Saturday, December 5, 2009
30 comments:
Well-articulated disagreement would be a very good indicator that I was understood, and would be appreciated more than perfunctory agreement or praise. But of course, you could agree and praise...
Important disclaimer: The views expressed in comments by visitors to this blog do not necessarily enjoy my endorsement. Though I believe, practically, the comments' space of this blog belongs entirely to the readers and that I must not regulate it, I might delete comments that are insulting to other people, or if they are of violent nature.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Updates from my new Blog
LinkWithin
read both. i don't find them so apalling..
ReplyDeleteWhats imp is the reason for not allowing the minarets..
i wonder if both would have had the same stance if they had been discussing the Headscarf ban in Turkey (A secular state with 95% muslims)
ReplyDeletewhat a waste of time..minarets aren't place of worship..
ReplyDeleteWDM,
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid to put it strongly, but either you're entirely missing the larger picture, or don't want to state it on a public forum.
If it's the latter, it's alright. If it's the former, then this is EXTREMELY worrying. In my interactions with you in the past, one of the fears is getting further confirmed.
Now, read the following statement very carefully, while remembering that I'm an atheist, and am emotionally in a much more neutral position to observe things for what they actually are:
HINDUS IN INDIA ARE SYSTEMATICALLY BEING MADE TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT SIMPLY BEING THE MAJORITY RELIGION - BY LARGE SECTIONS OF THE MEDIA, THE SO CALLED 'SECULAR' PARTIES AND ALSO SOME OF THE BLOGGERS WHO WANT TO LOOK 'BROAD-MINDED' AND BENEVOLENT.
Sorry to resort to such a strong way of putting it, but this trend worries me a lot. It totally goes against all the ideas of freedom and equality.
This is the second post where I've tried to deal with pseudo-secularism, and both the posts have virtually got NO response.
My blog is not very popular, but with both the posts, I see a palpable drop in comments. Isn't that worrying?
Or political correctness (a nice term for peer pressure induced-hypocrisy) is coming in way of our seeing the truth? And it makes me very angry.
This (click) is that post. Both the posts preceding and following this one had at least 10 commentators, each. And the linked post had only 3!!!
Either people would agree with me or disagree. In either case, they should've commented. But, no! Everyone decides to skirt this issue. Why?
I know you're very short of time, but please do read the linked post above, our PM's speech that in turn it links to and my comments following the post.
Okay, till now I've not addressed anything that you've said, and that's because as I said I'm deeply aggravated by how badly have the educated people in our society been subliminally brain washed that someone as intelligent, experienced and observant as you could miss the point!
That point is Vishnu Som was making Muslims seem victimized where there was nothing really for them to feel victimized about!
This trend has become really a big thing in our society. If event 'x' happens to Hindus it is a small thing, but if it happens to Muslims it becomes a 'fundamental threat to Muslims in India'....
...Middle Eastern countries don't allow any kind of religious freedom to any other religions and yet this was never deemed as a 'fundamental threat to Hindus in India', why???
ReplyDeleteWhereas, I was surprised - there are probably more Indians than natives in Dubai, for instance.
This needless 'victimhood' that is being gifted to Muslims day-in-and-day-out makes them feel like special citizens, and Hindus like second class citizens, really!
This bias is so very apparent. In Gujarat riots, probably 10% people who had died were police personnel, yet the impression propagated by media is such that it was a state sponsored riot or that police was passive in the whole thing. Tell me can under such circumstances, one out of every 10 persons who died could be an armed policeman?
Why have we been not questioning the media on these lines? Precisely because as I said Hindus are being made to feel guilty for being the majority.
Why nobody is raising voice against the Haj subsidy in a 'secular' country? Again, the guilt for being the majority.
Why is it alright for there to be a shrine for a relatively nondescript saint of religion followed by 20% of Indians in Ayodhya, but not a Temple for arguably the most important deity of the 80% of the nation? Again, the guilt of being the majority! I know your line of reasoning - Ram himself never desired a temple there. But no, I'm not talking of sentimental or emotional angle. I'm asking for simple, rational idealistic angle, taking into consideration the concept of CONSTITUTIONAL equality of ALL religions.
