Vishnu and the Missing Minarets
Swiss Muslims are Swiss
In response to Jaideep Kulkarni who had asked why Indians should care if the Swiss ban minarets or mosques and whether it should concern us, NDTV’s Vishnu Som gave an astonishing reply. “Yes it does” he said. “It represents a fundamental threat to millions of Muslims in our country.”
Now, what you think of Switzerland’s decision is one thing. It is totally another to declare that the Swiss decision on minaret-building represents a “fundamental threat” to millions of Indian Muslims. So I asked Mr Som to explain why. His response? “Would you’ve been OK if your place of worship was banned in a country based on the premise that people of your religion are terrorists?”
That being neither here nor there, I repeated the question. And also asked if Saudi Arabia’s ban on temples, churches, synagogues and other places of worship also constituted a “fundamental threat” to Indian Hindus, Christians, Jews and others.
Mr Som didn’t reply. He should have known better than to throw about phrases like “fundamental threat to millions of Indians” so carelessly. In fact if the likes of Mr Som don’t hype up the matter, millions of Indian Muslims wouldn’t know, wouldn’t care and would not be threatened by the absence of minarets in a country most of them wouldn’t ever set foot in.
Related Posts: French Sikhs are French; Malaysian Hindus are Malaysians; Fijian Hindus are Fijians and Italy should mind its own business.
You have missed the point. And you have not got the answer you seek because you’re being impatient. As repeatedly mentioned in the tweets … I am through with tweeting tonight. But watch out for tomorrow.
And just so we are clear … YES, the ban on minarets does constitute a fundamental threat to Muslims in India in my view. Why? Well, the answer is nuanced, requires patience and a mind with a secular bent.
So … wait for it, it will come.
And for your viewers … do please take a look at ndtv.com/vishnu and do join !
Best
Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior Anchor
NDTV
” Just a debate on something in Switzerland. Doesnt really matter if it concerns people here or not.” _ this was the reply to my Q on twitter by Vishnu, when I asked why should it bother muslims here
I’m an expat Indian currently living and blogging in Switzerland. The decision to ban minarets has only solidified my belief in the secular and plural nature of my own country. To paraphrase Barack Obama in his latest speech.. ” … we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not”
My gut reaction to the decision can be found here
Totally agree with your thoughts .. Its solely the responsibilty of the media for how they want the masses to percieve it as . Nobody looks at the other side of the coin .. In secular ( or say pseudo secular ) India , at least the muslims feel safe n secure enuf that they wud be relived that such thing wont happen here !!
Nitin,
I wish you had pressed Mr. Som for a reply to your question on Saudi Arabia (and, as it applies equally to, every other member of Organization of Islamic Countries, barring a few exceptions)? We shouldn’t let fellows like Mr. Som, who never miss an opportunity to stir trouble, followed by mayhem, off the hook so easily.
Vishnu,
You have missed the point. And you have not got the answer you seek because you’re being impatient.
That’s why I asked the question in the first place. The charge of impatience is unwarranted because if you shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, it is reasonable for reasonable people to ask “Where?” and to expect an immediate answer.
(Your rhetorical question on what I would do if my place of worship were banned is irrelevant. But to highlight how presumptuous you were let me say that I don’t have a place of worship, and if a country banned something that I hold dear—tequila shots come to mind—then I wouldn’t go to that country. If I find myself in that country, then I will not drink tequila shots, for obeying the law of the land is both right and prudent. So what does that do your argument?)
Well, the answer is nuanced, requires patience and a mind with a secular bent.
Well, until you tell us the answer, as opposed to the adjectives that describe it, you still have not answered the question.
And indeed if the answer is nuanced, requires patience (and I don’t know what is a ’secular bent’, for secularism applies to states, not individuals) then all the more reason that a responsible member of the media not use strong terms like “fundamental threat to millions of Indian Muslims” so loosely.
Still waiting for your explanation.
This thing is a huge publicity stunt by Vishnu. There were 2 sane options he could’ve taken. One support the ban and be named ‘communal’ by his sickular brethren. The other kept silent, but lose political mileage.
He chose the best option turn the nail on its head. Support the ban, get praise from his sickular brethren (at least no one has dared to criticize him).
Someone’s getting a good bonus at the end of this year. ROFL.
Vishnu,
The following videos wil help readers understand the secular bent of mind required to comprehende these issues
Watch the other related videos
Vishnu
Ok…lets say I agree with u…
So by your own argument then – you should also agree that the ban Article 370 puts on rest of India – is fundamental threat to the existence of rest of India
and other Indians – and hence Article 370 must be scrapped.
Please have the nerve to say so on your channel now…!
-A Soul in exile.
Vishnu
I hope you will not be hiding behind complex jargons on ’special status, autonomy, law of land, impatience on Kashmir issue, nuances of answers and …’ to excuse yrself from actually saying anything on article 370… or why you or your channel didnt take up the issue of Rome Administration preventing Durga Puja in Rome this year…Were there some other nuances that we idiots don’t understand on as to why that didnt threaten the religious freedom and integrity of Hindus’ here…?
please enlighten
_Soul in Exile.
1. “Would you’ve been OK if your place of worship was banned in a country based on the premise that people of your religion are terrorists?”
No. Absolutely not OK. Not irrelevant. Answered as such.
But I am not sure to what extent we can go in meddling with the affairs of that sovereign country. Maybe some naming-and-shaming as of now. If this is something that goes to apartheid levels, obviously stronger measures could be called for.
2. “Is this a fundamental threat to millions of Muslims in our country?”
uh…. No? I think it would inconvenience greatly an IM traveling to Switzerland. It could signal a stronger inbuilt bias against their religion by at least the 60% that voted for this. But fundamental threat to Indians residing in India? Some explanation required.
3. “Secularism applies for states not individuals”
Huh?
4. Comparing Swiss to Saudi.
Jeez some baseline that.
rgds,
Jai
Vishnu Som has just made an ass out of himself. Not that it was much in doubt. Only lends credence to the popular notion that NDTV journalists and newscasters’ mouths write cheques their asses can’t cash. Oh, and this just in. The International Organisation for Uber Pwnage had declared Vishnu Som their Pwned Personality for the Year 2009.
Vishnu,
> Well, the answer is nuanced, requires patience
> and a mind with a secular bent.
The answer requires patience? I haven’t read such blather since I graded high-school sophomores a few years back. Pray tell, are you an English language anchor on television?
I also await your answer to Nitin’s question.
-iu
And one more observation. Vishnu obviously and subsequently expeditiously found his way to this blog post by following the link provided on the twitter page. So he must have seen the previous and repeated requests for an answer to the desired question. Yet, he chose not to oblige us followers on twitter as to what the answer could be. Instead Mr. Som was probably hiding behind his laptop, pressing the F5 key on regular intervals hoping no further attention would be brought to his juvenile tweet. Mr. Som, people aren’t surprised at your lack of fortitude in replying to a question directed at you in an open forum because it reflects in your news reportage as well.
Ed–A portion of this comment has been deleted as it is in poor taste
My responses to several comments made on the issue of the minaret ban in Switzerland will be coming up over a period of several hours on twitter… as and when I have time to respond.
Many of the views expressed in the viewer feedback section of this site sicken me.
They are largely personal attacks by individuals who, I believe, do not understand or seek to understand the extent of hurt a decision like this minaret ban has caused.
I will respond to to those comments.
There are, of course, more obnoxious comments as well from individuals such as DaveyBoy. Could this person kindly forward me their email address. I can be reached at vishnu@ndtv.com. I have a thing or two to say which I would not like to write on a public forum.
Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior Anchor, NDTV.
vishnu@ndtv.com
Vishnu,
This blog is a forum for a serious discussion of issues. Feel free to ignore personal attacks.
I understand that you are sickened by some comments. But you still owe a response to those who made their arguments in a civil manner.
It is interesting that Vishnu invoked the need of ‘a mind with a secular bent’ in response to what (I believed) was a nuanced, rational, well-constructed question by Nitin without any religional bias (I desist using the word ’secular’ as I don’t quite understand its meaning in the Indian context.).
I am afraid to say it already gives me a fair idea about how Vishnu’s argument will go.
Vishnu,
I can only hope that your response contains a robust argument without resorting to the regular secular/communal cliche.
One can possibly argue that Swiss decision is communal/non-secular/whatever, but whether that communal/non-secular/whatever decision poses a ‘fundamental threat to Indian muslims’ is a different issue altogether. I hope you are able to make this distinction.
Waiting for your answer.
Well to start with – one should tell a bullshitter to stop bullshitting and wasting everyones time.
“….or seek to understand the extent of hurt a decision like this minaret ban has caused”
This above quote is typical of a soft headed nehruvian liberal. Nobody in the whole world feels any umbrage. Nobody in the world has asked for unsolicited certifications. But the nehruvian in his liberal zeal has already typed out his pamphlet and faxed it to ten thousand people.
“And you have not got the answer you seek because you’re being impatient. … Well, the answer is nuanced, requires patience and a mind with a secular bent.” I first thought this was a spoof response by an impostor and doubled up in laughter reading it. But after reading the other comments it looks like it’s the Real McCoy. Awful! Are these the sort of people who disseminate “news” to us and try to shape public opinion? Man, looks like you need to really scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to fill the ranks of the mainstream media. I shudder just thinking about the impact this will have on the effective collective IQ of the emerging generation of Indians.
Any move by any society that restricts freedoms this way is saddening. More troubling if it comes out of an acclaimed open society, signaling a possible start of “competitive intolerance” that Nitin so often has written about.
The grounds on which tequila is banned while X, Y, Z comparable drinks are not, are of concern to all drinkers, and to teetotallers. If there is no good reason to be had, every right thinking X,Y,Z, or non-drinker could protest. IMHO they have a right to complain even if T drinkers arent complaining.
Apartheid in SA is one example I cited for where “X’s citizens are X’s concern” does not apply. But specifically this ban is not on freedom of worship but on shape or architecture of the abode of worship right? sounds like a cultural issue. I visited temples in sheds in some countries and was told that local zoning or permits were not given for gopuram structures. Didnt seem like a very big deal to me though it feels odd in retrospect.
thx,
Jai
Vishnu,
You are copping out. Of the 11 comments and 1 blog post that preceded your comment (expressing being sickened etc) only 3 would qualify as personal attacks.
There were nine people who disagreed with you, in a civil and reasonable way. Yet you claim to be offended by a minority of comments and use it to escape answering the question!
If you had the time to comment twice on this blog, why not answer the question right here? Why say it’s nuanced, only certain type of people will understand it, and that you’ll answer in on twitter when you have time?
Hope you understand the seriousness—you have made a comment that can have incendiary real consequences, and you somehow think explanations can wait?
I have never seen a bigger bunch of anti-secular clowns in my life.. How could you dare defend the sheer offensive nature of what has happened in switzerland.. its a personal attack on ALL MUSLIMS.. whether in India, turkey or the gulf or wherever..
Vishnu Som is the only one who makes sense here.. most of the other comments are laughable..
and your party the BJP is done, which means the lot of you are done.. u have no place in this country
And daveboy i am a woman and i find Mr. Som’s jaw very attractive..
you should get your butt out of your couch, your hand out of your ass and get a life beyond staring at peoples jaws you lonely man..
I have promised to clarify some of the remarks I made on my page http://www.ndtv.com/vishnu and here they are.
I must confess … replying to the comments posted here … are bound to be counter productive since I don’t see the large majority of writers here able or willing to understand something so basic.
Nonetheless … let me get to my first, evidently controversial statement … that the ban of minarets in Switzerland represents a fundamental threat to Muslims here in India.
This is as easy to comprehend as it gets. No where has anyone suggested that this THREAT to Muslims means that a minaret-hating Swiss national will position himself in India to present a gun to the heads of Muslims.
No, not at all. But what must be understood is that there is a palpable right-wing backlash against Muslims in several parts of the world … and I argue that the Swiss ban on minarets is part of that. This backlash, in its entirely represents a FUNDAMENTAL threat to Muslims not just in India, but around the world.
How does this threat manifest itself? At several levels.
Firstly … at a basic psychological level … many Muslims would ask the same question which I asked Acorn (and which was apparently `neither here nor there’). And that question is this … “Would you’ve been OK if your place of worship was banned in a country based on the premise that people of your religion are terrorists?.” I believe this is a valid point and I would hope that it would make a lot of your readers understand WHY Muslims would feel persecuted, many even here in India.
I don’t think I need to outline the many other ways in which innocent Muslims around the world are being scrutinised, targeted and made to abide by laws and legislation which seem to target them on the basis of their religion. From additional scrutiny of Muslims in passport and visa applications to the French ban on religious headgear in certain places.
