20.6.13

Advani and Modi: No Exit — Will Muslims show the way out?

Pic: NDTV

By now everyone and their favourite Jasuben pizza joint is aware that Narendra Modi has been 'elevated'. This is the sort of delusion that his devotees depend on, reminiscent of milk pouring out of murtis. A crowd will gather; some will see the milk. No one will bother that it's a trick. Believers like to be tricked. They call it faith.

All that Modi managed to get by way of a 'national' role was that of Election Campaign Committee head of the BJP. It means that he is in charge of PR. He will manage the slogans, the hoardings, what lectures do give when, who should do what to look nice.

Of course, he is canny and may have other ideas to push himself. What truly surprises me — and one of the main reasons for not writing about it thus far — is the hyped-up Modi vs. Advani battle. It is as much of a gourmet delight as a flat soufflé.

According to latest reports, LK Advani has actually informed the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat that he has a problem with Modi's elevation.

"The veteran leader has reportedly emphasised the need for collective leadership in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) for the 2014 elections."

On June 10, at the BJP conclave he reported unwell. Then he resigned saying he did not like the way the party functioned. The leaders met him. He withdrew his resignation. Modi claimed that he had Advani's blessings. Nobody knows what that was for — to become a speech writer?

All this to and fro should tell us what we already know: the RSS decides on BJP policy, irrespective of who visits its pracharaks. So, an Indian voting for the BJP is casting a vote in favour of an organisation that has power without responsibility and a few of its members have been involved in terrorist activities.

To add to the controversy, Sudheendra Kulkarni, Advani's aide and a well-known ideologue of the party, wrote about the two leaders in his piece:

"...A self-centered leader who has shown that he cares two hoots for the party organization and long-time party colleagues in his own state has suddenly become all powerful in the BJP's national scheme of things, whereas a selfless leader who toiled for many decades to build the party brick by brick is being cast aside as a useless relic."

I'd have thought Kulkarni, with his often sharp insights, would not even consider that Modi has become "all powerful". Has he fallen for the autosuggestion by a bunch of cheerleaders? Modi is not "autocratic", as he suggests. To be autocratic, you need to have an ideology in place. Modi has none. He is the mukhauta — first of himself and then of the party. As the mask of the party, he has to send out sound bytes and signals that convey to an extent what the party wishes to project. As the mask of himself, he has to cover up his flaws with a whole lot of concealer. He is a cosmetic dream.


Kulkarni further adds about Advani:

"Precisely for this reason, he was both respected and feared by his party men, until his position was thoughtlessly weakened by the RSS in the wake of a manufactured controversy over his visit to Pakistan in 2005 and his comments on Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan."

Today, this sounds odd, given that the senior leader has visited the same RSS that had weakened him to express reservations about the man who "cares two hoots" about the party.

Besides this, I have issues with Mr. Advani and in no manner will I consider his character certificate of secularism to Jinnah as being of any consequence to Indian Muslims. Let me re-post a long extract of what I wrote in May 2009 about the confused position of Indian Muslims:

***

It isn't the BJP defeat that bothers me as much as the Congress victory. For, we are being fed these false images of a young India, an India on the move, an India that is secular. How different is it from the 'India Shining' baloney?


The messages like the one I mentioned are mostly from progressive Indian Muslims who blatantly play the communal card, forcing mullahs to walk with them on peace rallies. They don't even realise the silliness of their stand. Who stopped peace and progress while the non-communal government was in power? And was God not great when the NDA was at the Centre?

The worst part is the assumption that communal forces have been defeated. Take a look at the candidates put up. Why were rookies chosen? Because the majority of the electorate from those areas were from a particular caste or community. Besides that, every religious leader will be wooed. The tendency to jump the gun is opportunistic. The rally-wallah Musalmans know exactly which cause to espouse and when.

And we have had the disgusting sight of a man whose house was burned down during the Gujarat riots sit before a TV panel and tell the audience to move on. Why? He is a rich.

That is the reason I think the Indian Muslim reaction is kneejerk. Narendra Modi is not a spent force; he may be a regional leader but that is his strength. He has managed to consolidate his position in such a manner that even Muslim businessmen are talking about economic growth. That is all they are interested in. Modi spoke about fifty million Gujaratis without mentioning religion. It will be his smart card for years to come.

In fact, the BJP's defeat will boost his position. While L K Advani is a statesman without a state, Modi will work his way through home ground. And nothing will happen to him. With vultures already preying on the party leadership position, Advani will have to deal with his own creation. He thought Modi would be a domesticated pet who could act as watchdog to warn visitors. The leash, alas, was too long.

The handful of the 250 million Muslims can continue to live in their canny paradise, but they have no right to make fools of those who do not have a choice or a voice.

When Uma Bharti had the gumption to declare before the elections that she and the senior BJP leaders did not know who demolished the Babri Masjid, there were no rallies by these so-called liberal Muslims demanding an explanation.