Should there not be a temple?
I'll give you a simple analogy to explain the situation in India.
There are two brothers of same age - one physicaly stronger, and the other weaker. The stronger brother is responsible, tries to be dutiful and keeps on going about his affairs peacefully. The weaker brother is mischievous and stubborn.
Now what the weaker brother (WB) does is keeps on pricking the stronger brother (SB) with a pin. The prick hurts the SB, but is still bearable. He complains to the mom. Mom tells - "Beta, you're the stronger one. You must understand. You're more mature, no? You should be a good brother. See, how weak your WB is. Don't you feel pity for him? And see, you're the stronger one. How much will that 10 ml blood that you've lost 'cuz of the prick harm you?".
Now, SB is confused. He feels angry at WB, and yells at him to not repeat the pricking thing....
...But, WB is really wicked. He knows mom is on his side, and there always is some emotional blackmail he can try.
ReplyDeleteSo occasionally, he blames SB on false charges of bullying and all. Whereas the fact is SB had been busy studying like a good boy all the time.
But time to time, WB still keeps on pricking SB. Every single prick hurts him, and makes him further angry. His only problem is he is stronger and so is expected to bear pain and not retaliate.
But what he can't understand is why can't WB just stop playing those dirty tricks?
He understands that it's 'cuz of the partial attitude shown by the mother and inherently wicked nature because of pampering upbringing.
Then in between, what happens is WB and SB get common cold. Mom buys medicines only for WB, again repeating that gibberish about 'oh look how weak your WB is looking! How can you be so selfish? Can't you bear a few days of fever to see your WB hale and hearty?'. But of course, everyone knows that there's no cure for common cold; there's only symptomatic treatment.
WB keeps on continuing his pricking antic. One day, just one day, SB gets really irritated with all this impartiality and conspiracies by WB, and slaps WB very hard out of pent up anger.
SB loses a tooth and bleeds somewhat heavily (but still a lot less than what blood SB had lost 'cuz of constant pin-pricking) and starts crying 'mommy, mommy'. Mom comes and mouths all that rhetoric about how SB is a bad boy and is bullying WB.
SB points out that WB had been repeatedly pricking and irritating him.
Mom tells - 'in which case you should've reported to me, but "should not have taken law in your own hands". Now, say sorry to WB! See becharaa, he's still bleeding so badly. Now onwards, as punishment to you, WB will get three slices of bread and you'll get only 4, even though your body weight is 4 times that of WB and you require 8 slices of bread.'
Now SB feels frustrated, angry and guilty. Everyone blames him for losing patience. Why? 'Cuz he'd set a good precedent in behavior by behaving well all the time. Everyone repeatedly tells him, 'you're the stronger one; you must understand. WB is weak, so feels insecure. That's why he keeps on pricking you with needles. Besides, you go to school, he doesn't 'cuz he doesn't like studies. 'Cuz you go to school, you must forgive each time he pokes you. In fact if he pricks you on left arm, you must put forth your right arm for him to poke'....
...So the next time SB tries that, but WB instead of feeling guilty for his past bad behavior pokes him even deeper and there is even greater loss of blood. Yet everyone keeps on blaming SB for 'reacting', but they keep on overlooking WB's repeated bad behavior 'cuz of the 'victim-image'....
ReplyDeleteI shouldn't have to tell you, the partisan mom is media and secular parties, and pseudo-secular educated people. Whereas who the two brothers are, shouldn't be difficult for you to understand.
And you know, you missed all THIS 'cuz you've been made to feel guilty being the majority all along! That's the only thing I could gather from "I don't find them so appaling".
"what a waste of time..minarets aren't place of worship.."
Isn't it (minarets not being a place of worship) an even bigger reason to worry and get angry as to why then a senior journalist from a very influential media house terms banning of their construction in a far off nation, after a due democratic process, "a fundamental threat to Muslims in India"? If what Vishnu Som attempted is not a vicious propaganda, then what is?
Why must voice be not raised against this kind of shoddy, manipulative, hate mongering that passes off as journalism in our country on a regular basis?
I'm not angry at you, WDM. But then your missing all these points entirely worries me greatly as to how much have you already played into the hands of manipulative media. Which only goes on to prove that reading more news makes us miss woods for trees!!! :) Isn't it?