But these are my views .. why not try and understand what others have to say … and remember, these are DIRECTLY linked to the basic argument that this represents a threat to Muslims all over the world, even Indians.
According to an article in the Voice of America website … the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights deplores what has happened in Switzerland. According to Navi Pillay’s spokesperson, “The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has said she hesitates to condemn a democratic vote. But, she has no hesitation at all in condemning the anti-foreigner scare mongering which has characterized political campaigns in a number of countries including Switzerland, which helps produce results like this”
According to Swissinfo.ch which interviewed Rainer Schweizer, a professor of criminal law at St Gallen University, “For most legal experts, the case is clear: The minaret ban runs contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. It contravenes both the clause in the convention on the prohibition of discrimination and the guarantee of religious freedom. There is hardly an objective reason why the minaret ban can stand up against the convention. That means that the ECJ in Strasbourg could one day severely reprimand Switzerland and force it to withdraw the minaret ban, which is now anchored in the Swiss constitution.”
One can go on and on with this line of thought … the central point being easy to understand … the decision to ban minarets is regressive, its anti-Muslim, and violates religious freedom. As I have argued earlier, this is part of a larger wave against Muslims … perhaps part of the generalisation that Muslims are universally terrorists or inclined to violence.
I cannot tolerate such a generalisation and cannot tolerate people who believe that to be the truth. And it is generalisations like this which represent a fundamental threat to Muslims in India and around the world.
There is a second question I need to answer on the ban on non-Muslim places of worship in other parts of the world. I will reply to that later today hopefully.
But, in the meanwhile, let me take on some of those who have commented on your site …
Nitin wrote:
“The charge of impatience is unwarranted because if you shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, it is reasonable for reasonable people to ask “Where?” and to expect an immediate answer.”
Rubbish … learn to wait. As you can see, I have formed my views and have delivered them here. No one has the time to respond real time throughout the day. I work. Am sure you do as well.
Murli wrote: “Are these the sort of people who disseminate “news” to us and try to shape public opinion? Man, looks like you need to really scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to fill the ranks of the mainstream media. I shudder just thinking about the impact this will have on the effective collective IQ of the emerging generation of Indians.”
Murli … I think the bigger concern is your IQ … Learn to accept that there are views other than your own. Learn to engage people who have made the time to participate in this debate with meaningful arguments. Don’t generalise on the media … certainly not with someone who has been a part of it for as long as I have. So if you want to shoot the message and the messanger … do so with a literate argument. Blind media/NDTV/Vishnu bashing is ignorant. Are you ?
Pankaj wrote: “This above quote is typical of a soft headed nehruvian liberal. Nobody in the whole world feels any umbrage. Nobody in the world has asked for unsolicited certifications. But the nehruvian in his liberal zeal has already typed out his pamphlet and faxed it to ten thousand people.”
I am not zealous. I do not bullshit. Neither do I take it upon myself to provide people like you with “unsolicited certifications.” I am merely responding to a debate. You don’t know me. You barely know about my views on one issue. So don’t label me as being soft-headed or whatever. Frankly, its blurb which is soft-headed. A shade pathetic too.
Harshit wrote: “One can possibly argue that Swiss decision is communal/non-secular/whatever, but whether that communal/non-secular/whatever decision poses a ‘fundamental threat to Indian muslims’ is a different issue altogether. I hope you are able to make this distinction.”
Harshit, I do hope I have been able to clarify my point.
Iu wrote: “The answer requires patience? I haven’t read such blather since I graded high-school sophomores a few years back. Pray tell, are you an English language anchor on television?”
Iu … chances are I am more educated than you ! Perhaps it would be best for you to return to grading high school sophomores. You don’t seem to have much to add here.
More replies when I can. After a point, I suspect the large number of you will assume you’ve got the edge in this argument based on your larger numbers. Shocked at the right-wing edge that this debate has taken to what seems, to me, to be an open and shut case.
Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior Anchor
NDTV
vishnu@ndtv.com
PS … Iu … I am sorry for any spelling mistakes here. Havent had a moment to check !
religion is a thing which doesn;t have time and space boundaries… anything happened anywhere at any time can be problem for anyone anywhere, anytime if the issue is religious.
Vishnu
Thanks for the response. But I do not agree with you—I have seen the Indian passport and Indian nationality work wonders against the wider “backlash” that you cite—and 9 out of 10 Indian Muslims will never set foot outside India. So no, what you say is too remote and affects far too few Indian Muslims to constitute a fundamental threat.
(A fundamental threat to Indian Muslims—as indeed to the rest of the country—comes from the presence of missiles in the neighbourhood, not the absence of minarets in the Swiss alps).
Will wait for your answer why Saudi ban on other places of worship is not similarly a fundamental threat. Switzerland, as you point out, is a democratic state working within a rule-of-law system—and its decision might even be reversed after due process. There’s much to be admired in a system where constitutionalism—not violence or religious dogma—is the method to settle important public issues.
It’s not an open and shut case. And those who disagree with you need not be pejoratively labeled ‘rightwing’. As you yourself write: “Don’t generalise…”
Vishnu…
Your controversial statement and the basic question asked by Acorn remains unanswered.
I will repeat the question to you:
How can the media (you) challenge a people’s verdict?
The Swiss VOTED for it and that must be accepted by all who (supposedly) believe in DEMOCRACY.
You being part of the NDTV team should all the more reason learn the verdict given by the people, coz your channel called Gujrati’s, Himachali’s and Kannadigas some superb names after they chose to vote for a party which in your channels opinion is not right for India.
Rather, then giving lengthy answers for your controversial statement, it would been prudent that you just understood Acorn’s whole point and answered it accordingly.
Vishnu,
Leave aside ur all d research done n literature published on net.
The whole twitter community understands that u r skirting and dodging IMP Questions that we have asked u
I) Is Ban on Temples/Gurudwaras/Church in Saudi Arabia Good or Bad? Please Answer in Just One word
II) Arent Kashmiri Hindus targetted beacuse of their religion? Hasnt the majority community atacked thier freedom of practising religion in Kashmir?
III) Wy has there ben only one 9/11,London Bombing, Madrid Bombing but multipe Serial Blasts in India?
Rajesh
1. My understanding of Vishnu’s stand:
The mindset that drove the minaret ban is deeply regressive and a threat to religious freedom in Switzerland. It is spreading all over the world, part of a climate that threatens or persecutes Ms globally and derived from an agenda that considers them more likely to be terrorists. Those who have a similar mindsets in India say and do similar regressive things, and are a threat to IMs here in India.
Hence and directly: IMs can and will feel fundamentally threatened here in India… if Swiss ban minarets…..?
I get the first part but that last is * overkill *. It makes me feel afraid for where my neighbour is picking up his grievances from (apparently all over the world) and what he will do as a result of said grievance- Danish cartoons and their aftermath do come to mind.
2. Vishnu,
I dont normally do “since you said X what do you think of Y” but I dont know you. Going by the sweep of your statement, the “as easy as it gets” please do clarify your stand on the 2nd question:
freedom of worship for non-muslims in other places, specifically I think KSA.
Is this a fundamental threat to non-muslims elsewhere? Does the mentality that drives this also drive persecution or threats or maybe even outright violence against non-muslims elsewhere in the world?
Thank you,
Jai
Admin Note
This thread has gone over 25 posts & a lot of commenters are new and unfamiliar with the norms of discussion on this blog. Please keep the discussion civil and refrain from personal attacks.
I will delete/reject comments that I deem “unsuitable for decent discussion”.
“I cannot tolerate such a generalisation and cannot tolerate people who believe that to be the truth. And it is generalisations like this which represent a fundamental threat to Muslims in India and around the world.”
It is generalizations like yours which incite hysterical reactions.
You are performing the role of a hate-mongering mullah. I would expect someone like Hafiz Saeed to make an absurd inflammatory claim like this.
By going public with a claim that Indian muslims are being threatened, you are inflaming religious sentiments here in India.
Nitin,
‘I will delete/reject comments that I deem “unsuitable for decent discussion”.’
Then you would have to reject Vishnu’s comments too.
I apologize for posting again. But I think we will not find a single supporter for the claim that “Indian muslims are threatened”. This is an extremely patronizing, unwarranted and not to mention, unauthorized position.
Let’s close this thread here.
@Nitin–
On a deviant note, what is the meaning of ‘9 out of 10 Muslims will never set foot out of the country.’
Am guessing that you have no research to back up this statistic, so can you explain the ‘will never’ in your comment?
Guys,
May be that Vishnu got carried away using the word “Fundamental”. Frankly the argument is not important enough to be carried in such a heated manner.
Loosen up and let the poor lad also take a breath. After all he has tried to explain his stand to best of his abilities. I personally still don’t agree with what he said or implied.
But sometimes, if an argument is getting way too long and personal, the best thing to do is to leave it at that.
@Vishnu — I like that you associate a peoples’ vote with a mindset. Indeed you may be right about that. After all a structural change in a building like a minaret(beautiful architecture) is hardly cause for concern.
But when the Indian Muslims didnt protest at the Bamiyan Buddha statues being broken down, why should they protest against a ban in a foreign country?
If there is a threat of a neighbour not allowing religious practice of someone else’s religion, isnt the same threat applicable to my religion?
Plus we all know that Taliban and the Wahabbi religion practiced in Afghanistan and Saudi are largely contorted forms of the actually religion of Islam.
And why arent you talking about the fundamental threat from Pakistan?
Glad to see you interacting on a blog as opposed to sending a legal notice, like your more melodramatic colleague.
Vishnu,
You decay in your pompusness!!
Everybody has a right to an opinion but it becomes important to weigh it if you are the mouthpiece of Media.
Weighing or Analysing Impact of an Event is an elaborate process requiring immense scrutiny before coming up with the Prediction and specially if it is community centric in a sensitive society!
Secondly, people from media categorising public views as party ideologies, not fair at al!!!!!!
Also, I’d like Mr. Vishnu to analyze the Saudi Impact on effected communities.. etc!!
Thanks!!
IMHO, the parallel between Switzerland and Saudi Arabia is a bit misleading
The Saudi attitude to non-Islamic faiths is a potent symptom of an obscurantist interpretation of Islam that has inspired and sustained the global spread of extremism which in turn has brought death to thousands of innocent people worldwide (including India). Surely, this constitutes a major threat (albeit not a fundamental one) to Indians and to all people worldwide
While the Swiss attitude to minarets is equally as distasteful and offensive, it’s hard to argue that it will eventually lead to a “jihad” against Muslims in India. Still, we ignore such developments at our own peril. Europe, the cradle of two bouts of awful bloodletting in the last century, is turning narrow-minded and, in time, this has the potential of evolving into a civil war of sorts there. Does this matter to Indians (including Muslim Indians)? As Sarah Palin might say, you betcha
Best regards
The issue is not about whether the minarets have anything to do with India or Indians… obviously they do not.
What we need to engage with however, is the spirit in which this decision made :
1) Quid Pro Quo – Since other religions are not allowed to practice freely in Muslim countries, “they” need to be given a taste of their own medicine.
2) Peeing around the turf – This is our country and our values – live with it or get out.
Indians are not divorced from either of these sentiments- The Babri Masjid disaster being one of them. I think we know firsthand that this does not work for us.
We have the largest diaspora of Muslims living , largely peacefully and well within our country. Any increase in this kind of rabid nationalisitic and ultimately fundamentalist perception across the world, means increasingly that we are sitting on a ticking time bomb in our own home.
India is in the unique position to demonstrate that it is possible to integrate two diverse cultures. More importantly, we need to step up and lead the creation of a platform for liberal Muslims to safely express their views and lead positive change within the conservative elements of their own society.
Just a couple of days ago, Al Jazeera had a good panel discussion on this issue (link at the bottom of the post). One of the panelists was a Swiss parliamentarian, his constituency had overwhelming voted in favour of the minaret ban. His argument was that while Switzerland welcomes all Muslims, they want to tackle the Salafists and Wahabis and the growth of their extemist brand of Islam as their ideologies and thinking are incompatible with Swiss secularism and values. But where does this leave the moderate muslim? link
WIsh Vishnu had called the Deoband resolution (instead of the swiz minaret ban) as a threat to Indian muslims.
All the marxist secularism who slept over the Deoband resolution (which prescribes a joyless black world) are now waking up to this Swiz referendum.
Tejal,
Indian Muslims are not diaspora: they are Indian.
1. Thanks PR.
2. Banning minarets seems a poor way of tackling salafism /wahhabism. Exporting Indian brand of Islam was one suggestion of Nitin’s long ago. Switzerland should do all it can to encourage the non-extremist strains it has.
3. Tejal,
Again, I get you mostly. But “sitting on a ticking time-bomb” with “increase in fundamentalism across the world”, with a *direct reference to IMs*, is patronizing and insulting?