When there were questions asked about certain lies by NGOs in Gujarat, why did these Muslims not come forward and provide facts and figures or ask their own questions? How many of them will speak to the new government about expediting these cases? Or will they only look for their chance of getting a Rajya Sabha seat?

When the Darul Uloom issued a fatwa asking Muslims to vote, why did they not tell the religious organisation to stop interfering in the business of the state even if they were responding to the queries raised by the devout?

***

Regarding the two portions I have emphasised in bold, the latter is deja vu for it is being dished out these days all over the place. There has been no reason to alter any stand I have taken. For a party that berates others for vote bank politics, Modi's minions flaunt the number of Muslims who vote for him. It does not take much to understand why. They'd vote for a puppet who leaves them alone. I maintain that Modi will remain a regional leader.

As for Advani, Kulkarni has called him a democrat. Perhaps within the party cadre, he was. But democratic at the national level?

I don't have time or inclination for politesse. He was the man who was responsible for making Ram Janmabhoomi into a political issue. Can anyone take his "being in the dark" statement to the Liberhan Commission or his comment about December 6, 1992 being the "saddest day of his life" seriously?

Not if you read up on what IPS officer Anju Gupta deposed. Here is one remark she made:

“I did not see any of these leaders making any effort to stop the demolition of the disputed structure. Advani was sad only about the fact that people were falling off the domes and dying.’’

Uma Bharti and Sadhvi Rithambara hugged him after the demolition.

You might think I speak only as a Muslim. We are dealing with two leaders, two major riots, both involving one community. The community needs to introspect about how it thinks and how that ought to change.

Opportunistic leaders, whether in the garb of predators or prey, are not committed to democracy or the country. In an India that wants to live without bigotry, it is not Modi vs. Advani, but Modi and Advani vs. good sense.

L.K.Advani once played kingmaker, pushing Atal Behari Vajpayee ahead. Why? He knew he was tainted. It was a pragmatic decision. The RSS will have to force Modi to wear the mantle of kingmaker for the same reason.

The cheerleaders will laud his 'sacrifice' to save their own face. And soon disperse into the interiors of Gujarat to sell another dream to the NRI sons of the soil.

It will be back to square one, after moving round in circles.

© Farzana Versey

49 comments:

  1. FV,

    It may not just be a matter of faith in Modi, more than a faith that he can replicate what he claims to have done in the state in the last decade, when he has been in charge, since the 2002 riots. He has not campaigned on religion or caste so far, and has maintained the development line steadfastly, so have to credit him for political astuteness, if nothing else. But his actions in Gujarat have also not favoured any one community over the other according to the locals, and certainly he has managed to attract industry and business leaders to invest in his state, which is more than the central govt. has managed to do thanks to its stupid policies that have scared investors away.

    Advani is a poor joke who still thinks anyone cares about silly, one-point religious agenda. Still seems to be going on and on and on about Ayodhya, and is probably getting his "chariot" serviced at the shop as we speak.

    Unless actual jobs are created for the burgeoning youth, the riots and problems of the present will seem like a picnic a decade from now -- lots of unemployed youth is usually a recipe for trouble. Of course, Modi may all be pure hot air for all we know, but the current bunch in New Delhi has proven its incompetence over the past decade quite spectacularly.

    If there is one constant in Indian politics, it is anti-incumbency, probably because each new regime sucks as bad as the previous one. Indian politics is such an ugly mess that none of it makes sense if you look at it hard enough...the old tale of the elephant and five blind men seems apt when it comes to analyzing Indian politics.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  2. FV

    Btw the two riots did not involve one community. They involved two communities.

    Else you would not be writing about them. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. FV

    Anju Gupta is married to a Muslim. I do not know if she has converted but I think her children are Muslim. Her statements therefore do not deserve such premium.

    By the way no Muslim leader (or follower!) made any attempt to stop Pandit exodus, terror attacks, bomb blasts and persecution of Rushdie and Taslima. Let us have a blog post on their sekulaar credentials too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. F&F:

    All the best to you, too. See you at the hust(l)ings :)

    ---

    Al:

    1. Modi's development is based on a progress that was already there. If he has added to it, then that is 'progression'.

    2. Am not taken in by corporate India's support. Ratan Tata went there after he was thrown out of West Bengal. The Ambanis already had their factories there. Am not sure how much a capitalist idea can cover up welfare schemes.

    3. Modi has not overtly used the religion card, but covertly it has always been there. His rituals convey that, as does his strong belief in Hindutva.

    4. Advani is in auto mode for years. But make no mistake that Modi will not be able to junk the mandir issue, if he ever makes it to any level in national politics. PM he will not be.

    5. I agree that the Centre has not performed well and I don't use that as a yardstick to compare the BJP with. The latter, as the former, does not really care about real issues.

