10.5.12

Hindutva Chooses Rinkle Over Zakia


A high-powered trade Indian delegation is visiting Pakistan now. There are no Muslims in it. They can be objective, as they say. One of my high-powered saffronite acquaintances – given the number of Islam/Islamist/Pakistan related emails I get from him, I might deem it cross-border terrorism in my inbox – is almost invariably pained by what is happening in that country.Why will he not ask Adi Godrej the following questions he poses to me?

Right now, he is agitated about the plight of Rinkle Kumari - a victim of kidnapping and forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan.

This is what he wrote:
  • Where are those who are involved in the various Track II, Track III, etc., diplomacy?
  • Where are those who are involved in the People-to-People contact programmes?
  • Where are the secularist non-Muslims?
  • Where are the 'moderate' Muslims?
  • Where is the media, both foreign and Indian?
  • Where are those involved in the Aman ki Asha programme?
  • I guess for all of them the suffering of the Hindus is of no concern.

In earlier mails, whenever Gujarat or chief minister Narendra Modi was mentioned, he has never expressed any concern for the victims. Instead, it was always Modi as victim of pseudo-seculars.

As I have stated time and again here and in all my pieces and my book, I am against ‘designer peace’ initiatives. The reason I reiterate this is because unless I emphasise it the dense heads won’t get it, and once again they will be dancing between pseudo-secularism and jihad, two identities they have set their minds on.

I am very clear about priorities, and I did not jump into the Rinkle case when it was a hot topic, only because of this. It is when I raised the issue of Zakia Jafri getting the SIT report finally, and how utterly useless it will prove to be for her to get any justice, and the riposte I was faced with was: “What about Rinkle Kumari? Do you know who she is?” that I realised how completely everything about Pakistan is forced down the Indian Muslim throat.We are made answerable.

If Pakistan were to go ballistic about Zakia Jafri, then it would be deemed not only interference, but again Indian Muslims would be called traitors by default.



I have absolutely no discomfiture in saying that I am more qualified to speak about Zakia Jafri; she is the concern of every Indian, whatever be their politics. I am aware that making any individual into a symbol is not good, but she is fighting a battle for long. Right now, when she has seemingly got a reprieve of sorts with the amicus curiae suggesting that there can be a case against Narendra Modi, we cannot deny her the need to hang on to that little thread of hope. Some of us believe that it won’t change a thing.

The riots have been well-documented by several agencies, and there was what is tepidly referred to as “a miscarriage of justice”. This is our business. “But Zakia Jafri is only a victim of one riot, Rinkle Kumari is of the whole of Islam,” I am told. These are wolves wearing the sheep’s clothing of humanitarianism. But is it just that? Why do they not speak up for Bilqees Bano, Zaheera Sheikh, and Zakia Jafri? It is not a quid pro quo: it is a direct question. Why do they shut up about what happens right under their noses? How does Rinkle Kumari become their problem as Indian Hindus?

We stuck it out for Bangladesh, and those who chose refuge here are considered illegal immigrants even decades later.

Hindus and Christians who stayed back in Pakistan are most certainly discriminated against, as are Ahmadis who are Muslim. But, there are organisations for the protection of minorities, there are voices raised by human rights organisations, civil society, and the media. That is how the saffron groups get to know. I wish they would understand this basic fact. If there wasn’t any such expose, the cases would have been muffled. It is not too difficult for kidnappings, rapes and conversions to be hidden. They are not. The flaw lies with the existing laws, and not with humanitarian concern. The latter, unfortunately, brings such cases to light, but does not force a change in the legal provisions, including the blasphemy laws.

Rinkle’s case is about forced conversion, and it is true that one version was that she was not forced to convert and she did it out of her own free will. Did this spin come from the hardliners there? Or was the mainstream media also part of it? There are pictures showing her with hair left loose contrasting with her later in veil. Where did those photographs come from? Think about it. There is access. There is discussion. There is support. Police cases are registered. Press conferences held. Let her be Pakistan’s concern. She is a naturalised citizen, as she is only 18 years old. Certain groups of Indians believe that every Hindu in Pakistan is their concern, and I do not believe it is our business to interfere. Naturally, their small world cannot fathom this – that those are Pakistani Hindus.