Exactly what does that imply? If IMs feel threatened, and this can happen from provocation anywhere in the world, Indians in general are “sitting on a time bomb” – is it a misread to say that is a threat to all of us, esp to non-Muslims.
If I were an IM, I would be very offended by your stance. Am I missing something? This is a very weird defence of Mr.Som’s position.
Thanks,
Jai
Tejal wrote,
“We have the largest diaspora of Muslims living , largely peacefully and well within our country. ”
India is the ancestral home of Indian muslims and they have the same right to stay here that you have( I’m assuming you are Indian).
“Any increase in this kind of rabid nationalisitic and ultimately fundamentalist perception across the world, means increasingly that we are sitting on a ticking time bomb in our own home.”
Jai_C is right. This thread has been extremely illuminating. Some ugly patronizing attitudes are being revealed. And I thought Mr. Som stood isolated.
“India is in the unique position to demonstrate that it is possible to integrate two diverse cultures.”
Two diverse cultures? Please elaborate.
“More importantly, we need to step up and lead the creation of a platform for liberal Muslims to safely express their views and lead positive change within the conservative elements of their own society.”
Who is “we”? And why should “we”(am I included?) create a platform for liberal muslims? Why is it needed? Are they suppressed? You think this is the Land Of The Pure?
I apologize if I come across as curt and disrespectful. This topic has been a rude shock to me.
So, Mr. Vishnu, you believe that if a democratic country bans the building of minarets through a vote, it is a “fundamental” threat to Muslim people living thousands of miles away. I would like to know what you think about me, a Hindu who sang “Vandemataram” everyday at the school assembly as a kid, and who still reveres it. I’d like you to tell me what I should make of the Darul Uloom fatwa banning it?
What prevents me from calling it a fundamental threat to my existence? I’ll tell you. My tolerance towards bullshit, and not my secularism. Secularism was woven into me since I was born. I had friends named Saleem and Rashid. And, I remember all the Id feasts I had with them. And, friends named Andrew and Joseph, with whom I spent many a Christmas Eve, listening to the Three Wise Men stories. I could go on and on like this, and reveal how much of a secularist I am (since it seems to be all the rage these days…with politicos, journos queuing up)
But, the point is, radical bigotry, be it Darul Uloom’s or of any other right-wing entity, doesn’t touch me, because it’s bullshit, and not because, I’m secular and believe that people have the right to practice their religion. My secularism does not entail me to wave my badge of secularism and try to rake up a fire in my backyard, and then play fireman.
I’m not scared of terrorists, or right-wing extremists. I’m scared of people like you. I’m scared of people who hide behind the cloak of secularism and snipe at a religion, or prop up another. I pity the day when people like me who have sacrificed much of their strong cultural and religious roots and ethos, to satiate the dream of a secular India, have to hear such blatant opportunistic talk from a wannabe secularist like you.
Now, coming back to the point of the minaret ban, it was a democratic vote, albeit protectionist. It was their choice, respect it. Respect their sovereignty. At least, they have the balls to take on something they feel strongly about, and don’t hide behind the pillars of morality, or books of rights and wrongs, and blame politicians for their eventual fate.
I just read the article that Nitin linked to at IM. I should have done it a lot earlier.
The anti-minaret campaign is shocking and very, very disturbing. The fear-mongering and “otherization” attempted in the posters they depict there need to be condemned in absolute terms- no picky-pickyness. Also that article notes difficulties for immigrant Ms in getting citizenship even upto 2 generations down. Didnt even know SUI had this kind of thing going.
“Fundamental threat to IMs in India” is still overstatement, but let there be no doubt; that’s a nasty outfit there in SUI that got away with what they did.
Thats it for this thread from me.
Bye,
Jai
I do not know how many of you who are arguing about the ban on minarets in swiss know this. The swiss have already banned Muezzin. Meaning, the call for prayer from top of mosques is banned long before. (see)
The root cause for Islamophobia is the regressive anti woman steps such as burkha, polygamy which are still followed by Muslims. Also some barbaric practices such as chopping the hands off etc which are condoned. Once these issues are addressed by the Muslims, I am sure there will be no Islamophobia
Vishnu Som gives a long-winded, meandering response in which … he doesn’t answer Acorn’s question at all! Instead, he question’s the intelligence of all those who disagree with him, because, as he says, “This is as easy to comprehend as it gets.” But, Vishnu Som, doesn’t “see the large majority of writers here able or willing to understand something so basic.” If only his “interrogators” had at least a smidgen of intelligence, they automatically would understand what is obvious to as brilliant a mind as Vishnu Som’s.
It would appear that the man realised he was peddling the party line handed to him by his employers without having ever inquired into it, and is desperately buying time until he could have a one-on-one with his overlords whereby he could gain the requisite arguments — if any — beyond the usual ‘because’ that they flog to the public.
Meanwhile, he resorts to the usual “right wing attacks” smear — the refuge of all foot-in-mouth anchors.
Quite tragic. Reinforces my total avoidance of mainstream TV.
LE
“On a deviant note, what is the meaning of ‘9 out of 10 Muslims will never set foot out of the country.’
Am guessing that you have no research to back up this statistic, so can you explain the ‘will never’ in your comment?”
I appreciate your question: it is important not to accept statements at face value—but put them under scrutiny. (In fact, that what this post is about!)
In my case, I just made up “9 out of 10″ – but even that is very likely to be an overstatement. Out of over 1 billion, only around 10 million Indians travel abroad (2008 figures) — approximately 99 out a 100 Indians didn’t travel. Even this is a proxy measure at best, but the general point is that a lot many Indians don’t travel. Fewer still travel to Switzerland.
Frankly, I think people like Vishnu Som are instigating Islamic radicalism *in India* on the grounds that Muslims elsewhere in the world are allegedly being discriminated against. If prominent (so it is said) members of the Indian media are getting hysterical about the minaret controversy in Switzerland, do we really need mad mullahs to stoke fire among impressionable Muslims? History is witness to the consequences of lobbying for Islamist causes. Gandhi’s Khilafat — a better-intentioned move than the more-loyal-than-the-king exhibitionism of the ‘liberal’ bunch — only ended up in the moplah killings.
No “nuance” in this. Just a party line.
I tried hard to picturise Indian Muslims being under grave threat because of the Swiss issue but either I must be lacking in imagination because for the life of me I cannot figure it out. In any case I saw a video which says that Switzerland and in fact the whole of Europe will be majority Muslim in another 50 years, so why worry?
Its a temporary blip, this minaret ban.
If Vishnu Som is any indicator, the mainstream media’s ignorance and stupidity is only overshadowed by their pompous patronization and pretentiousness to “secular behaviour” and a pigheaded unwillingness to take constructive criticism of any kind. Prostitutiting the truth in the news for political purposes, like Vishnu Som is doing with his open demogoguery, seems to be more of the norm for channels like NDTV.
Vishnu,
Suppose a country holds a referendum on smoking and bans smoking will you call this a fundamental threat to smokers? I am still unable to understand why it is a fundamental threat to Muslims in India”. You point to links which question the legality of the vote so on and so forth. Fine. But how does it threaten Indian Muslim.
You ask “how you will feel if my place of worship is banned in some country” but you refuse to answer the question on Saudi Arabia. Doesn’t that show your hypocrisy?
Also where is the other side of the story. Why did 57% of the people vote for the ban? For all your claims of neutrality I did not see anything from the other side which campaigned for the ban except for your rhetoric like “right wing” “secular bent” . I found Al Jazeera more neutral than NDTV which had a participant who supported the ban who was allowed to talk (unlike what happens most of the time on NDTV).
I see a parallel in swiss story with Gujarat election. After Gujarat elections you come up with all sort of theories that Modi won because of “communal polarization” “hindutva” etc.. Now take that Gujarat story and replace it with “communal polarization” with “xenophobia” and “Hindutva” with “Islamophobia”. Where is all the talk of upholding the will of the people, democratic rights?
Murli, I agree with you 100%. More than that these people are less concerned with disseminating news and more concerned with increasing TRPs and making quick bucks. And the easiest way yo do this is create hysteria. Check these 2 headings of news-stories that appeared in NDTV – “Modi’s demolition drive erases temples” or “Jaipur blasts accused tortured on Eid”. There are many more that I can point to.
Vishnu like other indian mediawallahs and intellectuals does not understand what the doctrine of secularism means. Ask each one of them and they will give a completely different answer.
Once you understand secularism, you will realize that what the Swiss have done falls completely within the ambit of secularism.
As for this being a threat to IMs. I fail to understand the connection. No sensible person can make head or tail of what we are following in India. Secularism it is not. The state provides Haj subsidies, does not have UCC, provides semi autonomy to Muslim dominated state and controls Hindu temple funds. An outsider would say that this is a state that very much favors Islamism given that non muslims indirectly pay Jaziya and Muslims are awarded special rights.
There is absolutely no threat to IMs unless India actually adopts secularism.
The likes of Vishnu Som seem to have a fundamental problem understanding the concept of sovereignity, i,.e., the laws of a country only applying withing the boundaries of the state. So Swiss laws that apply to swiss citizens of muslim persuasion CANNOT have any relevance to the rights and responsibilities of an Indian of muslim persuasion, by defnition.
Islam is not a country — it is a religion like any other, so the question is why is Vishnu Som pretending that muslims affected by the laws in one country (switzerland) will have consequences in another country? Did Vishnu Som really graduate from high school or has he just forgotten elementary lessons in Civics?
[...] a comment » I followed with great amusement The Acorn’s expert deconstruction of Mr Vishnu Som’s startling assertion that the swiss minaret ban “represents a [...]
Anitajazz rants::
“I have never seen a bigger bunch of anti-secular clowns in my life.. How could you dare defend the sheer offensive nature of what has happened in switzerland.. its a personal attack on ALL MUSLIMS.. whether in India, turkey or the gulf or wherever.”
“personal attack” eh? Do you even understand the meaning of the phrase “personal attack”? Let us pretend you are talking sense for a moment — whichIndian muslim was personally attacked? Even Islam was not attacked — mosques can be build as long as it does not go against the rest of the landscape — this is norm in most countries where land records go back centuries and citizens groups need to agree to the construction of any “non-standard” building. This is a whole lot better than how non muslims are treated (like garbage) in Islamic countries like KSA, so if Vishnu Som has any more outrage on this swiss issue, he can stuff it along with the rest of his ignorance.
Furthermore, an attack on a person’s faith is not illegal — a real journalist (as opposed to these cheap imitations running propaganda rags) would support the right of every person to speak their mind regardless of their political affiliation.
And yet “super secular” wankjobs in the Indian news media try to make sure only the voice of their pet political party is heard (in addition to the sound of their own voice, which they love), and these same mercenaries will come to places like these and try to give pompous lectures on “the nuances of secularism” to the ignorant and unwashed public, i.e., the rest of us that do not work for NDTV.
This has to be the first time I appreciated getting my head bitten off, simply because it demonstrates that IM’s do not see themselves as different from the cultural fabric of India.
Trickey, JaiC – However, I am an expat, and outside India, there is still a huge gap in acceptance and understanding of Islamic culture. To insist that this gap does not exist is a little bit like sticking your head in the sand.
I stand by my argument that if we see a scenario where the liberal section of the Muslim world fails to react with a measured and logical response to counteract the bad blood created by terrorists, this will pose a danger to the peace and security of India as well. It is not only a Babri Masjid that can lead to riots in Mumbai, a Nazi style attack on European Muslims will stoke flames in the streets of India too.
Also, as an example of a measured response and perceptions outside India, I’d like to highlight the response of Ismael Amin, the former president of Association of Islamic Organisations in Zurich here
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Specials/Minaret_Debate/Index/Swiss_voters_were_misled.html?cid=7794090
Tejal wrote:
“a Nazi style attack on European Muslims will stoke flames in the streets of India too.”
Various terrorist attacks within India targetting specific communities in the past 3 decades have not managed to achieve the above (stoke flames in the streets of India), so would you care to explain how you jumped to the above conclusion that events in Europe will inflame Indian muslims?
Just projecting one’s paranoia and fear on the rest of the planet is not sufficient reason to make the above claim. You think the rest of the Indian citizens (muslims and non muslims) will be sitting on their palms while religious nutjobs run riots in Indian cities?
Havent posted a comment on the Acorn in months, this is hilarious and tragic at the same time.
But then we must not be surprised at the “secular bent” Mr. Som alludes to for it is this same bent that saw Indian Muslims politically organized against the fall of the Caliphate in Turkey by a “secular” Kemal Attaturk.
Politically organizing Indian Mulsims on Pan-Islamist issues is an old trick in the copy book of the Communal Socialists and their Vote bank mobilizers.