Thanks for responding. At least you chose to respond on this grave issue and I appreciate that.
TC.
really short of time
ReplyDeleteits not middle eastern its saudi arabia. there are temples in bahrain oman etc, which i have personally visited..
and on saudi arabia, i dont know about the mosques in vatican.
its interesting that both the brainwashed and the unbrainwashed think of saudi arabia when it comes to muslims but not turkey..
i thought i had wasted my time on the "issue" other than reading just the 2 links but some related stuff..
vishnu som was blogging and thats not journalism in my books..
i wouldnt have used the word threat
but i thought the reaction was also hysteric.
i posted some comments in som's blog but it didnt get published (part of wasted time)
i dont care if my attitudes and opinion worry you. (u dont have to be mild you can call me whatever name comes to ur mind)
i have a stand on an issue, based on what i think and feel about it. i dont think would this make me sound better smarter or popular.
if it doesnt meet the expectations of others including u, thats not my problem.
re the reaction to ur post. i think perhaps u r posting it in the wrong blogsite. u should try sulekha or o3, you will be praised and be instantly popular.
(its not right to assume the post without reading it but i will read it later and withdraw and apologise if i am wrong).
on the temple, as a ramdevotee, i dont need it.
ur responses might be framed based on reactions to blogpost.
but i was in mumbai during the riots, and i have seen it thru my eyes, and that frames part of my opinion.
i thought the reaction of "khan" to the blog pointing out that minarets and mosques were different, summed up the whole situation.
i would like to think i am free of prejudices but few years back, i remember my assumptions when during new year celebration an elderly muslim man wanted to sing a religious song. (i went oh there They go..but he came up with a beautiful song on Murugan.(bro of Ganesh) makin me feel like a fool..
will cont later.
the issue is not about not building a temple in Ayodhya for Ram but for building a temple at a particular site for Ram.
ReplyDeletewould it be ok if a party decides to make its headoffice by demolishing your house,saying the party with more supporters is more important than your house?
when it comes to hindus vs minorities..i think its not about two brothers but between daughter and daughterinlaw..
ReplyDeletewhenever we encounter muslim fundamentalism we want to send them to Pakistan or Saudi.
But we dont think the same about mns and sena..
muslims always have to prove their patriotism..after an attack.. (move around in the blogworld a bit more you will find those comments easily)
if u live in someone's house, and share the problems but still feel your place is not secure. when something ur relative does can be held against you. when you have to prove your loyalty to the house always..u will perhaps understand how a daughter in law feels..
u have responeded to my turkey comment?
ReplyDeleteHi WDM!
ReplyDeleteDid you read the capitalized text in my comment that I had marked in bold about making Hindus in India feel guilty of being the majority?
What do you think of that observation of mine? I see, you'd not responded to it. Do you agree to it or disagree?
.........
"i wonder if both would have had the same stance if they had been discussing the Headscarf ban in
Turkey (A secular state with 95%
muslims)"
Here, I want to point out that the author of the Acorn web site had only asked one simple thing - how was 'architectural ban of minarets in Sweden a fundamental threat to Muslims in INDIA'?
The illogic behind such a sensational statement needs to be questioned. The acorn web site was not discussing anything about Turkey or the nature of Islam. It was simply questioning why should Muslims feel threatened if the banning of minarets is:
1. in a FOREIGN country with very INSIGNIFICANT Muslim population
2. minarets are not a place of worship?
So I don't think acorn web site's article had anything to do with Turkey or the nature of Islam. The author was merely questioning Vishnu's motives and rationale. How does Turkey as an example figure over here?
........
"really short of time its not middle eastern its saudi arabia. there are temples in bahrain oman etc, which i have personally
visited"....
...Sorry for generalizing. I didn't know the above were secular countries like India. I personally don't know the condition of any of the above countries. But one of our family friends who'd lived in Sultanate of Oman for a long time had told me that there were restrictions even carrying devotional music CDs and cassettes.
ReplyDeleteIf he was not lying, then, I would consider a much severe restriction on religious freedom as compared to mere banning of architectural motifs, viz., minarets.