    6. Anti-incumbency works and is good, but often it is done without a thought. I'd prefer a strong Opposition to replacing one bad apple with another. Offends the gourmand in me!

    7. Nothing. 7 is my lucky number. Oh, since I am here, I repeat: Modi will not be PM :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. "7. Nothing. 7 is my lucky number. "

    FV, :) that about convinces me of your argument. I am apathetic to whether he rises or not, but think it would be a good thing if political parties started to compete on the basis of governance issues and economic ideas rather than caste and religion as has been the case for so long. That may happen with or without his presence, but the current crowd in New Delhi has absolutely trashed institutions in a damaging way, and they need to either stop doing that or be thrown out and replaced by someone..anyone really. I am not sure constitutional republics can survive if institutions of the state are destroyed and rendered ineffective due to unethical politics that chooses to abuse state power for political games..seems like the road to ruin in the long term for any state.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  6. "5. I agree that the Centre has not performed well and I don't use that as a yardstick to compare the BJP with. The latter, as the former, does not really care about real issues. "

    FV, the diversity of the populace is one of the reasons why there is no consensus on the issues themselves, let alone a resolution to the consensus. Glad I stopped paying attention to politics in general, as I find it futile, mostly because the "mind" of a mob is not interesting or predictable. There are better (read, more useful and fun) things to spend one's mental energies outside of all this ugly political nonsense.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Advani is in auto mode for years. "

    :) More specifically, that auto is a Toyota truck.
    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  8. F&F:

    I replied to you before I saw the later two comments, so here: 

    {Anju Gupta is married to a Muslim. I do not know if she has converted but I think her children are Muslim. Her statements therefore do not deserve such premium.}

    Oh, so you who are at pains to point out that you do not support barbarism by anyone now find the statement of an IPS officer who was at the site disputable only because she is married to a Muslim. (I did not even know that, because I guess it is as irrelevant to me as the fact that some Hindutva leaders would flaunt their Muslim barbers and drivers.) 

    Her personal life has got nothing to do with what has been recorded. I have Hindu colleagues who covered the Ayodhya movement and were there. 

    I must say this comment was a real low. May I lead you to another one you posted in response to someone alluding to my faith being common with Jiah Khan's? [http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16761020&postID=2933771046905548292&isPopup=true]

    Free and Footloose

    FV

    I just read comment by anonymus above and your reply thereto. I think I have class! :)


    It does not take long to drop that class, does it? 

    {By the way no Muslim leader (or follower!) made any attempt to stop Pandit exodus, terror attacks, bomb blasts and persecution of Rushdie and Taslima. Let us have a blog post on their sekulaar credentials too.}

    How naïve, if not vicious this is. First, for those who talk about separation of religion and state it is convenient to talk about 'Muslim' leaders/followers and their responsibilities. You take random issues that have absolutely no connection with one another or even common Muslims. And I don't have the time or inclination to point you toward what I have written. And, in any case, they would not be as uni-dimensional as you would like. Besides, your blinkers are in place and refuse to see those who do protest. 

    While we are at it, how many Hindus 'stopped' (your terminology) the bomb blasts and terror attacks by saffron groups and the genocide right under the nose of a saffron leadership? 

    Talk when you get out of the glass house. 

    ReplyDelete
  9. Al:

    I'd be repeating myself, so I'll desist. We are never sure about what any elected government will do once in power. And we have no choice but to live with the fact that the state decides on policy and welfare.

    Who, how, what...we are always surprised/shocked.

    It is difficult to remove oneself completely from what happens around. But, yes, I'd like to take myself away once in a while to detox!

    ReplyDelete
  10. FV

    Thanks for permitting the classless comments.

    May I bring out that I have never ever spoken about the blogger's personal life. As for Anju Gupta, I stand by my views even if I were to state them to the lady herself.

    Btw, husband = driver = barber?? Now THAT will surely invite personal jokes by some! :)

    The finger-pointing as to "who started it?" can go on till cows (pigs?) come home. I reiterate: The Muslim-Qafir binary is an Islamic creation. I am sure the blogger is aware of this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. " We are never sure about what any elected government will do once in power. And we have no choice but to live with the fact that the state decides on policy and welfare. "

    FV, Indeed, cannot and don't disagree, that is the rationale for the existence of republic -- to be governed by some party thrown up by the popular vote every few years. My concern is less about the near term than about the long term consequences of the destruction of the institutions by political parties, which is harder to correct once corrupted, and weakens the framework of the republic. Don't really want India to become another Zimbabwe down the line because of such events.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  12. FV

    Your argument / opinion is curious. Terror attacks by Jihadis (who identify this country as Hindu) and Pandit exodus brought about by a virulent Islamic movement are of no consequence to Muslims. But Gujarat 2002 and Narendra Modi are. Did I read that right?