It is for Vishnu Som to reflect on if that is the kind of company he wishes to keep with his “secular bent”.
[...] Vishnu Som breeds Muslim Victimhood A lot has already been said about Vishnu Som’s tweet-a-pow with fellow blogger Nitin Pai over at the Acorn . [...]
Let me ask you dirty question. so according to you Mr. Vishnu even Amsterdam’s decision of making pornography and prostitution is threat to Indian girls/women as they might influenced to enter into the business? Its same analogy.
Second point. If Indian Muslim’s feel threatened by the actions of another country then there is no place in the world they would feel safe except muslim countries. Do they really want this? Indian Muslims need to decide whether they are Indians or Muslims?
Vishnu,
> But what must be understood is that there is a palpable right-wing
> backlash against Muslims in several parts of the world …
I agree with that. Anti-Muslim sentiment, prevalent in many parts of the world, needs to be condemned. However, your conclusion does not follow from that premise. Specifically, I disagree with this argument:
> This backlash, in its entirely [sic] represents a FUNDAMENTAL threat
> to Muslims not just in India, but around the world.
The backlash — even if it happens in Switzerland — can be disconcerting for Indian Muslims. But how is that a fundamental threat to Indian Muslims? In your comment, you haven’t answered that central question. Bigotry doesn’t magically spread across international borders.
> Iu … chances are I am more educated than you !
Perhaps the odds were good but you are wrong.
-iu
My $0.02 on the post and subsequent comments:
1/ Mr. Som is right in saying that the Swiss move should concern us and in disagreeing with the assumptions inherent in Mr. Kulkarni’s question. This is not the same as saying that the Indian government should take a position on the issue. Theirs has been a regressive move, rightly condemned across the world by mostly non-Swiss and non-Muslims (even if Swiss Muslims are Swiss).
2/ However, Mr. Som then makes the idiotic statement about it being a fundamental threat to Indian Muslims, which he could have subsequently admitted is a stretch. But he now feels compelled to defend it, which he does badly- and gets no marks for logic or argument.
3/ That said, several individuals commenting against Mr. Som subscribe to the mainstream-media-is-anti-Hindu-and-pseudo-secular conspiracy theory, and Mr. Som’s poor articulation plays directly into their fantasies. I am hoping Mr. Som does not now come up with some other contorted explanation for the inexcusable Saudi ban on non-Muslim places of worship, which btw also applies to holy texts, ritualistic articles, etc.
4/ Rule-of-law is indeed admirable principle; however unfair laws should be shown to be such, and in situations of extreme necessity, disobeyed. This was the essential distinction between the worldviews of Gandhi and that scholarly “constitutionalist”, Jinnah. I do not think that the Swiss situation is anywhere close to warranting civil disobedience, and besides, also stands a reasonable chance of being revoked. Democracy by definition is majoritarian rule and unfortunately an imperfect system, especially in societies with polarizable and numerically unequal communities. Which is why all modern liberal democracies (and media therein) go to lengths to safeguard minority rights and sensitivities, in the process exposing themselves to charges of hypocrisy from the fringes.
Memo to Indian liberals: no need to defend Muslim intolerance elsewhere (or in India) to defend Muslims against intolerance. Besides the importance of the concept itself, in doing so, you play directly into hands of bigots who would rather use identity labels than idea labels, because generalizable identity labels neatly deflects from their own narrow-mindedness.
Regds
“Rule-of-law is indeed admirable principle; however unfair laws should be shown to be such, and in situations of extreme necessity, disobeyed.”
The important point is that correcting unfair laws can and must only be done within the confines of the constitution, which is exactly what Gandhiji demonstrated to Indians via his insistence on non-violence, though we are all mostly too stupid to understand him, even though we all do celebrate his birthday very religiously and wear Nehru topis and make long speeches on how to live a low-budget life, right before taking off in their private jet plane back to New Delhi.
Quite the contrary, today’s so-called intellectuals pay lip-service to Gandhiji’s commitment to non-violence, and then turn around and support the maoists and their violent methods to change unfair rule of law. Malice or incompetence of these intellectuals? you tell me, please.
I have the following questions to Mr.Som
Secularism and Religious Freedom can they co-exist without conflict of interest?
And what qualifies as Religious Freedom? What religious actions come under Religious Freedom, what doesn’t?
As per Mr.Som’s assertion if its true that the IMs’ feel a sense of hurt due to the Swiss Ban, it only buttresses the notion that IM’s always put their religion first. If that’s true then it directly contradicts the notion of a muslims belief in secular state. Isn’t it??
Secularism means a state that:
(a) does not have a religion
(b) does not favor anyone, or discriminate against, on account of their relgion
(c) laws apply uniformly to citizens / residents regardless of their religon
On these counts, India is NOT a secular state. One does not become a secular state just because it is written in constitution or is chanted so non-stop by its leadership, mediawallahs and self-styled intellectuals (even those with nuanced and secular mind). Secularism has become sort of Bhramashtra that controllers of our public discourse such as VS use whenever they run out of defence and/or stop genuine public debate that concern certain sections or attack some other groups. That has been the standard practice of Nehru and his chelas for last 60 years (amply helped by the group known as Sangh Parivar, perhaps the largest collection of duffers in the history of mankind).
On the “fundamental threat” and such other idiotic or worse comments by the our media thekedars, we should heed to Patanjali (Yoga Sutra I:33) in 4th sentence that advises us thusly:
To obtain peace and harmony, we should cultivate
Friendliness (MAITRI) toward the Joyful (SUKHA),
Compassion (KARUNA) toward the Suffering (DUKHA),
Happiness (MUDITA) toward the Virtuous (PUNYA),
Indifference (UPEKSHA) toward the Unvirtuous/Vice (APUNYA).
Upeksa is indifference (not anger) toward those who indulge in wrongdoing.
SR Murthy,
Sometimes the legal structure and constitution can be unfair to a subject population. The whole idea of Gandhi’s civil disobedience was to non-violently protest such unfair laws, which the urbane constitutionalist Jinnah found vulgar and anarchist during their early days together in the INC. So, yes, one can indulge in civil disobedience against a nation’s unjust laws and be non-violent at the same time, and operationalizing this on a massive scale was Gandhi’s great genius. Unfortunately in contemporary India, this principle has been cheapened and used for many less than honorable objectives.
As you rightly imply, non-violence is a profound principle, not easily grasped by our politicians or pop intellectuals. Gandhi’s own descriptions of his difficulty in understanding and applying that and similar concepts has variously been ridiculed, then and now, by the British, Jinnah and co-ideologues. Anybody who defends violence or chauvinism, be it Maoists or Hindutva-vaadis, are clearly not of the Gandhian bent. I am not aware of the former even claiming to be followers of Gandhi, but I do know of the latter often claiming to be.
Regards
HT,NDTV,TimesNow,IBN etc..all these channels are hypy..and bloody low quality on content. Once I was a close follower of “We the people”/”Big Fight” on NDTV and all..then I started to realize a pattern. All the guys/gals brought into the discussion are “edgy” on their opinions and no actual sober discussion takes place on the topic. Now my fav is Lokasabha TV..even though it is govt channel..the quality and length of discussion and debates are breath taking..although the audio-video quality of channel isnt exactly HD. I think there should be a strict quality control on journalist by a TRAI equilvalent..so that morons cannot get jobs into such a sensitive and educative medium.
Acorn,
Your question was pretty simple, Why should Hindus feel bad about Temples not being allowed in Saudi, when we are not bothered about a country , where we might not set our foot in.
Vishnu Som , like another secularist and mindless internationalist is worried about the Muslim population, when they are in now way linked to the Muslims of
Swiz or Russia.
Mr Som , will not answer for sure, cause he has to eat his own words
Regards,
@ Vishnu Som,
America may be globo-cop & executioner, but JUDGE?? surely you take the cake!!
I’d like to debate Shri Tejal’s views and not necessarily limited to his last post -
This has to be the first time I appreciated getting my head bitten off, simply because it demonstrates that IM’s do not see themselves as different from the cultural fabric of India.>>
I disagree with the convenient assumption that Hindusthan’s Muslims do not see themselves as different from this cultural fabric. I disagree because (1)this flies in the face of liberal insistence that this country is multicultural. I.e. Many cultures existing in one country. There is no one fabric. (2)This country’s Muslims have NEVER voiced their opinion against aggression on Hindu symbols of culture anywhere in the world, including this country.
So, there are in fact two fabrics of culture.
Trickey, JaiC – However, I am an expat, and outside India, there is still a huge gap in acceptance and understanding of Islamic culture. To insist that this gap does not exist is a little bit like sticking your head in the sand.>>
I cannot understand why a National society must be forced to accept and understand (not necessarily in that order) something they do not wish to. Something they witness as *distasteful* elsewhere. Something they see as a threat to their own culture.
I don’t agree with commenters who try to deny that such instincts of *defense” exist. Merely looking at the *vote* and not at the “instinct” that generated the vote is not sensible.
I stand by my argument that if we see a scenario where the liberal section of the Muslim world fails to react with a measured and logical response to counteract the bad blood created by terrorists, this will pose a danger to the peace and security of India as well. It is not only a Babri Masjid that can lead to riots in Mumbai, a Nazi style attack on European Muslims will stoke flames in the streets of India too.>>
I don’t know of any “liberal section” of the Muslim world. All such “liberal sections” ultimately rationalize such Muslim behavior. Theologically they stand miserably defeated. They cannot even oppose the unsophisticated Taliban on merits.
What I find interesting but not uncommon is the view that reaction to Islamic violence leads to “Nazi-like” acts against Muslims. This is amazing because (1) It’s a reaction. Not pro-active action (2) should the victim not possess a threat perception at all? Why are the victims of Islam being disarmed like this?
In my view, KSA and Muslim countries have the right to their culture in their own lands. I will not argue against their Shar’ia – Civil and Criminal – In their own lands. Since we do most certainly have two nations in Hindusthan, I’m all for Muslims having their Shar’ia – Civil and Criminal. They can retain their Mosques and Minarets too. However, any interference with Hindus and their culture must receive appropriate and reciprocal responses.
Muslims in Hindusthan are a minority (whole numbers)and must appreciate their position. I agree with Shri Chidambaram when he said the safety of the minority is vested with the National majority.
A word for the unreal Hindus – Please realize that human instincts to survive is very strong. Each will fight to protect their culture which is verily their own mother, their home. Please do not mislead those of us who have retained this instinct by providing a *scent* that is alien – and then ask us to defend that instead. This is true for all castes and tribes and groups of Hindu society.
Can you or Vishnu do everyone a favor? Please define “fundamental threat”.
One slip of toungue and hell to pay!
My view. Nothing personal.
All journos have an inbuilt bullshit genrator that rearranges same key words into strangely convuluted sentence that sounds intelligent make makes no sense!( google it there is one such generator for business terms)
Now there is nothing wrong in it. No guys can TALK TALK AND TALK and always make sense.
Guys i am sure he didnt mean what he said !
CHEERS SOM…. your BS GENERATOR needs an upgrade.
p.s
this is take on this!
Vishnu Som is clearly out of his depth and is now crying “uncle!”. He writes in Twitter, “I have ventured into this. Will get out once I finish and will not attempt to confront these types again” “These types”! When you lack the ability to think and reason, smear, label, spit and run, and then declare victory.
Eureka!! Eureka!! Eureka!!
I can now second “Vishnu’s” opinion. Yes “The Swiz ban” is a fundamental threat to Indian Muslims. This is how the logic works – Now that “Swiz” has imposed a ban, Indian secular fundamentalist in the government will ensure that India-Swiz relations will be derailed. The efforts behind the bringing back of black money will also fail ensuring that THE HAND BEHIND (Cong) India’s corruption will not stand exposed. In this scenario the Cong party will continue cheating Muslims and keep them as vote banks.
If this is not a fundamental threat then what is? Mr. Vishnudeep Som appreciate your logic.
Mr. Vishnu Som, why doesn’t your secular heart bleed for the malaysian hindus?
Wow … as expected … there is an absolute torrent in the number of lengthy replies … and, as expected, I find myself deluged with the views of those who have not understood what it is that I have been trying to explain.
I haven’t been spared personal attacks and I haven’t spared others as well. And, I suspect, there will be more comments targeting me once this is posted. So be it.
Nonetheless, thanks to some here for the constructive criticism of some of the points I have raised. I think the central issue which I need to reflect on … in having been accused of hypocrisy … is on the nature of Islam itself in many parts of the world.
Many have pointed out … in differing arguments .. that Muslim countries are far from being a haven of religious freedoms and that there has historically been a systematic persecution of religious minitories in parts of the middleeast. I suspect many readers here would expect me to defend that position.