But why're we even discussing this?
Are you trying to say that the middle Eastern countries you named above allow greater religious freedom to Hindus than Switzerland allows to Muslims?
If you're saying that, then I really don't know much about the global conditions. Really.
But IF it is a case that indeed even today there is greater religious freedom in Switzerland for Muslims than for Hindus in Saudi Arabia, then why has Vishnu Som not said that "Saudi Arabia's policies are a fundamental threat to Hindus in India?"
Are you saying his approach is not partisan?
........
"u have responeded to my turkey comment?"
ReplyDeleteVatican is in Europe. Mecca is in?
1. Saudi Arabia?
OR
2. Turkey?
......
Regarding Turkey.
Simple question: Ketan Panchal is an atheist + Ketan Panchal is an Indian --> So, all Indians are atheists ...(1)
Or
80% of Indians as Hindus....(2)
Which of the above statements is more accurate?
Statement 1 is misleading 'cuz a statistical exception has been put forth as representative.
Logic used in statement 1 in would lead us to following conclusion:
Turkey is a Muslim country + Turkey is a tolerant and progressive country --> So, all the Muslim countries are tolerant and progressive....(1)
I don't want to put up the corresponding statement 2.
.........
"som was blogging and thats not journalism"
Whatever Vishnu Som writes is put up on NDTV web site (NDTV social). It might not be 'official' news. But can you tell me, what were his INTENTIONS behind making those statements of 'fundamental threat'? He has a right to his opinion. But, especially, being a journalist and a prominent one at that, he's also expected to be responsible and accountable.
It is this intention that you've either missed or did not want to acknowledge.
If you're stating that his kind of blogs do not shape general perception, then I think his blog wouldn't have been subject of such intense debate. He has over 250 twitter friends.
Plus, if I'm a well known doctor do you expect me to write things responsibly or irresponsibly.....
...How would you react to my writing on my personal and unofficial blog that smoking is extremely good for health?
ReplyDeleteWould someone be wrong in criticizing and calling my statement as 'wrong MEDICAL information'?
.........
"i thought the reaction was also hysteric."
Acorn's questions were very logical. He was merely asking Vishnu to justify his use of 'fundamental threat to Muslims in India'.
Later, the comments started turning hysteric simply 'cuz Vishnu had totally overlooked very well constructed criticisms and arguments and labeled them as 'right winged'. Whereas, there was fundamentally nothing right-winged about asking him how a minor decision in Switzerland was a 'fundamental threat to muslims in India'.
.........
"i dont care if my attitudes and
opinion worry you. (u dont have to be mild you can call me whatever
name comes to ur mind)"
WDM, you really want to say this? If that's indeed the case, then we as humans should stop talking to each other. If we even before looking at reasons in others' arguments declare that your arguments can't change my views, then there would never be any point in having a discussion.
Moreover, in my entire previous night's comment there's nothing remotely derogatory about you that I've stated! :)
If you took offence at the term 'brainwashing', then at least I'm reassured that you do think of it as something bad! ;)
.........
...
ReplyDelete"u should try sulekha or o3, you will be praised and be instantly popular"
You probably again missed the point. I was not at all lamenting the obscurity of my blog. I was making a statistical observation that nonpolitical posts got responses from 10 fellow bloggers, but political ones got only from 3. And from my statcounter I know a lot of readers have landed on that post and yet not commented (which BTW you must read to understand why am I worried about Hindus being made guilty for being the majority).
I have ideas on popularizing my CURRENT blog, but I do not use them 'cuz it's not one of my goals.
.........
"on the temple, as a ramdevotee, i
dont need it."
I repeat, I did not ask you the question regarding Ram temple in capacity of a devotee, but as an impartial and rational citizen of India.
If for instance, you're the teacher of your child in a school, and another classmate beats your child, you cannot skirt your responsibility of scolding the other class mate citing that I don't mind if someone beats up my child; my child is understanding and it's part of life. You will have to look at the situation from two perspectives. One as a mother; but as long as you are ALSO the teacher, you have to look at it as one class mate beating another one.
Likewise, as long as you are ALSO a citizen of India, you've to look at it as a citizen of India, too and not just as a Ram-devotee.
