I will tell you how they are. In his own precious words:
As a group of visiting senior Muslim clergy from Ayodhya, with wisdom born of great learning, said recently to Swami Shri Swaroopananda Saraswati, the highly respected Shankaracharya of Dwarka: “Even though our religions are different, we share the blood of the Hindus.” The Shankaracharya replied gently: “That makes our Lord Ram your ancestor as well.”
Very well, we are family and all. Then, rishtey mein Babar is also daddy dearest to Hindus, no? And most certainly Emperor Akbar? After all, he was married to Jodha bai and used to rock the cradle with Krishna’s idol, at least that is what they showed in Mughal-e-azam. So, if you want to play ball, then you have to be on the same court. You can’t just lob it up in the air.
The author goes on to state:
This is not just about genealogy – it reflects India’s embedded religious diversity.
Sure. The TOI used this picture with the headline, ‘Reinforce the tolerance that unifies’.
Tolerance has to be mutual, even though I dislike the word tolerance. You cannot have one idea of god and a stereotype of another religion paying obeisance to that god and call it diversity.
I had written about just such a narrow vision in the article Mainstream Terror:
It is interesting that while the urban elite has taken over religious celebrations and consumerised it, they use the ‘backward’ idea to drive home the point of India’s colourfulness. It almost seems like they are sitting away and cheering at a spectator sport.
My real issue, though, is how the Muslim clergy and the shankaracharyas are considered the only wise folks around worth quoting. Does the author not talk about modernity? Then why is he appeasing religious heads?
Grow up and get your priorities right. It is shameless and insensitive that this piece was written as a prelude to the December 6 Babri Masjid demolition’s 18th anniversary. Was that appeasement or modernity?
Hi FV,
ReplyDeleteThis comment of yours:
My real issue, though, is how the Muslim clergy and the shankaracharyas are considered the only wise folks around worth quoting. Does the author not talk about modernity? Then why is he appeasing religious heads?
is same as saying
why are the economists and bankers considered the only wise folks here in the west worth quoting (despite their spectacular failures about everything they have ever said).
C'est La Vie....
hitesh
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHitesh,
ReplyDeleteYou said :
"This comment of yours:
My real issue, though, is how the Muslim clergy and the shankaracharyas are considered the only wise folks around worth quoting. Does the author not talk about modernity? Then why is he appeasing religious heads?
is same as saying
why are the economists and bankers considered the only wise folks here in the west worth quoting (despite their spectacular failures about everything they have ever said)."
Don't you think you are stretching the analogy bit too much by equating economists and bankers (btw, I have a problem with them being clubbed together as well but that's a different topic altogether) with Shankaracharyas and Maulavis ?
BTW, do we notice how the religious leaders such as Shankaracharyas and Maulavis have hijacked the role of being community leaders ? Remember , religiosity and communal identity are two vastly different things. One of the problems with the social discourse has been fudging them together.
Cheers,
Mahesh.
P.S. for Farzana : Have a nice weekend.
Hitesh:
ReplyDeleteIt shows great courage on your part to state that you would like to touch base...it isn't the done thing coz I am not quite the done thing :)
Regarding your comment, Mahesh has said what I had wanted to, except that I did not immediately think about the difference between economists and bankers. Now I realise that maybe economists discuss cash cows and bankers cash...
Mahesh:
You have a nice weekend, too.
PS: I have become a post-script...hrmph
I have a simple question which I am now quite tired of repeating, with no answer forthcoming either from the "tolerant" Muslims or the "secular" Hindus. Perhaps Ms Versey can offer one.
ReplyDeleteWhy do most (if not all) Islamic countries prescribe death penalty for conversion out of Islam? What is the guarantee that it will not happen in India if Muslims begin to rule again? After all, the "tolerant, inclusive" Mughals had these laws firmly in place to intimidate the Hindu majority under their rule. (Read 'Emperors of the Peacock Throne' By Abraham Eraly.)
Free and Footloose:
ReplyDeleteI don't know why, but it is not about all Muslims. I suppose you are aware of people who have converted and are not yet dead. (I do not agree with the laws, though. I am surprised people like you do not comment on my posts on blasphemy laws but are ready to jump at any whiff of 'Islamism'.)