I have met them in their homes, in the temples, at work, preparing for festivals and celebrations. There are grievances. These are not the elite. How many of these saffron Samaritans even know about their lives until some such case hits the headlines?

The Express Tribune had reported about a press conference with families of victims of forced conversions who demanded that their girls should be returned to them:

“When a girl is converted, why is she married off immediately?” Amarnath Motumal of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) said. “If she has converted for the sake of Islam, then why doesn’t she join a madrassa to educate herself and spread knowledge about the religion?”

No religion should be forced upon anyone. However, many people convert after marriage. I have given the example of my relative who did so after she married a South Indian. I know of Parsis who do, Christians who do. These convert to Hinduism. Even Dalits are sought to be ‘purified’, for political gains.

This is the reason I will not go along with the ‘Speak up for Rinkle’ chant at the superficial, and low, level being indulged in. Example of 'concern' for Rinkle: “Farzana Versey if u hv so much soft corner for your Pakistan,Why not go there and stay with them? Scared of being killed & raped?"

These people live in some Utopian India. They have never heard about khap panchayats, no Noida serial rapes and cannibalism, no Bhagappur, no Delhi, no Mumbai police chowkie. I have posted the comment to display the ignorance, and the attitude where they don't even realise that the person they are supporting has many counterparts here - very young, often uneducated and poor. 

The government of Pakistan owes it to Rinkle and many like her. Its judiciary has to step in, and Pakistanis are capable of ensuring that.

Are Indians capable of ensuring that Zakia jafri gets justice? If you tell me to talk about Rinkle, I ask you to talk about Zakia. I am Indian. You are Indian. Where are your priorities? If you are shedding tears for Rinkle, it will freeze in your eyes and just blur your sight to make you see exactly what is in your mind – hatred that is inbuilt. You care for Rinkle Kumari about as much as you care for a high you get from any steroid. The pretence is obvious when it comes from the rightwing who shamelessly ignore and demonise the victims and make heroes out of criminals.

(c) Farzana Versey

26 comments:

  1. For your information, thanks to vote bank politics in India, the Gujarat riots is played almost every week by every alternate news channel here in India. Mrs Zafri gets almost same mileage on tv as Angelina Jolie gets in Bollywood. Plus Muslims in India are the safest and the most comfortably represented community.
    Can you tell me one HIndu minister in the govt. One Hindu actor or any famous Pakistani Hindu?
    AND what about millions of Kashmiri Pandits who were killed and coverted by Pakistan funded Islamic terrorist?
    Ok, so 700 dead in post Godhra are far more important than 10 lac in Pakistan and 10 lac from Kashmir?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Farzana,

    Rinkle Kumari's case is the tip of the iceberg. Why aren't you talking about it? Simple! Zakia has media, the courts, and several 1000s speaking up for her. In Pakistan apart from the Human Rights Commission and a few intrepid Marvis there is no one to help rinkle and her family. The establishment is against Rinkle and and family and her community. That is why you must speak up. Hindus in the Indian subcontinent have been a persecuted community, whether they are minorities in Bangladesh and Pakistan or they are a majority in India - where in states such as J&K and the Northeast they have been butchered and slaughtered at will. In Kerala where the Hindus are a slight majority - barely over 50% - Muslim and Xtian fundamentalists in the North and South of the state have reduced several million Hindus to despair and penury. You are rationalising.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The right wingers the likews of BJP would always attach Indian Muslims with Pakistan. They assured themselves that the Muslim subjects are some sort of proxy for them . It the Indian Muslim who would be questioned of their fidelity towards their country, towards their faith, they would be criticized for their own personal laws and even their mindsets, when they none different then any other community in India. These facile mindset of the "right wingers" and some retarded editors of newspapers have created a morass in our political discourse. The BJP would never like Indian Muslim nor they would like them have any political share in the polity of India, my hope is they would be defeated politically and peacefully, their calibrated violence against the minorities in India won't work, and we clearly see they are sliding from their political paradigm