.........
...
ReplyDelete"ur responses might be framed
based on reactions to blogpost. but i was in mumbai during the
riots, and i have seen it thru my
eyes, and that frames part of my
opinion."
I totally couldn't get the context of this point. Which of my reaction are you referring to?
I was too young during Ayodhya demolition and Mumbai riots. So I obviously have no reactions to that event. Though, I know much better about Gujarat riots 'cuz I was 17, then.
.........
"minarets and mosques were different"
That's the whole point! Then, what was Vishnu trying to do through his blog?!!
.........
"the issue is not about not building a
temple in Ayodhya for Ram but for building a temple at a particular site for Ram.
would it be ok if a party decides to make its headoffice by demolishing
your house, saying the party with more supporters is more important
than your house?"
If I primarily live in Mumbai, and there's a house in London (where I don't live), which my ancestors had built by demolishing someone else's house only to gain sadistic pleasure in the first place, then I would return that site to the original owner's descendants even without their asking! They wouldn't even require to demolish it!! That's what conscience would tell me to do. And my conscience would tell me to do that even more strongly if I would know that the owners my ancestors had displaced were really emotionally attached to that place....
...
ReplyDelete"when it comes to hindus vs minorities..i think its not about two brothers but between daughter and daughterinlaw.."
Even if I were to accept your analogy to be more accurate than mine, would what all that SB did become justified if it was being done by daughter-in-law. Would the mother-in-law be justified in buying medicines for DIL but not the son when both suffer from common cold? Would DIL be justified in keeping on pricking and bleeding the son? Would mom be justified in giving 3 bread slices to DIL (who needs 4) and only 4 slices to the son (who needs 8)? Would the mother be justified in not paying money to the son to buy food, but giving that money to DIL to go on a picnic? All this only to make the DIL feel secure and 'at her home'? In fact it is this patronizing and appeasement that keeps on making the son see the DIL with suspicion and hatred (apart from of course the DIL's constant pricking).
.........
"whenever we encounter muslim
fundamentalism we want to send
them to Pakistan or Saudi.
But we dont think the same about mns and sena..
muslims always have to prove their patriotism..after an attack.. (move around in the blogworld a bit more you will find those comments easily)"
There's much heavier criticism heaped against sena and MNS as compared to on Muslims (move around in the blogworld a bit more you will find those comments easily) ;) ...
...Had they been idolizing Queen Victoria instead of Raja Shivaji, obviously angry bloggers would've asked them too to move out of India!! Isn't that simple? But of course, I would never ask them to do so. I would rather have that fundamentalists give up their violent means.
ReplyDelete.........
"muslims always have to prove their patriotism..after an attack.."
Aren't you generalizing heavily by using 'always' in this context? I know a few Muslims personally, and in my knowledge they've never been asked to prove their patriotism. Have you asked a Muslim to prove their patriotism?
But again the reason for this paranoia is very simple:
There were large-scale almost violent protests by Muslims against Taslima Nasrin (click) and Salman Rushdie - for deeds that had not physically harmed EVEN A SINGLE PERSON. Fatwas were issued against them to have them killed, which WERE NOT PROTESTED. Effigies of both the writers were burned on streets. There were sloganeering against them on the streets.
So, the conclusion one draws is Muslims love Islam. No problems till this point. Everyone loves their religion.
But when Pervez Musharraf had asked his armed forces to attack our country, there were no protests against him? No effigies were burnt? There were no protests against Deccan Mujahiddin.....
...And mind you, in both the cases many, many lives of innocent countrymen were lost.
ReplyDeleteNo Fatwas were issued against Musharraf or DM, or there was no popular demand for such a Fatwa (as there was for banning of works of the two writers). What conclusion am I to draw? That countrymen and country are loved less than the religion. Is this such a bad question, then?
And what further worsens the matter is the headquarters of that religion is outside India!
How is it unreasonable to harbor some degree of apprehension of loyalty to country in such circumstances?
But I'm not trying to say that nationalism is a great thing, 'cuz I'm myself not a huge fan of the concept. But at least as an affiliation, nationalism is much less dangerous than religious affiliation.
.........