I can guarantee you there will be no Muslim rule in India. Take my word for it. And don't have sleepless nights.
Re. the Mughals, do remember they did not make India into an Islamic country when they could well have done so.
Btw, I see you have nothing to say about the content of this post and what it conveys....
I haven't commented upon the contents of the post because it simply left me exasperated. Let me put it in bullet points again:
ReplyDelete1. If Togadia spews venom against Muslims, Ms Versey has an issue with that.
2. If Advani calls for building of Ram temple with consensus, ditto.
3. If Congress leaders say justice will take its own course in Ayodhya, ditto.
4. If Modi says he makes no distinction between Gujaratis of one faith and another, ditto.
5. If BJP criticises what it calls votebank politics, ditto.
6. If Premji is celebrated for being a Muslim billionnaire, ditto.
7. If TOI publishes a pic of a Muslim praying in temple or something, ditto.
8. If TOI publishes a pic of a Hindu praying in Ajmer dargah, ditto.
9. If a news item appears about the secularism of Indian army, ditto.
10. If an author patronises Muslims, ditto.
11. If another author asks Muslims to stop whining and get on in life, ditto.
God, I am exasperated even writing all this down..!
You had me chuckling there. Is 11 as far as you can count or is that your pulse rate for exasperation? Just asking...Anyhow, thanks...you left out a few more 'dittos', but this is pretty much it, although the post was ALSO about religious meddling in politics.
ReplyDeleteGlad to know you are keeping track. Whenever I need to find my paw prints, I can just yelp a li'l more. It's a Mossie thing, innit?
Dear FV,
ReplyDeleteI admit most of the sarcasm flew over my head. Given my low level of patience with typing, is it any wonder that I am unable to match the word count of you and your equally prolific counterparts? Anyway, glad to be of help!
All said and done, please understand that I feel equally exasperated when arguing with the RSS types. They too have got their priorities rather mixed up, if you ask me.
To keep the story (and the typing) short, "death penalty for rejection of Islam" is about the only thing Hinduism ought to learn and implement. Besides this, there is NOTHING in Islam that Hinduism already doesn't have. Pity that it will be a really long time before even the Hindus understand this, forget the non-Hindus..
Dear F&F:
ReplyDeleteI was wondering (yes, again)that before your bullet point presentation in a comment on the Ayodhya post you said you had a different impression of me. In the post here you list out things from the past. So, what were your impressions based on and why were you surprised at the tone now?
There was no sarcasm, just a bit of ribbing.
To keep the story (and the typing) short, "death penalty for rejection of Islam" is about the only thing Hinduism ought to learn and implement. Besides this, there is NOTHING in Islam that Hinduism already doesn't have. Pity that it will be a really long time before even the Hindus understand this, forget the non-Hindus.
Oh, so now you are into the same-same business.
And, are you implying that I am like the RSS only on the basis of your exasperation? That is really, really unfair.
I am disappointed that the discussion has begun to sound like an inter-kiddo bickering. I expected better, FV.
ReplyDeleteAs long as Islam requires Muslims to believe that they are different (worse, superior) than others, there can be no real peace. Because it will imply that the standards (including the legal ones) for Muslims ought to be different than the rest.
It must be made clear to these maniacs that even Islam's "victory" will not bring peace in the world as they have been claiming in absence of any opposition (coz opposition to this idea would automatically mean apostacy). This bulls**t idea must be countered by Muslim community itself. War is human nature and it is always fought for self-interests, not religion or ideology. The situation will remain so even if the entire human race were to become Muslim.
F&F:
ReplyDeleteYou come with a query re. Islam. I answer.
You talk about distinctiveness and then about similarities; I notice and point it out.
You list out in bullet point your observations about my complaints. I answer.
If you do not want answers, then do not ask. And if you do not get the answers that you have already made up in your mind, then do not call it bickering...
You last comment reveals that you are indeed seeing things form a religious POV while accusing me of doing so.
Enough said.