Let me assure you I am neither ignorant nor plain stupid. Its true Mr Murthy, its true !
Like many of you here, I have studied about the history and the continuity of the clash of civilizations between the Muslim and non-Muslim world. As a former student of Dr. John Sigler, one of the finest Western scholars of the Middle east, I would be the last person to be in denial of the reality of socio-political systems in the region and indeed on the nature of Islam.
I am not going to justify the whipping of women in Sudan for wearing trousers. Neither am I oblivious to the fact that workers in parts of the Middleeast (many from India) are treated like cattle and that non-Muslims are not allowed freedom to worship in the manner that they want.
At the same time though … I cannot agree with the lack of respect for the Burka in France and indeed on the ban on minarets in Switzerland. To that end, I agree with the view of the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu who says the ban in Switzerland is reminiscent of sectarian wars of the Middle Ages. Accoding to Presstv (http://www.presstv.ir), “Davutoglu warned that the move could incite clashes on a global scale if sufficient measures are not taken.”
While I don’t see a global war happening on the minaret issue, I do believe that what Davutoglu says fits in with my earlier argument … that this ban on minarets hurts the sentiments of Muslims around the world and in India and to that end, represents a fundamental threat to their beliefs.
The fundamental challenge, as I understand it, lies in interpreting the dynamic between the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world. To me, REJECTING extreme debating positions, no matter how extreme the subject matter, is the only way forward. And to that end, I agree with a post in the Huffington Post where Ahmed Rehab writes, “Cynics often deflect attention by pointing out human rights abuses in the Middle East or Asia. The West is right to call out abuses of freedoms in the Muslim-majority world, but it is wrong to pursue a campaign of reciprocity that betrays its own principles as a response. Western Intellectuals are wrong to turn a blind eye to such a farce when it occurs.” And that is precisely what many say is going on in Switzerland, a farce.
I can already see my detractors licking their chops … Look at Som, they would be saying … pushed into a corner … he has taken a middle of the line position, looking to bail himself out of a hole. Not at all. I believe I have written the truth. In an explosive world hit hard by communal tensions … there can be no one right and one wrong. The battle of civilisations has been going on for centuries and the battlelines are quite clearly demarcated. The Swiss vote seems to give direction to this fundamental struggle in a modern-day context. Ultimately, who is to gain from this and who is to lose ? I believe there is no clear answer.
I regret having stooped to the level of some of your posters in having replied to them earlier. I could go on and on countering the individual points made by individuals like S R Murthi and Murli but I won’t because what they write is rubbish. It is beneath me to respond to their agenda-driven pearls of disinformation.
I will, however, say … that the views I express here and on our website are mine. I have never and will never be under pressure from NDTV to write anything that represents a political of corporate dictat. Thats not how we operate.
Acorn blew a simple debating point into this huge mess … through his initial post where he couldnt wait to see my elaborate points of view. You should not have done that.
All I have said is this …
1. The minaret ban is unfortunate.
2. It hurts the sentiments of Muslims all over the world.
3. It represents a psychological, not physical threat to the beliefs of Muslims here. A psychological threat can still be a fundamental threat.
4. There are striking differences between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds.
5. A campaign of reciprocal hate is unfortunate and wrong.
Whats so terribly incorrect in what I write ?
Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior Anchor
NDTV
vishnu@ndtv.com
Mr.Som,
Thanks for your reply. I dont think there is too much wrong in what you wrote. Please ignore the personal attacks. But since you have again written:
“… 3. It represents a psychological, not physical threat to the beliefs of Muslims here. A psychological threat can still be a fundamental threat. ….”
Q. Do you think denial of freedom of worship to non-muslims in KSA represents a psychological / fundamental / physical / personal threat to non-Muslims in India and elsewhere in the world?
If so would you please state that? And what in you opinion does that threat imply?
You are at liberty to assign a different threat level to this but hopefully you will justify that. Ignore the trolls and baits.
You are at liberty to ignore this entirely but I wish you wouldnt. This is important.
Thanks,
Jai
Vishnu,
By your logic the absence of freedom to other relions and faiths in some Muslim countries would then represent a fundamental threat to non-muslims all over the world. I am yet to hear you say so. If you do say that then well maybe I will appreciate you for being consistent.
@Mr.Som
“A campaign of reciprocal hate is unfortunate and wrong.”
I agree with you that reciprocal hate is a downward spiral.
However the ban on the minarets is far from this. Do you think Switzerland is least bothered about the religious rights in KSA? I doubt it. This is more of a defensive position on what they see as a cultural invasion.
The reciprocal hate that you are talking about would fit the incident of Iran having an anti-Semitic cartoon contest in response to the Muhammed cartoon controversy.
Frankly I feel that the comparison between KSA and Swiz is comparing apples to oranges. The KSA does not in anyway whitewash what they consider as suppression of ‘unacceptable’ religions. After all they are a declared Islamic country. However, Swiz cannot claim to be secular if they only ban the minarets without banning church spires. Ban it if you want to… after all it is your country, but don’t claim to be secular.
Finally, as for the ‘fundamental threat’, I have only one points to make… Let an Indian Muslim come out and say that it is a fundamental threat and take a stand on it. You (and I) are probably not the best person to pass a judgment on that.
-Pradeep
Jai asked …
Q. Do you think denial of freedom of worship to non-muslims in KSA represents a psychological / fundamental / physical / personal threat to non-Muslims in India and elsewhere in the world?
I believe I have reflected on that. To be sure, there may be many in India who feel traumatised that people of their religion are denied access to their places of worship in the middle east. They may believe the Islamic way of life in the Middleast linked to their system of governance represents a fundamental threat to their religious beliefs.
But … there is an important difference here. I argue … on the basis of what I have read … that the Swiss decision to ban minarets was based on an underlying assumption of Muslims being terrorists.
This is not the case in the middleeast. People of other faiths are not seen to necessarily be terrorists or invaders. They are seen to be non-believers and as such cannot be permitted religious freedoms in their system.
But why just the middleeast ? I can understand the anger of Sikhs in being denied the right to wear their headgear in places in France. That too represents a fundamental threat to a basis of Sikhism, something that would hurt Sikhs in India. While I have spoken about the clash of civilisations between the Muslim and non-Muslim world … its clearly not limited to just that.
The danger is in people jumping to conclusions. People here have labelled me `sickular,’ pro-Congress, Leftist, soft-headed and being a Nehruvian idealist. Also an idiot. And those were some of the nicer things. But, as I hope I have adequately argued … its perfectly valid to argue that the Swiss ban represents a threat to Muslims in India as well … it is a threat to their religious sentiments. And, as I have briefly argued here, the situation in Switzerland cannot entirely be compared with the prevalent system in the Middleast.
Whats tough to understand ?
Vishnu
Vishnu Som wrote:
> perfectly valid to argue that the Swiss ban represents a threat to Muslims in > India as well … it is a threat to their religious sentiments.
And how is it a “fundamental” threat?
Does an Indian Muslim think twice before his prayers because of the Swiss ban?
Why the fetish with “Guerilla Advertising” words when simpler, more terse and articulate expressions are available.
The elite Indian crowd somehow wants to be seen as being fluent in a language most linguists agree to be degenerate!
Vishnu,
“1. The minaret ban is unfortunate.
2. It hurts the sentiments of Muslims all over the world.
3. It represents a psychological, not physical threat to the beliefs of Muslims here. A psychological threat can still be a fundamental threat.
4. There are striking differences between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds.
5. A campaign of reciprocal hate is unfortunate and wrong.
Whats so terribly incorrect in what I write ?”
The only major objection is “3″. Scratch that one and there shall be peace
A minor objection is 5. “5″ assumes that Twitzerland’s action is vendetta driven. My opinion is that it is driver by a political agenda.
Another minor objection is “2″. A thick skin is the need of the hour. Either that or we give up free speech.
See, I think that Vishnu’s initial views were reflexive and off-the-cuff. Unsurprisingly, they betrayed a mind well trained in the much-loved lowest-common-denominator school of Indian political thought. I mean no disrespect to Vishnu by this. But I do think that his defense of his position was admirable and his response on his “fundamental threat” remark is as good an example of post-hoc rationalisation as any I’ve seen.
Yet I think that his views are not unstatable as many here have tried to portray. Consider this:
Vishnu’s argument posits that, if the Swiss-ban trend continues, Muslims may soon come to be seen as LESS DESERVING of the rights and privileges enjoyed by other members of society. To that extent, his argument actually goes to Nitin’s theory of competitive intolerance.
If the Swiss ban is thus seen, it could indeed be viewed as a “fundamental threat” to utilitarian principles of freedom, equality and justice.
If long fought-for principles of equality and justice wither away in their (self-declared) bastion, then chances are that such intolerance will spread- and that too with a dangerous legitimacy attached. Should this happen, Muslims everywhere will be the first targets of this newly-sanctified intolerance
I’m not saying I agree with Vishnu’s argument in the final calculation. But I do think that dismissing his view without first appreciating its relative merits does not help anybody.
I think Vishnu has a point. You just have to hunt for it amidst the self-righteousness, hurt pride and ad-hominem attacks that form an unjustiafiably large part of his response
cheers
Its unfortunate that Vishnu now rests much of his argument on the Clash of Civilisations theory. I thought Somalia and Sundan had packed off that little gem. I guess not for everyone
Mr.Som,
I get some of that, including even the difference btwn Sw and the KSA. Re. the underlying assumption in the Swiss move, I dont know if it goes as far as “Assumed to be terrorists” but its clear it was driven by nasties who drummed up a significant mistrust and some fear among the people. I hope this decision is reversed.
But starting from this point:
“… they are not seen as terrorists. They are seen to be non-believers and as such cannot be permitted religious freedoms in their system….”
(BTW this is a gross misunderstanding of many basic principles of Islam per blogs IM.in and conversations with Muslims. Am not a Muslim myself. Helpful if some Muslim could clarify)
Q. Do you think the mindset that prescribes this treatment for non-believers is anyway responsible for propagating and financing itself, its beliefs and ideology to other countries?
Q. Do you think this has resulted in increased threat perceptions among non-Muslims in these other countries?
Q. Do you think this has resulted in actual violence (not threatened violence) against non-Muslims in these other countries?
Q. Do you think this perception or act of violence is a threat of some kind, maybe not fundamental, to non-Muslims in India and elsewhere?
Thanks,
Jai
Shri Som delicately side-steps the issue of Islamic denial of freedom of worship to non-Islamic faiths.
The big point is that this denial is mandated by Islam. That’s the link with the Swiss ban on minarets (a partial and half hearted ban on Islamic architecture – not a ban on Islamic worship and on Mosques).
So when non-Muslims are traumatized by denial in Islamic countries; they are expected to lump it – cows that they are. And that’s why I suspect, Shri Som would never write a tweet about a Fundamental Threat to Hindus or Christians or Sikhs. (It took this incident for him to even mention the French ban on the turban – not that I oppose it)
It’s clear that Shri Som is afraid of the severity of the Muslim backlash and wishes the silly Swiss had not disturbed the hornet’s nest.
It’s a pity that Shri Som legitimizes the absurd display of Turkish gangsterism.
All of this, he expects non-Muslims to buy.
If we, the Swiss, make rules to defend our freedom from Moslem aggression, we are offending the sensitivities of Moslems in general and Indian Moslems in particular? Amusing indeed!
Should we say that this trivialisation offends all those who stand up to Moslem aggression? Any apologies in order?
Rik
BTW my own answers. I think I am done here. Nice talking to you.
Q. Do you think the mindset that prescribes this treatment for non-believers is anyway responsible for propagating and financing itself, its beliefs and ideology to other countries?
—- Yes
Q. Do you think this has resulted in increased threat perceptions among non-Muslims in these other countries?
—- Not just non-Muslims. Muslim friends have deplored this. They feel threatened by this view.
Q. Do you think this has resulted in actual violence (not threatened violence) against non-Muslims in these other countries?
—- Violence has been committed, while some of it targets non-Muslims, much of it against everybody, including Muslims.
Q. Do you think this perception or act of violence is a threat of some kind, maybe not fundamental, to non-Muslims in India and elsewhere?
—- Its a problem for everybody.
rgds,
Jai
PS- On another track, Hindutva being propagated right here in India is a clear and present threat to non-Hindus, esp Muslims in India. Luckily its fortunes appear to be in decline politically but its still a problem for all of us in India. If it had the reach and the ability, maybe it would try to threaten Muslims elsewhere also. So far, I dont think it has; but if it does no issues with calling it a worldwide threat.
Jai_C – Wrt Hindutva. Cause and effect.