"if u live in someone's house, and share the problems but still feel your place is not secure. when something ur relative does can be held against you. when you have to prove your loyalty to the house always..u will perhaps understand how a daughter in law feels.."
If the daughter in law vehemently protests against something mildly wrong done to her relatives by SOMEONE ELSE AND NOT the inlaws. But when the same daughter in law does not protest against or criticize her relatives who are trying to disturb the peace of her house, then it is reasonable to assume that the DIL's allegiance is stronger with the relatives than with her house. And that she considers her house as a lodge, and not HOME....
...Especially so, if the DIL thinks that her 'original home' is holier than her current abode, so much so that she prays sitting in the direction of her 'original home'. If she'd have accepted her current abode as the new HOME she would not ask the mom in law to shell out Rs. 45000 every year so that she could visit her 'original mom' at least once.
ReplyDeleteOf course, a lot of what I've talked towards the end is extremes, which I do not myself totally go by. But these are valid doubts to raise.
.........
But the most important thing I want to ask you is, what all has this ('fundamental threat to Muslims in India') got to do with not allowing construction of minarets in Switzerland?!! ;)
TC.
few points of clari. of ur comments
ReplyDeletei lived in oman, near the krishna temple, its huge parking lot is convenient and the temple are better maintained than the temples i have come across in India. And i have a good collection of idol pics and sloka books i got in a shop htere.
We have bhajan groups from India, to perform events like Radha kalyanam (so it goes on well into the night for few days..)
you dont have to believe me, google out theinfo and you can decide the merits of your relative.
few points of clari. of ur comments
ReplyDeletei lived in oman, near the krishna temple, its huge parking lot is convenient and the temple are better maintained than the temples i have come across in India.
We have bhajan groups from India, to perform events like Radha kalyanam (so it goes on well into the night for few days..) And i have a good collection of idol pics and sloka books i got in a shop htere.
you dont have to believe me, google out theinfo and you can decide the merits of your relative. I have to wonder if you would get as angry with your relative.
its not sweden its switzerland. (read ur comment)sweden is in fact protesting against switzerland.
ReplyDeleteacorn didnt clarify re minarets and mosques, initially atleast.
on ur london house, perhaps you wouldn't expect a process, but if it had been my house, i wouldn't expect them to demolish without a process. and perhaps you would automatically assume, your granparents had been wrong but i wouldnt . i hope your london is a simple choice not the foreigner implication.
and the courts have not asked me. If there is a referendum i would of course vote.
if sena protests againsts a book on sivaji, and attacks the author, would that be a reflection on the intolerance of the hindus? Btw the violence of sena would be justified because they worship someone local? So would you agree, if the MNS started a movement which said mumbai is too crowded. Lets get the North Indians, tamilians, Gujrathis and other communities out? Or they don't deserve the equal citizenship in mumbai.
ReplyDeleteThe media highlights the H1N1 threat which has claimed less than 1000 lives. No doubt everydeath is a tragedy which cannot go away for the family involved. But what about this : "Diarrhoea kills nearly 1,000 children below the age of five everyday in India, but washing hands with soap and water can save the lives of at least 400 of these kids. (Thats an everyday count. )Washing hands can save 400 kids daily
ReplyDeleteHow much has the media highlighted this point.
Is the media against the kids or the class which can't afford to buy the products it advertises. Now that you know this. what are you going to do about it. If you choose to do nothing, would it be ok to assume you don't care about kids.
WDM,
ReplyDeleteNo, I believe you regarding Oman, 'cuz now I remember, he used to live in Riyadh, but I'd recalled Oman only 'cuz he'd shown me a currency note with "Sultanate of Oman" written over it. And he had the note possibly 'cuz he'd traveled to there. This is more than 10 year-old incident so my memory could've failed me. Sorry about that goof up.
And of course, I meant Switzerland only when I wrote 'Sweden'. It was a typo. Thanks for commenting! More later. TC.
...continued
ReplyDeleteEven if acorn did not clarify on minarets earlier, Vishnu is a journalist (and by his own confession in the comments an, expert on middle East). So, he should've known of the difference if he was writing a well-informed blog-post, which he knew would be read by many people, especially before drawing such sweeping conclusions.
