not speak of such things in official settings and to people known as secular, particularly when RSS-backed govt. is not in power, but in private it is a different matter altogether.
Take the Parsis for example. They suffer under a number of vulnerabilities:
(i) Tiny minority;
(ii) Policy of purity of lineage means they have few kinship ties to mainstream society
(iii) No community exists elsewhere in the world
(iv) They are recognizably foreign.
(v) Unpardonable sin of being rich.
But the VHP never goes on a hate campaign against them. Because if they did they would be laughed at and lose their credibility. There had never been any conflict or deep hatred between Hindus and Parsis, therefore no amount of propaganda can work.

__________________________________________________ __
If the RK-ites want a separate identity (as, incidentally, do Sikhs, Buddhists and animists of various hues. Savarkar the cowardly bully was opposed to this idea), we should support them. Another among a thousand flowers...
__________________________________________________ __

In your enthusiasm for multiculturalism you do not really get the ramifications.
1) The RK did not ask to be considered a minority because they were genuinely convinced of a separate identity as the Khalsa panth was. They asked because they thought in that way they would get more privileges. If every sect in Hinduism does that, and they can since every sect has some unique features, then ultimately all Hindus would be able to claim minority privileges. It would be like the current practice of uppercastes getting certified as OBCs.
2) In 1966 the Supreme Court ordered Satsangis to allow untouchables into their temples. The Satsangi's response was to declare themselves as a minority and not Hindu; so they were not obliged to let Hindus of any caste whatsoever into their temples. Support them then?
3) Finally, the middle-class Hindus who have formed the core group of Hindutva feels deeply resentful at this. You are celebrating the blooming of thousand flowers, they are seeing such statements as a deliberate ploy to fragment Hindu society so that Hinduism shall always be subordinate to the monotheistic religions (which is being deliberately cultivated by the State for votebanks), and that the secularists are not allowing Hindus to find a common voice in case it shakes their grip on power.

PS. The great heroes of secularism like Nehru and Ambedkar were also opposed to the notion of separate identity. In the Constituent Assembly they ignored the pleas of Sikhs and Buddhists to be considered minorities and imposed the Hindu Code Bill on them by brute force. So is the idea inherently bad or did it beome bad because Savarkar preached it?


I am proud of India's record compared to our neighbours, but here again I would emphasize that since the underpinnings of our Indian society are Hindu that is why we have been better off. If our predominant culture had been Islamic then our condition would be like any other Islamic state.
When it comes to certain basic rights, I do not think civility is more important. Besides you seem to be unwilling to criticize you fellow muslim citizens' lifestyle as well. If civility is so important, why attack Hindus either? Also since the Muslims themselves speak of Islamic ummah and glory of shariah, it is their task to criticize their coreligionists when they go wrong. If they maintain double standards, then VHP cries of tit-for-tat gains more adherents.

hinduwoman

Ever since unveiling of Savarkar's portrait in the Parliament you have been focusing on him as a coward and bully. Have you ever thought of what uncharitable interpretations can be made about Gandhi? He bullied people until he got his way and his courage is open to debate. So Savarkar is in good company with Gandhi, another cowardly bully.

Amit Misra

Correction: I've been calling him a cowardly bully and a fascist ever since they announced a feature film on him. I've even photocopied the text of his mercy petitions as given in RC Majumdar's book on Penal settlements with the intention of distributing it to cinemagoers if they release the film in the theatres heare. Funny thing: they haven't. Or if they have, it flopped and vanished after a mercifully short run...
GHow about the Hindu Left though, and not the Hindu Right?
cheers.
amit

hinduwoman

So what if Savarkar asked for mercy? As frequently has been said, Shivaji swore loyalty to aurangazeb.
Savarkar was denied the petition each time precisely because the British did not believe a word of them.

Amit Misra

No official status for them: like "customary law", "common law" and "statute."
One of the hallmarks of the liberal is a refusal to form or join associations. The Party Line in such associations is restrictive to the liberal. I feel that statements such as yours (and harsher ones accusing muslim liberals of double standards) catch these liberal muslims between a cleft stick. On the one hand, their withdrawal from popular religion makes them suspect in the eyes of their co-religionists, just as my attitude makes people like you look askance at my comments on Hinduism. On the other, the Hinduttva crowd won't let them be identified as anything but Muslims- the Yavana Snakes. Add to that the pitiful reporting that liberal muslims get in either the mainstream media or in the Hinduttva propaganda. Do you know of the stand of people like Naseem Iqtedar Ali, Gauhar Raza, Amar Farooqui, etc, etc, etc, and of the valiant stands against militant Islam by hundreds of denominational muslims that I know personally and could introduce you to anytime you're in Lucknow, or we both can find time to visit Delhi? The problem is, such stands are not popular. They don't have the glamour of the lies peddled by Islamic and Hindu socio-religious movements....
Beware, hinduwoman: this is the kind of trap you keep falling into. You are too quick to identify "muslims" as a kind of worldwide organization: globalised, if you like. I'd be extremely wary of Gulf funds for Indian muslim religios activity. Ask Hinduthvaite abouit the evild of the alien Wahabi Islamist. In any case, Indian muslims are a diverse lot, and I continue to maintain that their quaint, region-specific cultural practices are a valuable contribution to our country's ethos. For example, in Sagar, MP, I've seen moharram processions in which there were people made up as tigers, dancing around the decorated horse that these processions have. In the same town, I've seen people decked up identically for durga processions during navaratri...If the gulf-or Iran-funded Shi'as had their way, they'd stop this kind of thing like a shot. We need to encourage practices that, as you accuse me of doing, "divide" people, whether hindu, muslim or whatever; or as I see it, "allow practitioners of all faiths or lack thereof to celebrate their diversity."
But, pardon me for shouting, WHAT ABOUT THE HINDU LEFT?

hinduwoman

Amit my point is that the liberal muslims must make themselves heard. They must publish and broadcast their opinion --- otherwise the sterotypes remain. Why shall not the ordinary Hindus believe in what Sangh Parivar says if they do not hear the opposing viewpoints? After all what we hear most about is what Sahabuddin and Bhukhari says.

Every community has its own unique set of practices, not minorities alone. In fact, as I pointed out, every Hindu sect can claim to be minority in this regard. So why shall Hindus be deprived of funds?