    If so, does it fit in with the great sekulaar thought? I guess it does...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi FV
    In a page you have traversed across 2 events and wave of sociological angle. You have also gone into depths on nuances, persona & sequences that I felt like a bob floating on waves.

    Few new dimensions you have opened to my vision setting me different angled viewfinders. Its a new style of confident penmanship that stiches the realities, bluff & illusions into a web that catches attention.

    Thanks for being such a great author (I am new to your writing) with an insight thats able to escape the straight-jacketing.

    Few comments I wanted to raise while reading, but subsequent lines gave me answers.

    One confusion I will always have. Minority community of daybyday families - ones who do think more of meeting ends meet before day settles than socio-politics - when they fall victim, as always in manufactured riots what can they do! Minority is generalization, applies to any such. This I script here since you built confidence in me to do it.

    My appreciations!
    ATB. Bye.
    Bhoomi

    ReplyDelete
  14. FV

    Here's personal opinion. Not to be assumed as an indicator of sympathy for anyone (If still assumed as such, well, all I can say is that your blinkers are firmly in place too!)

    Breaking up with Nitish is the right and most logical thing BJP has done. After all, political power for them is supposed to be merely a means for a greater objective, which is elimination of a fake, Islam-scared sekulaarism that can go to any lengths to please the Jihadi elements in Muslim community and establishment of a political mainstream with Hinduism at its centre. Therefore 2014 -or any-polls can not be an end in themselves. Their ideology has suferred badly due to their abject compromises with people like Paswan and Abdullah, made merely for the sake of power. I am sure this is not lost on RSS. They need to have courage to stand by their core beliefs without fear of consequences. After all, if Nitish can say "Be secular if you want me" why can't they say "Support Mandir if you want us"? Muslims are anyway unlikely to back them en masse. At least not in near future. So it will be a stupid folly to discard basic ideology and woo them

    ReplyDelete
  15. Al:

    The genesis of the problems are because of short-term concerns. One needs to look way ahead to ensure that the Now is taken care of.

    We may not be Zimbabwe simply because we still have an outsourcing potential. Irony.

    ReplyDelete
  16. F&F:

    1. What views exactly are you standing by? You spoke about who Anju Gupta was married to, her children's religion and adduced that it was enough not to pay attention to her.

    2. No, you don't read me right. My reply is the same as the one I gave earlier.

    3. I don't care about Nitish Kumar's secularism. But, do go ahead and promote the Modi cause.

    Tell me how it was...

    ReplyDelete
  17. BoBhoomi:

    Am glad you came by he when the waves were not stormy! Thank you...

    {Few comments I wanted to raise while reading, but subsequent lines gave me answers.}

    Hear! Hear! I wish more people read through, instead of trying to 'see through' :)

    {One confusion I will always have. Minority community of daybyday families - ones who do think more of meeting ends meet before day settles than socio-politics - when they fall victim, as always in manufactured riots what can they do! Minority is generalization, applies to any such.}

    You are right. It is the people who are poor who get affected most. Although in some riots trading establishments are targeted, the idea is always to bludgeon the 'meek' and then solve their problems with handouts to win their confidence and ultimately get their votes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi FV,

    I didnt get it. How can Hindus(victims) be held culpable for bomb blasts & genocide perpertrated by Jihadis dissimulating as hindus.

    Unless you are also dissembling. But it takes a whole lot of Al-Taqquiya to pass that off.

    I that case you might have to keep trying, you might convince yourself.

    Tamasic

    ReplyDelete
  19. FV

    My views on Hinduism are clear. A Hindu person who converts out of Hinduism or does not feel a need to bring up his/her children as Hindu is beneath contempt. Hinduism accords space to every belief, thought and ideology (including Hindutva) in its fold. However, a ban on outward conversions (and suitable preventive measures) is the only thing it needs to learn from Islam. The sooner the better.

    I have often said that I am neither pro nor anti Narendra Modi. His becoming or not becoming PM will have no bearing on the lives of 90% Indians. However, I have enough sense to figure out that sekulaar cabal's singling him out for 'special treatment' has ulterior motives. Riots are not unique either to Gujarat or to India. So far, the likelihood of being branded 'anti Muslim' or 'communal' (interchangeable terms in India) scared most politicians into apologetically toeing the sekulaar line. Narendra Modi so far has not given in. That is the only thing that sets him apart from the rest. Nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "A Hindu person who converts out of Hinduism or does not feel a need to bring up his/her children as Hindu is beneath contempt. Hinduism accords space to every belief, thought and ideology (including Hindutva) in its fold."

    Aren't those two statements contradictory? If Hinduism accords space to every thought and ideology, then a hindu person that chooses own path to bring up children seems to be following the tenets of hinduism. Just saying....seems like logic and conservative religious beliefs don't get along well either.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  21. A person who rejects Hinduism can not expect to benefit by the openness and tolerance of Hinduism. I do not think commentators on this blog need to be explained this.