    ReplyDelete
  4. FV,
    Couple of points,
    First, While i completely see the point in Zakia and Modi phenomenon , but is it the first time? The roots are in partition riots , the "stories"continue to travel and we have not addressed the basic issues. To me Modi is as guilty as Rajiv Gandhi is for 1984, but i am yet to see any one even talk about it , As an atheist , I am OK if people talk of all the riots and how all politicians get away with it . Modi , in my view did what he learnt from Congress. I am sure you remember seats congress won in Delhi elections after 1984 , 7/7 ...i hope you see the point. Blame the phenomenon and not the people . If Sajjan Kumar got away, I am sure Modi will .

    Second, I was discussing my favorite topics last month with some friends of friends at University of Texas, they are profs of South Asian Studies , I usually consider such folks as Paper Tigers anyway. 2 things came up, which surprised me. One that Muslims have been now "Branded"as tough to mingle community worldwide. First time in world history Muslims need to share the space in India. , i cant think on one country where Muslims are sharing land , law and democracy in any country and are not complaining (please don't read it as an anti Muslim remark , i don't believe in religions to me they are "brands") so somehwere Muslim intellectuals have to think , In India they want law , supreme court, rights and works but within their ummah they don't even allow visa free travel forget about nationality and human rights, two examples, a female Bangladeshi doctor in Saudi Arabia or a Indonesian maid in UAE. There is no Modi or BJP there but what rights do they get get. There is no Mossad or israel stopping them and there is no US pressure against them. Btw Zakia gets legal access and footage , you know what do the maid and the doctor get. So roots are in MISTRUST and it is actually going in wrong direction. I am not saying Zakia shouldnt get justice, I am saying she is likely to get as much as justice as Sikhs got in 1984 or Kashmiri Pandits got in 1989.
    Third, very rarely have I seen you react this way on tweeter and blogs , so i am sure lots of folks don't read all of your work and judge you by the magnitude of your conviction. Having read all almost in last 5 years, I can say some comments need to be treated with benign negligence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gujarat 2002 was one in hundreds of such riots in India....it was not the worst..but it certainly was the most PUBLICISED....

    Why only the Zakias, Zahiras and Bilkees? Why not the Hindu women who lost their men?..why not those who lost their lives in the train in Godhra... tell me why is Zakia so special? She is an unfortunate victim...but then so are many others.... Sadly Hindus and Hindu women are rendered second class citizens in India.....and Pak.

    The writers litany is Amusing.....i am sure she realises that india is "secular" only because of those bigotted Hindus that she so derogatively terms "saffronites"... The day muslims become a majority...we shall all become Rinkles

    ReplyDelete
  6. This sort of arguments have been made time and again.

    If French want to ban the burqa in their schools, let it be their concern. If American Fundamentalist priest disrespects Quran, let it be the concern of Americans. If Swiss don't like very tall Minarets, let it be their concern. Let the Danish cartoons be concern of Danish government and so on.

    But the fact of matter is we all live with dual identities in this modern world. One is associated with our historical identity; which in most cases happens to be religious but it can also be simply ethnic (like Chinese/Vietnamese/Uighurs etc.) and other acquired by where we live and make living. No matter how much we deny, they both do seem to matter to all at some stage in their life.

    You concern for Killing Fields of Combodia is inevitably going to be different from your concern for the plight of Muslims in Western Europe or America.

    What the saffron brigade in India wants is the poor excuse for doing what they want to do in India by using the atrocities in Pakistan.

    Otherwise, it is perfectly fine to voice concerns for the Hindus in Pakistan by anyone; be it Saffron, mild Orange or Pink.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ms Versey.u said ur relative bcame a hindu and u too became a hindu after having illicit relation's,kid's with Kafir's.so,you and your family Have got no right to speak abt Zakia jafri,she is an indian muslim and we muslim's are enough for her.pls you talk of her as a hindu or as an atheist(BOTH MEAN KAFIR's)..Zakia is a muslim woman and we muslim's will help her,don't need sympathies from kafir's like you.Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The very things I am accused of are here. If you say I am positing Zakia against Rinkle, then what are you people doing – and not just those commenting here? Zakia Jafri gets mileage for the same reason that Rinkle gets, too. And they should. In their respective countries.