And even if one overlooks the 'minarets-not-for-worship' aspect, the question was "how a fundamental threat to Muslims in India"? Which he hasn't addressed or justified.
Of course, London was deliberately chosen for its foreign location, but also because of its redundancy, i.e., not being used.
Plus, the whole analogy is somewhat inappropriate 'cuz at least in my view demolishing a home where someone is CURRENTLY living is much more distressing than a PORTAL (and NOT place) of worship, which was not even being avidly used.
As to the ASSUMPTION that grandparents were wrong, if they were NOT wrong when they did a 'certain' things a few decades back, then what what makes the VERY SAME ACT wrong today? Remember, I'm not supporting violence. For me personally, a temple or no temple in Ayodhya makes no difference. I'm only calling for application of EQUAL standards for both the religions. It is not a case that there was no justice system in place at that time. And according to the judicial system of that time, the act was CORRECT. So judicial system can go wrong in its moral considerations. Yes, the most wrong thing about Ayodhya demolition was it was illegal under the CURRENT system of justice, which ought to be respected.
But that act was not inhuman 'cuz not a single human was PHYSICALLY hurt in the process (UNLIKE demolition of a house). So, I really don't understand what you mean by your analogy - "would it be ok if a party decides to make its headoffice by demolishing your house, saying the party with more supporters is more important than your house?"
Since it was not a 'house', and especially not being used, it would be ok. I would not expect sympathy and reassurance all the time. I'd know that by not returning the house to rightful owners despite not having any use for it, I'd contributed to a great injustice that my grandparents had done, and it would be my opportunism. And, if I'd been so unjust, I'd not consider myself deserving of sympathy. So 'cuz of this event to keep on saying that I need special attention and care, would be overreaction....
....
ReplyDelete..................
If sena protests against a book on Shivaji, it would be an indication of intolerance of followers of Shivaji.
I've never remotely implied that whatever means of protest Shiv Sena or MNS employ are justified, just pointed out that angry bloggers would not get the 'exporting' idea 'cuz what they idolize/defend would've ORIGINATED in India. I'm talking of a simple logical aspect, here.
............
Yes, from H1N1 and diarrhea examples I'd conclude that media does not care for kids. I wouldn't conclude that media is against kids. The latter I would conclude if media says something akin to "don't make your kids wash hands with soap as that would spoil your child's beautiful hands", in which case, my blog's title would be Ebullient journalism is not child's welfare.
The whole point is media is not perfect. There's ample evidence of that. H1N1 threat was overrated. Not sure if to promote drug companies or vaccine-manufacturer, 'cuz by that time vaccine wasn't there in the market, and oseltamivir (tamiflu) also was imported later on. Oseltamivir is manufactured by only one company, and this kind of proxy advertisement wouldn't help it much. As it is, despite so much hype in the media overall sales of Oseltamivir wouldn't have benefited the company much. So chances that the company would pay for such proxy advertising are very slim ('cuz in India, it wouldn't earn them any profit).
So, what's my conclusion from BOTH (the minaret and swine flu) examples? - That:
1. Media uses sensationalism to arouse passions and grossly EXAGGERATE the seriousness of an issue for TRPs.
2. The projected emotion (respectively, "secularism" and "concern for people's health") are not the ACTUAL motives behind their news dissemination.
3. Many times they have ulterior motives behind their programs that are not easily apparent.
That's all this post was all about.
If you dispute any of the three conclusions about media, which were my driving factors to write this post, I'd be interested in how your views differ on it.
You may contest my other views, too, which have been brought up inadvertently in our discussion, but in that case we'd be veering a lot from the ORIGINAL issue, and some aspects I won't like to discuss on a public forum. As it is, I've talked a lot, which I wouldn't usually like to talk on my blog.
Thanks again for your comments!
TC.
If you want an indication of what my TRUE ideas on communalism/regionalism/nationalism/gender-ism/city-ism are, you could read this (click)
ReplyDeletePS: It was a family-friend, not relative. Not that the perceived merit matters, 'cuz my relative or family-friend or even I myself could lie! And more importantly, anyone can make small errors in reading comments and recalling details. ;)