    Of course I could be wrong! :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. "A person who rejects Hinduism can not expect to benefit by the openness and tolerance of Hinduism."

    and
    ". Hinduism accords space to every belief, thought and ideology (including Hindutva) in its fold."

    The two statements are contradictory, and no amount of restating the same nonsense will change that.

    If hinduism is open and tolerant, then obviously it has to be tolerant to any individual interpretation of it, according to your earlier rhetoric.

    This rhetorical nonsense of proclaiming "hinduism being a religion of peace and tolerance, and simultaneously declaring intolerance to any one choosing to practise their own version is not very different from the islamic fundamentalist stance of "those who leave islam need to be punished", while simultaneously adding "islam is a religion of peace".
    Both groups insist on combining religion and politics, and have contempt for secularism of any kind.

    Quite interesting how fundamentalists are so alike, and yet hate each others gut so much. What a laugh.

    -Al


    "If I choose not to decide, I still have made a choice"

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon,

    Cool. Why dont you tell this to the sekulaar Muslims instead of me? I will pray for the safety of your throat and condemn in advance anyone who reacts violently. :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Cool. Why dont you tell this to the sekulaar Muslims instead of me? "

    Sekulaar muslims did not give me bullshit logic about "complete and total freedom in hinduism" followed by a contradictory statement that indicated the opposite. I suggest you defend your contradictory nonsense on your own instead of invoking strawmen.

    "complete and total freedom" should mean exactly that, otherwise it is being used as a rhetorical device like you just did.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon,

    I think I will just quote from my previous comment and trust your comprehension.



    "Hinduism accords space to every belief, thought and ideology (including Hindutva) in its fold. However, a ban on outward conversions (and suitable preventive measures) is the only thing it needs to learn from Islam."

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I think I will just quote from my previous comment and trust your comprehension."

    I can bloody well read -- your "explanation" is self-contradictory and basically useless -- you have to do better. Was that clear enough for you? I have explained why your logic is no different from that of the islamists that you abhor so much. hindus have no right to dictate on what the individual hindu chooses to do, just like muslims have no right to dictate muslim choices. What that clear enough this time? Trust you won't repeat your BS and pretend that is my comprehension that is the problem rather than you ludicruous "logic".

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  27. F&F, Ok, so religious groups have a right to force people to stay in the group, so that their numbers don't reduce, as the one with the most numbers "wins". Not very different from other religious groups you abhor for having the same sentiments, if I may point out. Reason why it is a good idea to separate church and state, but such reason is lost on most Indians it seems. Whatever.
    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anon,

    I wish you had read my previous comments and responses on this blog. Anyway i will recapitulate.

    Hinduism is the only religion which has a proven ability to adapt and change in tune with times. It has changed numerous times and will continue to. Hindutva is just one such avatar among many. It came about in response to the ferocious onslaught launched on Hinduism by Islamic Jihadis and Christian evangelists in medieval period and thereafter. Sooner or later, Hindutva too will either disappear and be replaced by something more appropriate or will transform itself into another version. However, the sekulaar thought intentionally ignores the stimuli which gave birth to Hindutva. As long as these threats to Hinduism remain, Hindutva (or some form thereof) will also exist.

    Your argument that Hinduism's freedom of thought and belief should apply to its sworn enemies who are consumed with hatred and scorn for everything Hindu, is typical sekulaar nonsense. I wonder if in the same vein, you would also ask Hindus to put to sword all their brethren who convert to Islam and then advice Muslims to support the act since it is in keeping with their beliefs.

    Will you? I sincerely doubt. Because using different yardsticks for Hindus and non-Hindus is an article of faith for the sekulaars. Pun intended!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Tamasic:

    I don't need to convince myself about anything, but you have convinced yourself that everybody you don't like is a Muslim. Just as well. Am sure welcoming Swami Assemanand, Lt. Col. Sunil Purohit, Sadhvi Pragya, besides a huge number of foot soldiers, pracharaks and politicians would not pose a problem for the jihadis.

    ---

    F&F, this 'anon' signs his name as Al. Use it. Us something at least!

    ReplyDelete
  30. ""Your argument that Hinduism's freedom of thought and belief should apply to its sworn enemies who are consumed with hatred and scorn for everything Hindu"

    No. I meant it should apply to hindus who do not want to part of any group, hindu or muslim. some hindus don't need the protection of the hindu mob either, and if hinduism was all that open and awesome, it should not have a problem with such hindus should it?

    "I wonder if in the same vein, you would also ask Hindus to put to sword all their brethren who convert to Islam and then advice Muslims to support the act since it is in keeping with their beliefs."

    Right, so it is a numbers game, as I already pointed out. It has nothing to do with hinduism as a religion, it is about hinduism as a political doctrine, just like Islam is a political doctrine when practised by a mob.