    If there were hundreds of such riots, then there are hundreds of such Rinkles, according to your logic. I would not say something like this. I have written about more than one person. It’s here. Find it, if you want.

    Sadly Hindus and Hindu women are rendered second class citizens in India.....and Pak.
    The writers litany is Amusing.....i am sure she realises that india is "secular" only because of those bigotted Hindus that she so derogatively terms "saffronites"... The day muslims become a majority...we shall all become Rinkles


    Wonder why Hindus bother to line up outside the visa centres to go to the UAE, Saudi and other Muslim countries to work. Go bring them back before it is too late.

    Anon:

    Please read the media coverage of Rinkle, the police reports, and the courts.

    I would like you to corroborate the figures, please. I have said that the laws against minorities need to be dealt with in Pakistan.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rizwanalam:

    The problem is that the rightwing parties in India have taken over the middle-class space snidely. There are Hindus who vehemently disagree with their politics, but they keep parallel ideas, say development, handy. The Indian Muslim is a target because of this mindset. I have never said they are blameless, and in fact feel that many liberals play into the business of either the mullahs, the rightwing or the secular parties for their personal gains.

    Electoral defeat of the BJP will not alter things much…it is too late for that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. JJ:

    It isn’t the first time, but does it mean it should not be spoken about? I have often mentioned 1984. The point is if the phenomenon is a person, one blames her/him, whether it is Mayawati or Modi.

    i cant think on one country where Muslims are sharing land , law and democracy in any country and are not complaining …so somehwere Muslim intellectuals have to think , In India they want law , supreme court, rights and works but within their ummah they don't even allow visa free travel forget about nationality and human rights

    Expats in western countries are. They do complain when they are targeted for crimes committed by a handful. How would Hindus feel if all of them are seen as suspects for a Sadhvi Pragya or all armymen are seen as terrorists because of a Lt. Col? No one talks of Hindus as porn purveyors only because of a Nityanand.

    The point is not what Indian Muslims want, but what they have a Constitutional right to. Of course, there has to be a rethink on several issues, including personal law. Regarding your point about how they forget about how they are treated by the ummah elsewhere, it only reiterates my position that there is no uniformity. Why should they be given special rights when no one outside those countries is? Those are the laws of the land there. Simple. Are human rights records good? No. But then, who are we to say? Because we are a democracy do we have checks and balances? Yes. On paper. Cases drag on. The influential get away.

    Btw Zakia gets legal access and footage , you know what do the maid and the doctor get. So roots are in MISTRUST and it is actually going in wrong direction. I am not saying Zakia shouldnt get justice, I am saying she is likely to get as much as justice as Sikhs got in 1984 or Kashmiri Pandits got in 1989.

    For every Zakia who has access, there are hundreds who do not in our country. And I am not talking only about Gujarat or Muslims. This case has become important because of the government’s complicity. I have covered whatever aspect of it that I could in earlier pieces, including questioning the NGOs as well as the sting operation on Modi. In the case of Sikhs, we know that Congress ministers werev involved. With KPs, it was not the government.

    PS: I know and understand that not everyone has read me or can read all of what I write. I have become tired of engaging in long-winded ‘debates’ with people who come with preconceived notions. And yes, it is their business to check on who/what the person is before pronouncing their verdict. To suggest that I have no sympathy for rape victims is a real low, but it reveals what they are and not what I am.

    As always, it is enlightening discussing with you, differences aside.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hitesh:

    Insightful.

    But the fact of matter is we all live with dual identities in this modern world. One is associated with our historical identity; which in most cases happens to be religious but it can also be simply ethnic (like Chinese/Vietnamese/Uighurs etc.) and other acquired by where we live and make living. No matter how much we deny, they both do seem to matter to all at some stage in their life.