Respected Mr.Som,
1. The minaret ban is unfortunate, but the decades-old neglect of the Muslim community in Hyderabad (areas ruled by MIM/Congress), just for vote-bank politics, isn’t?
2. Maybe, it does. But, people are not that weak, as you seem to be assuming. And for one, they don’t need a Supermullah named Vishnu. They’ve got their Darul Ulooms and their fatwas.
3. You’re missing the point. We asked “What exactly do you mean by fundamental threat?” Is it a threat that endangers their existence, or the practicing of their religion? What exactly is it? Please propound.
4. Are you acknowledging that all religions are not the same?
5. And, how was the SVP Swiss vote’s basis any different from your assumption that what we here say is agenda-driven disinformation?
Sir, I wish you would look at this an opportunity to interact with us, the youth of this nation, the so-called future. We are willing to learn, and are not brick walls standing in your way. It would be a pleasure if you could progress “forward” on this debate, without getting too distracted.
Mr. Som,
I did not call you an idiot, only that statement of yours idiotic. On hindsight, it was harsh and I apologize. Unthinkingly articulated is probably closer to the truth. I still do not buy your rationalizations for that statement, and you should discontinue giving any. I also agree with you that your statement has been blown up. As badly articulated as it was, I do not think it deserved the prominent showcasing that it got here; but then you have to understand there exists a whole parallel universe that thinks there is massive collusion between communists-islamists-secularists-Vatican & Indian MSM to propagate the Qaeda agenda and hide crimes against Hindus. I only mildly exaggerate. That constituency is significant, and it is growing. And that statement of yours fits perfectly within their narrative.
Regds
Vishnu Som wrote:
“But … there is an important difference here. I argue … on the basis of what I have read … that the Swiss decision to ban minarets was based on an underlying assumption of Muslims being terrorists.”
Then you have read wrong. That is your assumption, Vishnu Som. They do not want their way of life to be overridden by any other. Why don’t you find out if you can go build a 20 storey high-rise in switzerland (or the netherlands) and see if let you build one? They will give the same reason they gave for these minarets — they do not like minarets from alien cultures dotting their landscape, and they are well within their rights to state as such.
This is plain and simple zoning laws that require permission of the locals who are attached to the architectural landscape of their country. Their country, their laws. You don’t like it? tough, stay out of that place.
“I can understand the anger of Sikhs in being denied the right to wear their headgear in places in France. That too represents a fundamental threat to a basis of Sikhism, something that would hurt Sikhs in India. ”
But “causing emotional hurt to Indian sikhs” is a stupid line — What you want to do? kiss their boo-boo and tell them it will all be okay (it won’t).
So here is the bottom line for the types of Vishnu Som who seem to be wearing a reality-resistant helmet:
If you are an adult of Indian origin and you want to live in France or Switzerland or Timbuktu, do not buy your plane ticket until you understand that your culture might be alien to the natives of those place, and they may not be a tolerant to it. If you do not like their intolerance, do not buy that ticket.
So if you cannot follow your native culture by wearing a spoon in your underwear or a knife in your hat out there — SUCK IT UP AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE (or move back to India). When you leave India, there is no guarantee that any other place will be friendlier to you than India is to your native culture and that is the way of the world. Get on with the program an quit complaining.
People who managed to rise up to top jobs in journalism without managing to evoke the Peter Principle should come down to earth and realize that journalists are just observers and reporters of reality and they do not speak for any group of Indians, neither muslims nor sikhs nor hindus. They should keep their own moronic definitions of “secularism” to themselves and do their day job of being journalist properly.
Footnote: These tools in the Indian media like to opine about every irrelevant nonsense on the other side of the world while ignoring the myriad serious issues right under their nose. And no, accepting their mistake and their stupidity is apparently not in the rule book of these tools too. No wonder watching news shows the Indian media feel like wading in a steaming pile of donkey vomit — turn your TV off and pick up a book.
“And, as I have briefly argued here, the situation in Switzerland cannot entirely be compared with the prevalent system in the Middleast.
Whats tough to understand ?”
What is tough for me to understand is whether you are aware of this thing known as “logical consistency” in your thinking — I mean, the lack of such a thing in the way you think.
The only logically consistent position one can take is:
The ME countries have every right to deny the culture of outsiders in their country, so do the swiss, which is a logically consistent position.
Your position is:
The ME countries have every right to deny the culture of outsiders in their country but Switzerland and France do not.
My understanding of why you are saying this that since you have advanced degrees on the middle-east and are well aware of the barbaric culture in those parts, you find their behaviour of contempt for minorities understandable, but the Swiss wear three-piece suits and speak fine english and they are advertising themselves as a secular country and they need to follow different rules. That is just a bogus way to view the world.
Stating plain facts these days invites accusations of “personal attack!”, so here is a “personal attack” going Mr Som’s way: in his rambling reply he bs’ed about the bush a great deal, but still didn’t answer the central question:
How is the *Swiss* minaret ban a threat (fundamental or otherwise) to *Indian* Muslims?
He stated that minaret ban is bad.
He claimed that the ban “hurts the sentiments” Muslims worldwide
Without disputing either of the statements –what is the logical leap from these statements to imagining a threat to Indian Muslims?
Som claims to be taking a centrist position. Not at all. He is taking the same position as any Islamist cleric would. For the only way a threat to Indian Muslims can be imagined is the extremist’s way: “Muslims are global ummah; national boundaries do not apply; any perceived challenge from any unbeliever to Muslims anywhere in the world is a threat to all Muslims all over the world by all unbelievers; ergo all Muslims cutting across national identities must unitedly fight the enemy”, etc, etc.
This is the same logic that musters transnational Islamist armies to fight in regional “freedom fights” like Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya. To claim this communal logic as “centrist” is to claim that Barkha Dutt is a champion of blogger freedom. LOL material, seriously.
Murthy,
1. ““its a personal attack on ALL MUSLIMS.. whether in India, turkey or the gulf or wherever.personal attack” eh? Do you even understand the meaning of the phrase personal attack”? Let us pretend you are talking sense for a moment”
Personal attack murthy is that it personally effects the feelings of muslims at a PERSONAL level..Was that not obvious ??? ANother personal attack is that you most likely have a very modestly sized pen is.. really small…we are talking about a shrimp sized embarrassment
2. “Islam is not a country — it is a religion like any other, so the question is why is Vishnu Som pretending that muslims affected by the laws in one country (switzerland) will have consequences in another country? Did Vishnu Som really graduate from high school or has he just forgotten elementary lessons in Civics?”
Som may or may not have graduated from high school , but he seems to have enough of a life not to post 15 times in 24 hours, pursuing some inane angle that only you care about..i mean, are you that bored? that lonely? have u ever been with a woman before? Before you Alt Tab back to the porn site where you spend your time between these laughable posts, think hard and think deep
3. and finally Murthy NDTV and all other channels are businesses which are built to earn money for their shareholders or stakeholders.. If they need to spew out stuff which you dont like DONT WATCH IT.. if you read as many books as you claim, then i have no idea where you found the time to form such an opinion about these channels which are beneath you..
Finally in the entire NDTV channel, i rate Vishnu as one of the top three-four journalists.. for the work he has done on war, famine, floods, disasters and more.. what have you done in life?
Anita
Oldtimer, you are exactly right. Vishnu Som is extending the same argument we see from the Ahl-e-hadith and Lashkar-e-toiba jihadi terrorist types, that Islam is not a religion but a way of life that transcends national boundaries and that if muslims are “treated badly” in one country, the other muslims in another country are justified in commiting random acts of violence and terrorism against non believers.
No wonder many people here and elsewhere saw an insidious campaign of instigating communal hatred in Vishnu Som’s rhetoric.
Concur with Oldtimer and SR Murthy that Vishnu is unwittingly promoting a pan-Islamism sentiment. See my earlier posts in the thread.
Some commenters seem to think Shri Som is wrong in identifying the specific Muslim reaction to the Minaret issue.
Well, he’s not.
Where he is wrong is in advocating the “disarmament” of the non-Muslim.
Vishnu,
You say “that the Swiss decision to ban minarets was based on an underlying assumption of Muslims being terrorists.”
Don’t you think this is a convenient lie propagated by you. Nowhere the vocal opponents of the ban have cited stereotyping of “muslims being the terrorist” as the reason for the referendum. The proponents of the ban campaigned on the notion of architectural on the swiss landscape. If you ACTUALLY READ the full details about the vote, some of the feminist organizations also threw their weight behind the ban citing that minaret were a symbol of male dominance. (Even here no muslim stereotype).
The closest something comes to your fantasy story of stereotyping is the statement of the right wing part that supported the ban who said that the funding for some of the minaret construction came from the same organization which have links to terrorist organizations (wahabi and salafi) – Al Jazeera debate. Even here he did not say what you are saying. (You could have lied and got away if it was not for internet. Please do not assume readers are stupid and will take whatever you say) The links you have sent UNHCR and swissinfo.ch also do not talk abt any stereotyping. They are only contesting on the issue of religious freedom. (which is logical and they have every right to do it) You can also check the banners used in the propaganda on swissinfo site and none of them hint to muslims being terrorists.
Do you lie regularly for boosting your TRPs?
“But … there is an important difference here. I argue … on the basis of what I have read … ”
Doesn’t this follow the standard template followed by NDTV journalists who often use the phrases like “sources say” when reporting news “stories” Remember Aarushi murder case or Malegaon reporting.
How ironic that you give the example of “Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu who says the ban in Switzerland is reminiscent of sectarian wars of the Middle Ages. ”
Turkey was the country which denied the christians their right to pray in the church in south-eastern town of Tarsus, where St Paul was born. Story on BBC published on october 31 2008.
Then I see this gem ” People of other faiths are not seen to necessarily be terrorists or invaders. They are seen to be non-believers and as such cannot be permitted religious freedoms in their system.”
If Zakir Naik was listening he would have been proud of you.
In my opinion it is not the swiss ban but people like you who pose a fundamental threat to the Indian Muslims. As soon as something like this happens you run around the town shouting “fundamental threat”. So please refrain from whipping up passions of the people.
PS: You can call me right winger or whatever you want.
palahalli:”Where he is wrong is in advocating the “disarmament” of the non-Muslim.”
Non-muslims don’t need weapons to fight the fundamentalists — they need brains.
Any dimwit can pick up a machete and go chop someone’s head. Non muslims should go get legal degrees and become lawyers that defend their fundamental constitutional rights, not mirror the violent behavior of the jihadi fools and go kill innocent people for no good reason.
Shri Murthy, amongst the many defensive measures available to non-Muslims, there is also the brain.
But I’m not sure how a law degree will help when the Taliban sits across your table.
More fodder for Som, and perhaps for others too
http://pakistanchristian.tv/news/2009-12-04_Court_bans_Baptist_Church_in_Tajikistan.cfm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Court bans Baptist Church in Tajikistan
Clearly, a “fundamental threat” to Christians in India.
palahalli:”But I’m not sure how a law degree will help when the Taliban sits across your table.”
Really now…. and how and when do you think this transition will happen from being a constitutional democracy to Taliban rule? Will make sure I take the day off to follow the action on TV.
The right-wing hindu numbnuts did not have the brains to legally defend Sadhvi Pragya from being narco-analyzed half-a-dozen times, though there was much wailing and gnashing of the teeth from that crowd about the treatment being meted out to someone “on their side”. Yet, various Indian terrorists successfully managed to argue their cases in court and quashed the usage of narco-analysis against them. While a legal degree alone has no more use other than wrapping fried groundnuts, the lawyer that is supposedly produced along with that degree out to have the legal acumen to defend the interests of their community, if they feel so strongly about it, not pretend that they can “solve” their problems by being armed and dangerous….if they can make that argument, so can SIMI.
Shri Murthy, are you sure you want to head count the number of cases taken up and won by folks you call Hindu “numbnuts”? I have lawyers in the family who have defended, quite successfully, Hindus who have been accused of violence.
Are you so sure the Hindu organizations did not see merit in defending someone who was involved with an Army Colonel who was in turn accused of unauthorised militant activities?
I would have loved to see Sadhvi Pragya and Col. Purohit defended, but at the cost of having the country’s armed forces lose their faith in such defendents? If I were a political party or an organization, I would think twice.
So there are times when people are left to fend for themselves. It’s cold and it’s rotten – it’s real.
There is no merit in discounting or ignoring the use of brute force Shri Murthy. The threat of which is precisely what is keeping our “peaceful religionists” indoors as we speak. The SIMI does not “make” that argument; it acts upon it whilst Hindu hands are tied behind their backs by their own with frivolous argumentation about “numbnuts” who at least have the balls to go out and play with the devil.
Btw, when the Taliban come, you won’t have a TV to follow the action.