    "Will you? I sincerely doubt. Because using different yardsticks for Hindus and non-Hindus is an article of faith for the sekulaars. "

    That sounds like your prejudice talking. I have only been pointing out the similarity between your rhetoric and the islamists you abhor so much. You did that in your latest response too.

    "However, the sekulaar thought intentionally ignores the stimuli which gave birth to Hindutva. As long as these threats to Hinduism remain, Hindutva (or some form thereof) will also exist."

    Where have you heard "X khatre mein hain"? where X = islam, hinduism, christianity etc.? You are so alike to those that you detest that you can't even see the similarity even when it is pointed out to you, which is just fascinating.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  31. F&F:"Hinduism is the only religion which has a proven ability to adapt and change in tune with times. It has changed numerous times and will continue to. "

    Maybe Hindus need to change in order for hinduism to change, just like muslims need to change for their religion to take a different character. But then if hinduism and islam are all in danger from external threats, they are not going to allow any change until all external threats are "removed". So hinduism has lost its ability to change since it has to become a lot like the other religions that threaten it, making it the same as what its fundamentalists want to save it from. Essentially, all the fundamentalists would like to destroy their religions in order to save it. Makes total sense now.
    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  32. AI (suggestion noted, FV. I do use them.)

    I am happy you registered the similarity between Islam and Hindutva. I am sure you also acknowledge the fact that one is a full fledged religion with strict, codified, coercive obligations and the other, just one of the many streams of thought in another religion.

    Sekulaar wetpants find the latter a bigger threat. I find that ridiculous. They find me a bigot and declare me an RSS activist. Such are the ways of Allah's world! :)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Correction in my comment:

    "They find me to be a bigot.." and not "They find me a bigot..".

    Got to guard against the sekulaar sense of humour!

    ReplyDelete
  34. F&F"I am happy you registered the similarity between Islam and Hindutva."

    I have also noted the similarity between you and islamists, not to repeat myself.

    "I am sure you also acknowledge the fact that one is a full fledged religion with strict, codified, coercive obligations and the other, just one of the many streams of thought in another religion."

    Now, now, what was that you said earlier, let me quote you:

    ""A Hindu person who converts out of Hinduism or does not feel a need to bring up his/her children as Hindu is beneath contempt. "

    That seems to imply that there is some sort of codified hinduism that hindus need to follow in order to not elicit contempt from hindutva fundamentalists.

    well, frankly, I unable to tell the difference between you and an islamist, and all your explanations are not helping clear my confusion. Of course, you assume that "Sekulaars" like me hate hinduism...but hey, don't want you to lose your precious illusions. Keep them.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  35. AI (I allmost typed Alice in Wonderland),

    You seem to look for hidden implications in plain statements. My words mean exactly what they say. Hinduism has nothing codified except an obligation to respect the beliefs of a person who considers him/herself Hindu.

    I suppose now you understand that a person who has gone out of the fold of Hinduism does not qualify.

    I must also bring to your notice that there is no bar against being a Hindu and worshipping Allah, Mohammed, Hajiali, Zarathrustra, Jesus Christ or St Michael.

    Let me know if you find another religion like that. As for Hindutva, it has taken shape within Hinduism and as a historic necessity.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Hinduism has nothing codified except an obligation to respect the beliefs of a person who considers him/herself Hindu."

    And this codification is crucial because.....? let me guess, "because you say so".

    "I suppose now you understand that a person who has gone out of the fold of Hinduism does not qualify."

    This is not some examination to "qualify" - fundamentalists are not required to certify the credentials of their co-religionists, much as they would like to arrogate themselves to that position. So these sentinels of hinduism can all shove their "qualifying exams" up a cold, damp hole.

    " must also bring to your notice that there is no bar against being a Hindu and worshipping Allah, Mohammed, Hajiali, Zarathrustra, Jesus Christ or St Michael."

    And this is the fault of the other religions? So if your complaint is that hindus worship other gods and the rest don't reciprocate, why is it everyone else's fault? Why don't you pick a god or 10 and stick with them instead of trying to prove to everyone else that you are so very tolerant of other gods, when the entire notion of gods is on shaky ground?

    "Let me know if you find another religion like that."

    I just did -- it is called Paymealotarianism. I will send you the instructional booklets and the wonderful ways of the religion for a small fee that you can mail to. (Minimum donation 4000 Rs.)

    The Holy Temple of Paymealot,
    C/O Alagusundaram Periyannan (Al)
    (Corner of Five Corner Street)
    Tiruvanmayur, Chennai, Tamilnadu

    Hope to enlighten in the true ways of the divine once I receive your check.

    "As for Hindutva, it has taken shape within Hinduism and as a historic necessity"

    You can cut the rhetorical nonsense -- have you been to the Chidambaram Temple? Do you know its significance to hinduism? And do you know what transpired before then? What is significant about one of the two main deities in that temple?

