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.

147 thoughts on “Vishnu and the Missing Minarets”

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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?

  8. 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?

  9. palahalli, the technical term for what you are doing right now is demagoguery. I have nothing more to say.

  10. 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

  11. 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?

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. @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.

  21. 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 🙂

  22. 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

  23. @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.

  24. 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.

  25. >“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.

  26. 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..

  27. @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)

  28. 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”

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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?

  32. 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”.

  33. 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.

  34. “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.

  35. 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

  36. 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.

  37. @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.

  38. @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!

  39. 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!

  40. @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.

  41. >>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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

Comments are closed.