    This puts things in perspective. Our origins are not of out choosing, but we do get conditioned. It is not necessary that we comprehend or even accepot all of it; we rebel and question. But it remains our identity even if we completely move out. Much of it is because of how others have viewed us already.

    Then, where we live – whether outside the country or in a parts of the same country but not in a ghetto – we interact with others, so there is a meshing. Most Indian Muslims did. Heck, even the Mughals did. Until 1992-93, when one identity was thrown in their faces, a bit like the Sikhs in 84 who has to shave off their beards.

    It is a see-saw.

    What the saffron brigade in India wants is the poor excuse for doing what they want to do in India by using the atrocities in Pakistan. Otherwise, it is perfectly fine to voice concerns for the Hindus in Pakistan by anyone; be it Saffron, mild Orange or Pink.

    Your first part is what I am driving at. You just have an acceptable name! Regarding the latter bit, agreed it is fine to voice concern, but this s not concern. As you can see, it is about scoring points. As I said, they would not know who Rinkle was had they not read Pakistani papers.

    Btw, in your colour scheme you have omitted green – olive, parrot or leaf!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shafi Ahmed:

    You posted this comment twice and I later realised that in the other one you mentioned my “family culture”. Do you know what culture means?

    I am not sympathising with you, so lay off. And if you can take care of Zakia Jafri then ask your Muslim brothers not to go around asking for zakat from people you call kafirs, and that includes all the Khans of Bollywood. The mullahs happily go around in rallies with these same people.

    As for culture, your comment tells me enough about how much it has evaded you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I disagree with the last sentence. electoral loss of BJP, would force them to introspect, they may and I say may end up changing their political discourse, not that everyone is with the hinduvta ideology but they might sing that tune 24x7. with TWO electoral defeat, today the principal opposition party calls itself a center right party and some of their senior leaders have tried to mellow down their image by calling the founder of pak as secular and the Muslims of India as a guilt ridden and unpropitious but sadly its too late- bashing minorities can give them dividends in short term but in the long run it is unsustainable but I still believe as an Indian Muslim the BJP as party NOT to be reckoned with and I hope we vote as a group to defeat them in elections, the most peaceful instrument to defeat the most peacefulness instrument in polity

    ReplyDelete
  14. i said muslims that INCLUDES mulla's and seeking help from KAFIR's(Including u) isn't wrong.It's humanity.Look at the above blog,u urself b d judge,then u will agree with me ON YOUR KAFIR FAMILY CULTURE. Finally,i'm a muslim,a Highly cultured one from a Highly cultured community,very well known for it's Tehzeeb.so,u would b d last person on this earth whom i will ask "Certificate" on culture.ur culture is OUT IN THE OPEN,Shamelessly.It's a "kafir culture" of your kafir family.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rizwanalam:

    The BJP is not the ruling party now. Has it changed? No.

    I do not believe in any group voting en masse, although it is unlikely that Muslims or non-Hindutva supporting people from other communities would vote for it. Problem is, there are quite a few of those around. Wonder when they get converted.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Shafi Ahmed:

    If seeking help of people you call kafirs on humanitarian grounds is ok, it shows just how opportunistic you are.

    AND, now you listen up.

    1. You DO need a certificate from me if you want to talk about me, my family, and use my space.

    2. I do not need a certificate from you because this is my space, so it is my business.

    3. My culture does not permit me to drag your family into this.

    4. If this is tehzeeb, then it's pretty obvious to anyone that it is the equivalent of gun 'culture'.

    And now, since what I am and what i stand for bothers you so much, do stay away from here. It is haraam for you, and I really would not like to deny you your spot in heaven.

    PS: Your comments will not be posted.

    ReplyDelete
  17. >>don't need sympathies from kafir's like you.Bye.

    ... seeking help from KAFIR's(Including u) isn't wrong.It's humanity.

    Shafi, you are not only a bigot but a bigot with a bipolar personality disorder. You can't really make up your mind on KAFIRs, can you?

    >>Look at the above blog,u urself b d judge,then u will agree with me ON YOUR KAFIR FAMILY CULTURE.