Vishnu,
I used to admire you for your work, especially the reporting you did in Afghanistan and then some stellar reporting on various fighter jets, you seemed to be a man of dignity to me but seeing you stoop to sensationalism bordering on anti-nationalism makes me sad.
It would perhaps have been better to admit to footinthemouthitis than try to justify a blatantly malicious and designed to instigate kind of lie.
Since you claim to be very patient and have an ultra secular bend to your mind, can I please draw your attention towards the treatment of Hindus and Sikhs in Paapistan and Bangladesh, since your name is hindu sounding, I would believe that it constitutes a fundamental threat to people like you and me, yet never have I seen you jump up and down on a TV show crying ” fundamental threat to the millions of Hindus and Sikhs in India”
You conveniently brush aside valid criticism of your illogical statement as ” politically motivated” and ” right wing” all the riding the moral high horse, sir you are not being fair here and neither are you engaging in a honest debate.
Ah, there is another issue I would like to bring to your attention, a few years ago there was a bull named “shamboo” in wales, the bull was worshipped by a handful of Hindus( both native converts and Indian immigrants) the bull contracted mad cow disease was put down despite protests! such a fundamental threat to the millions of hindus went un noticed, specially by good samaritans like you or is it that fundamental threat to hindus isn’t worth your airtime?
Indian police routinely get killed by Maoists in the scores, yet Vishnu Som and his “types” do not get agitated over these. I find all this affected concern about minarets in Sweden obscene. Did they ban mosques? No. just the stupid minarats, which blare ‘only allah is the one true god, all rest are false devils’ five times daily. The Muslim kalima is the true hate speech. Muslims tend to do low level ethic cleansing (bomb blasts are the exception). This low level ethnic cleansing eventually results in “pakistan” like results.
For that matter, all the concern by indians about a recent muslim shooting spree in american outpost at ford hood was equally obscene. Where is the concern for Indians, nepalis, Sri lankans, Afghani and Pakistani hindus and Sikhs who have been hounded for the past 1000 years by the monotheists following one true god propaganda?
palahalli, the technical term for what you are doing right now is demagoguery. I have nothing more to say.
Vishnu is right, the ban on minarets is a fundamental threat to millions of Indian muslims, but hey! wasn’t it me who banned the Turban in french schools! There must be millions of Indian Sikhs who feel they are in fundamental danger in India because of this ban.
Lets stop talking about religion for a moment, what about the smoking ban in Public places, millions of Indian smokers from all religions would be under funda-mental threat now! and the ban on Azharuddin for match fixing! that must be examined too because he is now an MP, perhaps a ban here or there is beneficial at times Mr Som?
and thanks for giving us all a ROTFL moment
and before I sign out I must protest against the ban on Rahul Bhatt from leaving mumbai, that is a fundamental threat to millions of Bhatts residing in timbaktu
Nitin,
You frequently, and quite correctly, point out apologists in the Indian/international media who attempt to legitimize terrorist acts by drawing attention to say the “plight” of muslims in Kashmir.
But now it seems an article by the Christian Science Monitor seems to be apologizing for the Swiss
You seem to also be guilty of a double standard by mentioning Saudi Arabia.
While the ban in no way poses a “fundamental threat” to millions of Indian Muslims it is still clearly wrong. Shouldn’t 150 million Indian Muslims expect their government to come out with a measured response by officially stating that the decision to ban is unfortunate?
The ban on minarets in Switzerland does not represent a fundamental threat to Indian Muslims. At least not in the sense “fundamental threat” has been come to be defined and certainly not without many qualifications. I think Vishnu’s original tweet was not articulated properly and in subsequent posts he has tried to clarify his stand.
It is to be noted that when the minaret case was heard by the Swiss Supreme Court then it endorsed lower court’s verdict that ruled that Muslims were within their rights to construct a minaret. However, Switzerland has unique form of government where citizen could over-turn even Supremer Court’s verdict – as it happened in this case. Parallels with Shah Bano are hard to ignore which was even worse because the verdict by not over-turned by the people directly but by a pusillanimous government. All of us aware of the clusterf**k it created. In both cases justice has been denied.
It is also helpful to note that the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), a right-wing political party which was at the forefront of this ban has run racially charged campaigns in the past with provocative posters. Non-white hands grabbing Swiss passports, three white sheeps kicking out a black sheep from Switzerland and so on.
Muslims waged a legal battle within the boundaries of Swiss law to get the construction of minaret approved in Wangen bei Olten. Unfortunately the skewed democratic process in the country eventually led to the ban. I hope the ban will be over-turned.
People who argue in favor of freedom of religion and expect others to criticize limits to that freedom in Muslim countries should also be ready to criticize similar transgressions – albeit rare – in democratic societies such as Switzerland. In a democratic government certain safeguards have to be provided to the minorities especially if there is a likelihood of their rights being infringed upon by a majority vote.
The question as to whether minarets are really needed in Switzerland can only be answered by Swiss Muslims. As to whether minarets be allowed to built in Switzerland, I would have to say yes.
It is difficult for me to take any other position on this issue.
Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia
Thats all anyone has to say. Can include most other Muslim countries too with a spectrum from Saudi Arabia all the way to Turkey being the most secular. In the middle are all the countries that have less religious freedom than India or any Western nation.
Hyperbolic one-sided hypocrisy will not stand the distributed scrutiny of online media. Christians are attacked routinely in Pakistan, their daughters taken and married off to Muslims, Sikhs in the tribal region are told to pay Jizyah or Flee. But all of this is under/un-reported and the likes of Vishnu Som shall forever blather.
Hindus driven out of kashmir, and a decision to ban minarets is a ‘THREAT TO ALL INDIAN MUSLIMS’. If this standard were non-hypocritically applied to non-Islamic population in the world, Saudi and pakistan would’ve been nuked out of existence by non-muslims for all their actions.
So please people, lets not feed the trolls. Trolls don’t just exist online by the way, but are the mainstay of the Indian media.
SR Murthy of course has a point. What is the use of ‘enhanced’ interrogation when you can’t use it in court against the terrorists? This is utterly stupid.
On the other hand, lets not discount the tremendous potential power of deterrence that a Second-Amendment like law can bring to a society. My hypothesis is that riots will not take place easily when innocent middle class and poor people have weapons to defend themselves. Especially when the cops in a corrupt nation are either incapable, underfunded or simply corrupt to protect you.
Calling a spade a spade is given fanciful names these days. That still will not change the nature of the spade.
Vishnu – this is probably an amazingly naive statement to make.
1. Indian Muslims are Indians. They have nothing to do with Switzerland
2. The whole concept of treating muslims worldwide as muslims is a fundamentally flawed concept.
3. If the Swiss want to ban something – it’s their prerogative. Saudi Arabia has banned construction of temples and churches. Has that hampered hindus and christians? NO
4. And finally – if any Indian commits a crime because of this minaret ban, he needs to be tried and imprisoned. End of story.
Frankly, Mr. Som is entitled to his opinion. For all we know, he may be a believer and this may indeed be the perception of Indian Muslims. Certainly, I have not read otherwise from other Indian Muslims, so I’ll take his statement at face value.
But, what are we going to do about this since it is causing hurt to Indian citizens? Can we ask the government to sanction Switzerland and impose a travel embargo on the nation? This would need a lot of guts since it would affect many prominent Indians if media reports about offshore accounts are to be believed. Perhaps Mr. Som can use his bully pulpit at NDTV to call for such action.
Mohib Ahmad – “It is difficult for me to take any other position on this issue.”
- Shri Ahmed, I would have you know that my comments don’t pass muster on your website because I tend not to practice the “humble dhimmi” routine most Hindus do there. That aside I fully understand you not being able to take any other position on the Minaret issue.
You have called the Swiss democratic practice skewed. Why do you say this? After all, it is a legal process and it seeks a majority view as any good and decent democracy should.
I would like to know why it is so difficult for you to accept criticism of Islamic countries and their legal practices against non-Muslims? Why should folks be asked to qualify it with “please also lambast the Swiss!”? The former discrimination is much older.
In your own post you say you hope that the ban is overturned. You rest easy on the very same Swiss democratic tradition to (in future) overturn their own current decision. What comparable redress do non-Muslim folks in Islamic countries have?
Your trying to malign the Swiss by alluding to racism. This is a nonsensical charge. You don’t like them presenting White as good..too bad. They are a White people.
I think you are a racist because you cannot deny the Kafir categorization in the Quran. Please do something about it Shri Ahmad.
Vishnu,
Since many pixels have been set alight on this issue, I’m making my concluding comment. You can have the last word, if you wish.
Your explanations do not convince me against my initial assessment that the Swiss minarets issue doesn’t pose a fundamental threat to Indian Muslims. In your summary you wrote:
1. The minaret ban is unfortunate.
2. It hurts the sentiments of Muslims all over the world.
I agree with both these statements.
3. It represents a psychological, not physical threat to the beliefs of Muslims here. A psychological threat can still be a fundamental threat. and in another comment you write that it is a fundamental threat to their religious beliefs.
This is a change from your initial remark. Even if something is a threat to their religious beliefs, it need not be a threat to the individuals. In fact, many religions are fundamental threat to others, because they are competing with each other for followers. That does not mean that the people of those religions are necessarily threats to each other.
The logic of your argument will take you firmly into the territory of religious fundamentalism, which I grant you are not.
4. There are striking differences between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds.
Sure. And as many commenters said, we shouldn’t therefore, apply different moral standards to them. A violation of religious freedom in country A is a violation of religious freedom in country A, regardless of whether that country is Saudi Arabia or Switzerland.
This, however, is an entirely different issue. As I wrote already, what you think of the Swiss after this is one thing—only, it does not threaten Indian Muslims in any fundamental sense.
5. A campaign of reciprocal hate is unfortunate and wrong.
Of course, but that’s never been an issue in this debate. Mother’s milk is good, hate is bad (reciprocal or self-started) and so on.
Elsewhere you write I argue … on the basis of what I have read … that the Swiss decision to ban minarets was based on an underlying assumption of Muslims being terrorists.
This is a simplistic reading of the issue. The campaign to ban the minarets might well have used terrorism as the bogey, but the vote might (and I use the word might because I do not have the certitude to pass definitive judgement) have come about due to a majority of the Swiss not being prepared to accommodate Muslims if that meant a change to their traditional ‘way of life’. [Update: Saw this piece in NYT just after I wrote this comment]
So the minaret vote is a manifestation of Swiss refusal to accommodate Muslims. You can reasonably blame the Swiss for intolerance. But because their intolerance is directed at Muslims who happen to be in Switzerland, that intolerance doesn’t fundamentally threaten Muslims in India.
Finally – you write “Acorn blew a simple debating point into this huge mess”. Why so? I think it is Vishnu Som who created a huge mess by carelessly, recklessly and wrongly using the phrase “fundamental threat to Indians Muslims”. It is not a simple debating point—words have meaning, words influence minds, especially when uttered by people whose words reach millions of people. If there is a lesson in this “huge mess” it is on the responsible and careful choice of words.
Shri Amit Joshi asks – “But, what are we going to do about this since it is causing hurt to Indian citizens?”
- Shri Joshi, can we please be accurate in our identifications please? I’m very happy about the ban on minarets. I’m a Hindu.
The “Indian” is indeed a strange creature. Much like a piece of cloth that covers the body…badly tailored and barely covered.
@Mohib Ahmad
“In a democratic government certain safeguards have to be provided to the minorities especially if there is a likelihood of their rights being infringed upon by a majority vote.”
It is probably a mistake to assign all virtues to democracy. Democracy is essentially a majoratarian rule. When Socrates was given capital punishment (he chose to drink poison) it was perfectly a democratic decision if not a just one.
I don’t see why only “religious” minorities need to give such special protection from majority.
For a secular state I believe that no religious group should be given a “right” that is denied to a non-religious group. But if you start giving away such protection to minorities you are essentially weakening the democratic setup.
It is arguable if the decision by Swiss gov. is Justified, in accordance to secularism etc etc but it perfectly a democratic one.
Vishnu:
It represents a psychological, not physical threat to the beliefs of Muslims here. A psychological threat can still be a fundamental threat.
Not entirely sure how the Swiss ban is a “threat” (fundamental, no less) to a Muslim in India: why would a Muslim worry about what they think about Islam in some other country? That country being Switzerland is more reason to ignore it.
Perhaps a clarification of what a “threat” means is in order.
I don’t think I need to outline the many other ways in which innocent Muslims around the world are being scrutinized,…From additional scrutiny of Muslims in passport and visa applications to the French ban on religious headgear in certain places.