    If you can answer these questions, maybe you can be considered anything other than some ignorant religious rabblerouser making random claims about hinduism.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  37. AI,

    Good to see so much energy around here, though little else.

    Thanks for highlighting the Chidambaram temple story for me. It is there on the web. However, you seem to indicate that since I am not an encyclopaedia of Hinduism, I better keep silent. I think tThis line of argument is quite amusing. By this logic, you should not speak a word about Hindutva since you have most certainly not read say, the complete works of Veer Savarkar. Do you agree?

    I will take the liberty of steering the discussion to the original path.

    1.

    QUOTE: ".. Why don't you pick a god or 10 and stick with them instead of trying to prove to everyone else that you are so very tolerant of other gods.."

    Your disdainful arguments about Hinduism only serve to show me how biased you are from the beginning. A faith generally does not answer tot he question "why". You are quite right there. What is revealing is that your "hard-hitting" questions are entirely aimed at Hinduism. I take it as the proof that you like your pro-Jihadi head to remain connected to your neck!

    Sorry, didn't mean to be, well, mean. What's a little joke when talking about faith? Ask the danish cartoonist!

    --
    2.

    QUOTE: "... fundamentalists are not required to certify the credentials of their co-religionists.."

    Do you know that death-for-apostasy laws were not invented by Taliban? They exist in a number of Islamic countries which, in your view, may even qualify as moderate - whatever that means. They were in force in India under (tolerant!) Mughal rule. There is no reason to assume they will not stage a comeback. Remember, we are not talking of Osama Bin Laden or Mullah Omar. We are talking of ISLAM and MUSLIMS and QURAN. In totally generic sense. Let us now hear some of your "Fun With Faith" jokes - the Halaal kind.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Thanks for highlighting the Chidambaram temple story for me. It is there on the web. However, you seem to indicate that since I am not an encyclopaedia of Hinduism, "

    F&F, no, it is isn't. And you do not have to be an encyclopaedia on hinduism, since the answer relates to shiva and vishnu, two of the main deities in hinduism. I am fully aware that any moron can google up things on the web and make pretensions to knowledge, so I already checked before I posed that question to you.

    When you find the answer to my questions, you will find that you claims of hinduism are not quite true. So, basically you are an ignorant person who makes pretensions of knowing what hinduism is all about.

    "I will take the liberty of steering the discussion to the original path.":

    No, you failed to qualify. You are a rabblerousing tool and I have no intention of letting you set the agenda in this discussion. Answer my question first and I will reciprocate. You are the typical hindu right-wing blowhard that gives hinduism a bad name.

    "Your disdainful arguments about Hinduism only serve to show me how biased you are from the beginning."

    Being able to worship gods from all religions is not necessarily a positive trait, even though you seem to believe it is. if you really did believe, "all gods are one", you should not really mind if hindus quit hinduism altogether and join some other religion now, would you? But that is not the case, is it. If I am demonstrating any disdain here, it is for your bare-faced hypocrisy. My disdain is not towards hinduism or hindus, but those who claim "all gods are one" and then talk about leaving hindu gods for other gods as a crime against hinduism. This is all politics, not religion. I am done with you. Have a nice day, or not.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Do you know that death-for-apostasy laws were not invented by Taliban? "

    Ah, so your move to "protect hindus who qualify" was your emulating the taliban example? Well, glad you explained. I can see where you are coming from. Great role models, if you don't mind me saying so. Good luck with your crusade to protect hinduism.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  40. AI


    Thank you for your best wishes. They are as cynical, patronising and malicious as the rest of your "views". Equally amusing too, I must say.

    Calling me names will not help. These too can be googled and used. Sorry to see you quit halfway. The loss was entirely mine. All the best. And I m not faking that! :)

    ReplyDelete
  41. "These too can be googled and used. Sorry to see you quit halfway. The loss was entirely mine. "

    Well, go on then and give me your googled answer, or are you saying you are not capable of using search engines?

    I shall wait for you answer a simple question on the history of hinduism (which is not really as monolithic as you make it out to be, which is the reason behind the question). As for my hostile tone with you, I don't take kindly to patronizing sarcasm, and was just demonstrating that it is not a very difficult thing to do.

    As for the questions you are yet to answer: after all, if you are going to be setting the standards for hinduism, you should be extremely clear about what exactly it is you are defending, yes?

    I am not going anywhere. Just patiently waiting for your response to some simple questions. I don't have to respond to you if you don't have the courtesy to answer my questions. So carry on and get back here with your answer, and we can continue.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  42. AI,

    Nice to know you haven't disenagaged yet. Way to go.

    1. I do not know how you concluded that I visualise a monolithic Hinduism. I can only surmise that it is on account of bias, for what I have been stating here is quite the opposite.