    Are you used to having people agreeing to your abuses? That sure sounds like Highly Cultured!

    I guess if you haven't molested any children or swindled some money from Kafirs or Believers since last friday (both of which; the religious nuts like yourself are quite famous for) then you might even have some "tehzeeb".

    >>Finally,i'm a muslim,a Highly cultured one from a Highly cultured community,very well known for it's Tehzeeb.


    >>so,u would b d last person on this earth whom i will ask "Certificate" on culture.

    What you need is a "certificate" from a qualified psychiatrist; some lithium is also in order.

    >>ur culture is OUT IN THE OPEN,Shamelessly.It's a "kafir culture" of your kafir family.

    BEHIND-THE-CLOSED-DOOR is your style?

    Take a break or at least give one!

    ReplyDelete
  18. FV,

    QUOTE: "Problem is, there are quite a few of those around. Wonder when they get converted."

    Let me tell you something about it. In 2002, I was a proud pseudo-sekulaar. The fact that someone was or wasn't a Muslim never bothered me. I never noticed that some of the celebrity couples in bollywood were Hindu (usually the girl!)-Muslim. Though my father was an RSS sympathizer (also a casteist to the core-I admit- but that is a separate issue!), I had once fought a long debate with an RSS Pracharak in front of him over their "bigoted" views. Remember I was like that even after having lived through 92-93 as a teen. But the unprecedented Hindu reaction to the Godhra violence, the sekulaar double standards exposed thereafter and Modi's unique handling of the crisis changed all that for me. Whether Modi was right or wrong, guilty or innocent (in conventional thinking, of course) was not relevant any more. Here was a man, who went against the entrenched sekulaar hypocrisy, survived to tell the tale and flourished, without sounding apologetic even once. He was ready to pay the political price for what he believed in. This was a clear departure from the wetpant sekulaar narrative that is s**t-scared of taking on the hateful Islamic prejudices about non-Muslims. Life has not been the same ever since.

    Hope I was frank enough.
    ----
    I admit I have no answers for the rest of your questions. The reason is that India is not a Hindu nation as yet, neither is Hinduism as assertive as Islam (you may not agree, but it is the truth as I believe). The only aspect of Islam I admire is its vicious hatred of converts who go out of its fold. It is this standing threat which has helped force a fearful adherance. The earlier Hinduism learns this, better it is. (It has already been about six centuries!)
    --
    I have a few India-specific proposals.
    1. The religions in India should be divided into two categories, say A and B. Category A should include Hindusim, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism, religions which originated and are rooted in India, with free mixing of people and religious imagery happening regularly. Category B should include religions which have originated outside and structurally resist any identification them with India.
    2. Conversion within category A should be freely permitted.
    3. Conversion within category B should be permitted with restrictions.
    4. Conversion from category B to category A should be freely permitted.
    5. Conversion from category A to B should be entirely prohibited.

    Hope I sounded as convincing as a bespectacled fake sekulaar jholawala! Tis tough, though!

    ReplyDelete
  19. FV,

    I strongly request you to allow all shades of opinions to air themselves here. True conciliation is not possible otherwise.

    Hope I make the cut, btw. If I don't, the loss would be entirely mine.

    ReplyDelete
  20. >>The religions in India should be divided into two categories, say A and B.

    they already are:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_code_bills

    In the paragraph of "Second Draft" you see:

    This edition had eight sections: part one delineated who would be considered a Hindu and did away with the caste system. Significantly, part one stipulated that the Hindu Code would apply to anyone who was not a Muslim, Parsi, Christian or Jew, and asserted that all Hindus would be governed under a uniform law ...

    Further down in the same section:

    Conflicts also arose from the categorization of who would be considered Hindu. The Code established “Hindu” to be a negative category that would include all those who did not identify as a Muslim, Jew, Christian, or Parsi. Such a broad designation ignored the tremendous diversity of region, tradition and custom in Hinduism. Those who practiced Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism were considered to be Hindus under the jurisdiction of the Code Bill. While these had originally included aspects of Hinduism, by this time they had evolved into unique religions with their own customs, traditions, and rituals

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hitesh,

    I am aware of the provisions of the Constitutions. Thanks for bringing this up, though.