Given the severity of the problems we’ve all had with pan-Islamism over the years, I don’t think it takes much to understand why one should pay extra attention to such applications. btw, the French ban was on religious symbols, not just the burqa. Again, it’s French law – ie what the French people wanted, if you believe in democracy – so if you have a problem, don’t visit France. And no, I’m not worried about they don’t let people put on large tilak in France
Nitin, Mohib, Vishnu,
I’ve already finished with this thread; but it just occurred to me that one reason we are keeping this going (regardless of whether we are left/right/centre) is we get to feel good abt ourselves and superior to the Swiss; we do multi-culti better than them, pats on our back all around.
okay. done. hurrah.
But lets spend a little more time trying to get to Sw in other aspects. Lets address issues that really concern us as a nation. For one example: lets think if a Bhopal gas tragedy would have happened in Sw, and how it would have played out there.
bye,
Jai
@Palahalli,
I don’t see the point. It’s not exactly news that the Indian identity is a work in progress, and that there would be significant numbers of Indian citizens who agree with you. But if enough people are upset, it is entirely feasible to call for action against Switzerland. In a way it would be a test of conviction for those who believe in the “Indian” concept.
Congratulations for successfully baiting Palahalli (and me
, Amit Joshi.
>>it’s not exactly news that the Indian identity is a work
I bet that’s true of most every identity. Which identity according to you has been frozen down the centuries?
>>But if enough people are upset, it is entirely feasible to call for action against Switzerland.
Why would enough number of people being upset about anything necessarily mean they are right in being upset? For example, I am debating with a commie on another forum, and he is vastly upset that I called out on his bluff that communism is a great idea and that the blame for killing millions of people cannot be laid at the doors of leftwing ideology. Most every commie would be upset if the truth about their ideology is told to them (which is the reason why they don’t want you to analyze dangerous religious/political dogmas). Would you like to comfort such people? Or would you like to tell them, come on you twits, learn to deal with truth?
Or take another example: the majority of Swiss are upset about minarets. If you are deeply upset about their being upset, who’s wrong, who’s right?
>>In a way it would be a test of conviction for those who believe in the “Indian” concept.
“Codswallop” is the word that comes to mind. You are claiming that the litmus test of being a great mathematician lies in being able to appreciate Goan fish curry.
I’d rather think the test of being Indian is in living by Gandhian values, such as non-violence and compassion. By this criterion, a person who justifies Nandigram rapes/murders could still be a good Cuban in Cuba, but he is not a decent Indian, if Indian at all.
>“And you have not got the answer you seek because you’re being impatient. … Well, the answer is nuanced, requires patience and a mind with a secular bent.” – Vishnu Som
Vishnu sounds like the James Taggard character straight out of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
Can’t help wondering if BOTH of you would have had the same attitude and words if you had been discussing Turkey’s (secular with 95% muslims) headscarf ban..
@Vishnu Som
quoting presstv is absolute idiocy..
Every child knows that presstv is the information warfare section of
republican guard…..its a cheap propaganda media of Iranian Mullah regime(website+TV)
Vishnu Som’s words demand immortalisation. So here’s a first attempt, folks. Please join in the fun:
Let’s say you shot off your mouth,
And nobody got what you meant
Just say: “It’s nuanced, requires patience
And a mind with a secular bent”
I can imagine a song from a musical with the refrain, “It’s nuanced, requires patience and a mind with a secular bent”
I think the bad choice of words can be understood and pardoned ending the original issue once for all. Hope Mr. Vishnu will take those points. Also, Mr. Vishnu would have done himself good if he ignored comments which made personal remarks and debated on the strength of his arguments. It would give him a lot of peace of mind and us better arguments leading to a faster conclusion.
On the Swiss minaret ban being because of the thinking that muslims are terrorists and the Saudi ban being on the basis of “other” religion and hence more pardonable, I think it is double standards. I think the thinking of evaluating religions (in this case Islam) and making an opinion on it being a cause for terrorism is far better than just banning other religion and other religious practices. Of course, I do not think the Swiss ban can be simplified as being based on a belief that all muslims are terrorists.
The existence and popularity of religions like Islam present several “fundamental threats” to democracy, freedom of speech, people of all religions and to atheists like me. A billion people believe in the religion that condemns freedom of speech, that too not based on any public thought and referendum but based on inappropriate laws given by a God whose existence can not be ascertained is certainly more disturbing than the Swiss minaret ban. Just that we have become used to the former.
Jay PAtel:
“Shouldn’t 150 million Indian Muslims expect their government to come out with a measured response by officially stating that the decision to ban is unfortunate?”
For what purpose? So that the like of Vishnu Som can feel vindicated? What was the Indian govt’s reaction when other countries try to interfere in India’s internal affairs? Do any of you people even read the bloody papers regularly?
Seriously, if this kind of illiterate ignorant nonsense is what passes for “Indian national interest” thinking in Indians, there is much cause for concern.
Jai_C whines:
“it just occurred to me that one reason we are keeping this going (regardless of whether we are left/right/centre) is we get to feel good abt ourselves and superior to the Swiss; we do multi-culti better than them, pats on our back all around.”
What is this “right/left/center” in India where there is a MULTI_PARTY system not a two party system? A person can lean towards a dozen parties simultaneously…what do you call that North-by-North-West of Centre (clearly a 1 dimensional left-right-center visualization is not possible in a multiparty democracy)?
Indians get used to the foreign countries and the politicals systems in those countries and then come here and break wind and have deep thoughts about Indians been inferior beings that just like to celebrate their superiority over the swiss. Really now, Indians are all that simple and stupid, eh? really?
Mohib Ahmed wrote:
“Muslims waged a legal battle within the boundaries of Swiss law to get the construction of minaret approved in Wangen bei Olten. Unfortunately the skewed democratic process in the country eventually led to the ban. I hope the ban will be over-turned.”
Err…they hold a Referendum in Switzerland, i.e., every person DIRECTLY votes for every issue and the majority decides. It is actual, real demoracy in action, not “skewed democracy”.
It is essentially 100% democracy not corrupted by “representatives” and “politicians” getting to decide “on behalf of the people”.
Switzerland has nothing to apologize for, and if the claim is that they do, then these same people who demand “action on the swiss” need to call out the despicable behaviour of the racist, bigoted islamic countries that run under Shariat law and treat minorities like garbage.
“Personal attack murthy is that it personally effects the feelings of muslims at a PERSONAL level..Was that not obvious ???”
I see, and non muslims never get affected at a personal level, is it? That’s really fascinating, please do continue.
” ANother personal attack is that you most likely have a very modestly sized pen is.. really small…we are talking about a shrimp sized embarrassment”
Right, and this juvenile personal insult is supposed to “make a point” that muslims feel that way? Yes, I think I understood your point the first time, and did not agree with it.
“rest of AnitaJazz’s vomit deleted”
Dear lady, since you seem to have sex on your mind a lot, I would entreat you not to project your sexual frustrations on the rest of the planet. I post a lot of because cretinous thoughts from individuals irritate me to the extent of wanting to say something about it. That is all. No need to go all Freudian and start fantasizing about your mother.
Murti, my sex life aside, seriously, spend some time going over your own posts.. its laughable.. and taking on the credibility of one of this countries best reporters by taking his words out of context, exaggerating their meaning and misrepresenting his intended argument, by using extreme judgment and rushing to opinion without thinking broadly..
and generally, have u seen the type of quality things he has done in his field ?..what have you ever done ? your two minutes of fame in life is the fact that he lapsed in his judgment by dignifying your naive, inane, forced bigotry with a response ..
The rest of group atleast had valid points.., and were willing to converse like people
Anita
AnitaJazz writes:
“his words out of context, exaggerating their meaning and misrepresenting his intended argument, by using extreme judgment and rushing to opinion without thinking broadly..”
We are all very capable to judging the context and the meaning of what Vishnu Som is saying, thank you very much. If you have a logical argument to support your stance, spell it out and we can all see the worthiness of your stance. If the best you can do is froth at your mouth with bile drooling down your chin, shove your moronic ranting and raving someplace.
@Oldtimer
The Indian identity is barely 60 years old and therefore is much more fragile than religious (Hindu/Muslim) or even Marxist identity.
And Gandhian values also include support for Muslim causes and the Ummah (as in the Khilafat movement) if it helps communal harmony in India.
@Amit Joshi
>>…And Gandhian values also include support for Muslim causes and the Ummah (as in the Khilafat movement) if it helps communal harmony in India.
Yeah, we all know as to what India got for Gandhi’s support of the Khilafat movement…don’t we Shrimaan Joshi? Muslims, despite Gandhi’s efforts to please them by bending over backwards, still demanded and got away with Pakistan!
so much so for Gandhi’s unrelenting drive for maintaining so-called ‘communal harmony’…when Ali brothers – Shaukat and Mohammad considered him – the great Gandhi – nothing more than a fool! So much so for communal harmony!
The swiss banned minarets, not the whoe place of worship. so how is it a threat to indian muslims?
So either all indian muslims pray in swiss minarets and hence feel threatened, or VishnuSom is a nuanced, patient and a fundamental threat with with a secularly bent mind!
@Vishnu
Religious/Racial intolerance is prevalent throughout the world and manifests in different ways. Is our own house in order? Anti North Indian sentiments in South India Maharashtra and Assam etc, Anti Sikh riots of 1984, displacement of Kashmiri pundits, discrimination faced by north-east Indians, countless hindu-muslim riots throughout the length and breadth of the country are all examples of this intolerance. Individual intentions apart, we as a nation are no saints either. In fact every country has its own share of skeletons, you just have to look under the proverbial carpet. Is hamam me sab nange hain!
Of course it’s a different matter when a “govt” discriminates between religions, like a lot of countries do, but intolerance remains the root cause. So what is the solution? May be the world needs a debate, may be we are already in middle of one, may be time will present a solution. A holier than thou attitude is perhaps the last thing it needs.
>>The Indian identity is barely 60 years old and therefore is much more fragile than religious (Hindu/Muslim) or even Marxist identity.
“Young therefore fragile” is marxist logic. By that token “dalit” is very fragile identity, and any hyphenated identity, like “Indian Muslim” or “Indian Christian” is even more fragile. Indeed, I’d say that the test of “Indian Muslim” identity is not to get upset about minarets in *Switzerland*. If there are any “Indian Muslims” who want to riot in Delhi exercised about minarets in Zurich, I’ll have to politely tell them either to shove it or to seek asylum in Switzerland. Note that it is the China-patriot commies who tried to rally Indian Muslims on the subject of Dutch cartoons; Indian Muslims by and large were indifferent to it.
>>And Gandhian values also include support for Muslim causes and the Ummah (as in the Khilafat movement) if it helps communal harmony in India.
The pre-requisite to understanding Gandhism is to discard preconceived notions about it. Non-violence is non-negotiable. Gandhi was not a close-minded dogmatist like the commies. Recall his reaction to Chauri Chaura. Khilafat ended in murder of innocents (which you strangely seem to relish) and so Gandhi never repeated the failed experiment of rallying Muslims around Islamist causes.
Response to Shri Amit Joshi -
It’s not correct to say that an “Indian” identity has been WIP for the past 60 years. After all, the birth of the INC was couched in such a mythical “Indianess”. That birth was in itself a rather late reaction to the bigger myth of united Hindu-Muslim (Indian?) action against the British in 1857. I wonder if anybody has made a study of possible Muslim stance if the Marathas had not agreed to the hoisting of Shah Zafar and fighting under his flag.
Coming back to the myth that the INC fostered mostly under Shri Gandhi, it is true that there were a majority of Hindu minded folks in it’s medium term phase (Bal, Pal and Lal) and that is why Muslims always felt uncomfortable within it.
When the Muslim League was formed, it’s primary opponent was the Congress not the Hindu Mahasabha. This was so because it was generally easy for the ML to hoist the Congress on it’s Hindu petard. A petard it was barely willing to own. The Hindu Mahasabha was left to suffer this deliberate Congressi created confusion.
Post Shri Gandhi’s ascendency and through his antics in the company of such worthies like the Ali brothers; no doubt the Congress tried it’s best to shed what it saw as Hindu flab. But even here the ML was not going to oblige the Congress by letting it forget it’s notional Hindu past. This in the end was what resulted in partition.
So, the correct view would be to accept that the mythical “Indian” has been an experiment that has already failed. No more WIP nonsense is going to resurrect this ghost.
As for being “upset” about the Swiss action, well, here OT has spoken my thoughts. I think they stopped far short of what was really required – but good enough for now.
The Muslim national identity may be religious but the Hindu one is not a counterpart. It’s larger than it’s religious dimensions. It is much more well rounded in it’s scope that encompasses varied castes, tribes, groups that share an underlying world-view but remain true to their own calling.
Time to move on. I’m closing this debate here.
[...] which the Acorn responded with a reasoned blog post. It’s superfluous to repeat the Acorn’s response here but [...]