    2. Who or what constitutes Hindu, is a totally legitimate question. Please feel elated at having brought it up. The fact is I have personally been thinking about it for a very long time. The best answer I could come up with was, One who consides oneself Hindu is one. There may be a better way to define it and I would love to hear it from anyone who cares to attempt. (I suspect you are already raring to have a go at my definition with your well-researched terms of derision).

    3. Hinduism has never attempted to define itself in exclusivist terms. Hindutva is a recent phenomenon and its anti-Muslim tilt is on account of well-documented historic factors. You, with your tinted glasses, will perhaps see my explanation as "Inspiratin from Taliban". Suit yourself.

    4. Hinduism has always encouraged its followers to undertake their own search for truth and peace. I assure you I will visit the Chidambaram temple you speak of and learn about its significance to the history of evolution of Hinduism. I am sure that will help me understand your sarcasms better! Pending that, I still assert my right to form my individual opinions on subjects that directly concern me. Thankful that you spared time for me, anyway.

    5. Lastly, I notice that you too haven't answered simple and direct questions of mine. Being an old reader of this blog, I am sort of immunised to such gracious behaviour. Hail Lord Chiadambaram!

    ReplyDelete
  43. More I read and observe on internet I realise that people deserve the shit they are in.

    There cannot be better example of this than Indian politics and Junta.

    Its not about that jackshit Modi. Its not about origin of Sonia Gandhi. Its not about Hindu. Its neither about Muslim. Its not about congress either. Its surely not about BJP. They are morons who cudn't focus on anything apart from being anti congress and anti muslims.

    Congress cares as much as anyone else about Muslims. But it doesnt say," Kill muslims and we will be a better country."


    1.Question is - will wiping out Muslims help India?
    2. What can modi do that will be better than the brilliant minds of Manmohan Singh and P chidambaram?
    3. What do we need that will make us a happier nation?


    TO HELL WITH RAM MANDIR AND SECULARISM and corruption.

    We need to ask better questions.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Bharat,

    I have no political affiliations. However, I am perplexed at your statement. Who has ever said a thing like "Kill Muslims and we will be a better country"?

    Apart from you here on this blog, that is? :)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dear Free & Footloose,

    Oh Yes.. No one said that explicitly. They just did in 2002.

    And try interacting with all the people who support Modi... Why are they supporting Modi?

    Chances are you might hear those words too.

    You dont have to say anything explicitly. Your intentions and desires are reflected in the things you support or reject.

    And do not take the quoted words in isolation... I said congress doesnt say this... BJP are clearly anti Muslims.. They may be not say it in exact those words...

    ReplyDelete
  46. " I do not know how you concluded that I visualise a monolithic Hinduism. I can only surmise that it is on account of bias, for what I have been stating here is quite the opposite. "

    F&F, No, it is mostly because I can read and comprehend sentences such "A person who rejects Hinduism can not expect to benefit by the openness and tolerance of Hinduism."

    You cannot have it both ways -- either Hinduism is so clearly defined that you know when someone violates its tenets, but you are making the exact opposite claim that "hinduism allows worship of all gods and has no form". The god concept is a questionable matter, so pretending that "I worship all gods as one" is a good thing is bogus -- it is just as delusional as worshipping one god, and is thus no better than worshipping some god. Now, your objection to people who worship other gods is they do not respect hinduism -- why should they when you have already ceded space to their gods in your mind. Just because you did that, does not mean they need to reciprocate.

    " Lastly, I notice that you too haven't answered simple and direct questions of mine. Being an old reader of this blog, I am sort of immunised to such gracious behaviour. "

    I will answer your question at the right juncture and in the fullness of time, when you find out the answers to my questions -- you don't need to travel to chidambaram to do that. I reserve gracious behavior for those who deserve it.

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  47. Bharat:
    " 1.Question is - will wiping out Muslims help India?
    2. What can modi do that will be better than the brilliant minds of Manmohan Singh and P chidambaram?
    3. What do we need that will make us a happier nation? "

    Sheesh, man, get a grip on yourself. No political party can afford to take the stance of "wiping out" a fifth of the population, which is why all parties go after the alleged "muslim vote", as FV has pointed to in various posts, even the ones you claim want to kill all muslims...they seem to be trying to get the "muslim vote" too.

    Secondly, the brilliance of the two gents in question 2 is readily seen in the dropping rupee value and the fiscal deficit and may gett worse if policies are not corrected by these brilliant people you mention. (check this: http://www.firstpost.com/economy/when-it-comes-to-the-rupee-you-aint-seen-nothin-yet-918317.html) Of course, no guarantee that modi will do any better, but just stunned at your claim on the competence of Messrs. MS and PC who have brought India to this pass.

    3. When the nation is more prosperous, everyone will be happy, don't you think?

    -Al

    ReplyDelete
  48. FV,

    Missing in action? Or just enjoying the spectacle? Where are all the sekulaar freelance journalists when we need one? :)

    ReplyDelete

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