    My proposed categorization is different, in that it acknowledges separate identities of Sikh, Buddha and Jain religions. Besides, it trashes the meaningless sekulaarism and recognises the Hindu identity of India.

    ReplyDelete
  22. F&F:

    Thanks for sharing with us how you came to certain political views.

    Now, let's get down to business:

    Modi's unique handling of the crisis changed all that for me...Here was a man, who went against the entrenched sekulaar hypocrisy, survived to tell the tale and flourished, without sounding apologetic even once. He was ready to pay the political price for what he believed in.

    1. He was not the first. Advani/BJP did it after '92-93. Thackeray's USP is this.

    2. Modi survived to tell the tale? His victims did not, and those who did are fighting court cases ten years alter.

    3. He was not afraid of the consequences because he knew he has captured the imagination of the thriving middle-class.

    I do not believe all people who call themselves secular are above-board. But, you brand people and do not wish the Hindutva groups to be branded.

    PS: Your reference to allowing all stripes of opinions won't work. Such individuals do not deserve this space, I am afraid, is all they do is abuse and that too without any variation.

    PPS: Nice try to make the cut yourself :) You were missed...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hitesh:

    Thanks for both your comments. About the delineation, I do agree that boxing in takes away from diversity.

    Let me have a go at the F&F proposals:

    "2. Conversion within category A should be freely permitted."

    If they are similar, then why the need?

    "3. Conversion within category B should be permitted with restrictions."

    And what are the parameters? Are there legal provisions?

    "4. Conversion from category B to category A should be freely permitted."

    Of course!

    "5. Conversion from category A to B should be entirely prohibited."

    Of course!

    "Category B should include religions which have originated outside and structurally resist any identification them with India."

    So, a Nepali Hindu would identify more with India than an Indian Muslim or Christian? And have the Parsis not adapted to India? How do we measure identification - nationalism, culture, mores? Are the latter two not varied within groups and based on social strata too?

    India is not a Hindu country.

    "Hope I sounded as convincing as a bespectacled fake sekulaar jholawala! Tis tough, though!"

    You sound as stereotypical as the stereotypes you inflict on others. It's a cakewalk for you, my dear!

    ReplyDelete
  24. ideology makes people blind. and dumb.........among other things.

    ReplyDelete
  25. FV,

    I strongly suspect that the obfuscation you resort to is intentional. Neither Advani nor Thakre held any official position in any govt at the time you refer to. Thakre hasn't done ever. But I guess since these guys seemed to side with Hindu community, they are eternally condemned to infamy without trial. Would you call Sudhakarrao Naik and PV Narsimha Rao mass murderers? After all it was their govts which "failed miserably in protecting the secular constitution"!
    ----
    When you use the term "Modi's victims", you have already formed a prejudice regardless of probe findings, court verdicts or election results. Stereotyping and bias rule the roost when it comes to Gujarat, it seems!

    I have commented elsewhere that when it comes to Gujarat 2002, truth is what one WANTS to believe, and this applies to both sides.

    Though it hardly matters, which side are you on, o subjective one?
    -----
    QUOTE: "India is not a Hindu country"

    I agree fully. I said as much in my comment, in fact. With 'as yet' added, of course!
    ----
    I have myself branded Hindutva groups in terms they may not like much. Why should I object to your branding them? What I object to is the sekulaar double standards- one for Muslim sentiments and another for Hindu ones!
    ----
    QUOTE: "..he knew he has captured the imagination of the thriving middle-class."

    Any guesses why? Do you have any subjective advice to offer to this class of voters? What happened to the thriving middle classes outside Gujarat? I know the Qs sound rhetorical. Indeed they are, because I already know the answers.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Govt rewards loyal babus with plum posts after retirement
    http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/government-gifts-honest-babus-with-plum-posts-after-retirement/1/188919.html"
    ---
    Can anyone explain why Narendra Modi govt should be singled out for abuse on this count?

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.