O'Deka:
Ouch! That was right on the kidneys. Apuni kintu bes dile dei
eibaar!
I suspect my note stung like a pin-prick to the rear-end in grade
school inflicted by the class-clown, resulting in a
not-too-well-deliberated response.
>Thou hast a tendency to think they (Indians) are less
enlightened than thou.
*** Yes, yes, yes. Very well noticed. But it is limited only to
those who indeed ARE so. Also, it is directed only to those who either
hold themselves up as above the ordinary, or are presented by their
supporters and admirers as such, without explanation or
substantiation. Furthermore, it is equal opportunity. The fact of
Indians being put in such a position more often, is because such
Indian examples are more common in Assam Net, than say, Tanzanian
ones, or Chilean ones or even American ones.
It is like my swapping flies more often in India than in St.
Louis. I swat them everywhere. But I swat them more often in India
because they are more pervasive there. Not because I am more
prejudiced against Indian flies than say, American flies. Oh,
there may be a tinge of fly swatting in India with a higher degree of
vengeance than in America, but that is only because Indian flies carry
so much more of you-know-what. Can you blame me for that?
>I beg to differ with you on that.
*** Be my guest. I invited you to do just that. But instead you
barked up the wrong tree and turned on ME. Tsk, tsk!
>I have respect for people who think, right or wrong, and
that includes >Khushwant Singh.
*** Are you suggesting that the QUALITY of that THINKING is of no
consequence to you? That a celebrity ought to be bowed to regardless
of whether he/she is presenting some clear thinking or muddled
thinking? Have you forgotten the ancient kharkhowa wisdom that "
Goru hal balew bura hoy, hal nebalew bura hoy"?
>But to say that "he has not figured out" is showing disrespect to the person.
*** I don't know much or even little about Khushwant Singh as a
person, and thus are unqualified to hold him either in respect or
disrespect. He may be a likable-lush, but that is all I know about
him.How would I know if he is not a scoundrel. He could be a saint
too. But I don't know that.
Oh sure I like SOME of his writings. Some I pass on. This
particular one demonstrated that he had not yet figured out what
secularism is all about. Do you take issue with that? If you do, I
present my star witness here:
Mr. Justice R. A. Jahagirdar in
http://www.iheu.org/modules/afsection/article.php?articleid=93
In particular I put forth his comment:
I have great objection to this meaning given to the word
'secularism'.
In the first place it says that there is an Indian type of secularism;
secondly it says, the word 'secularism' contains internal
contradictions and that thirdly you cannot understand the meaning of
these contradictions because no dictionary can help you in this
regard. In other words, the word 'secular' has only subjective meaning
and every one can use it in any way one likes.
Secularism is a clear concept
In this article I wish to demonstrate that:
There is no such thing as Indian Secularism and English Secularism -
there is only one secularism which has universal meaning;
In the first place it says that there is an Indian type of secularism;
secondly it says, the word 'secularism' contains internal
contradictions and that thirdly you cannot understand the meaning of
these contradictions because no dictionary can help you in this
regard. In other words, the word 'secular' has only subjective meaning
and every one can use it in any way one likes.
Secularism is a clear concept
In this article I wish to demonstrate that:
There is no such thing as Indian Secularism and English Secularism -
there is only one secularism which has universal meaning;
Thanks to Ram for posting the most brilliant,detailed and clear
examination of the subject I have ever had the opportunity to read
about. And may I humbly remind readers that I hold this piece in high
regard, in spite of it being one by an Indian.
*** So, in conclusion to my rebuttal of the charges of being
disrespectful to Khushwant Singh or other Indians in a similar
situation, I ask this: Should WE, as thinking people, hold those who
might have done SOME things well, or wrote SOME pieces well, or did
SOME things brilliantly, forever in awe and thus refrain from
challenging or criticizing THOSE pieces or attempts that do not
deserve it?
I hope we will be rewarded with an answer.
With that I conclude the first chapter of this response. The best
part however is yet to come: The one on Shourie's commentary and
your views on "---- followers of certain religions just cannot
promote secularism-- ". That is a juicy one that I am dying
to bite into, but cannot afford to take the time this morning.
In the meantime, the big hearted person I am, I offer you an
opportunity to clarify your position, should you be
willing to. That would save me from lighting another match under
tinder-dry Hinduttwa sensitivities.
O'm :-).
At 8:14 PM -0800 2/25/05, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:
O'Mahanta,
Do you really want to know my view on secularism? Let me first share my view on your view of things Indian, including Khushwant Singh. Thou hast a tendency to think they (Indians) are less enlightened than thou.
I beg to differ with you on that. I have respect for people who think, right or wrong, and that includes Khushwant Singh. He may not say the things I want to hear and it is okay to say that I don't agree with him. But to say that "he has not figured out" is showing disrespect to the person.
Now regarding my view on secularism - followers of certain religions just cannot promote secularism due to their insistence on religiosity by virtue of propagation and their intoerance of anybody who do not pursue the same religion. You should be able to figure out which religions those are. I do not believe that secularism can be practised by those who have the innate need and desire to spread their religion as dictated by their preachers. There is a conflict right there. That is exactly what Mr. Shourie and Mr. Singh were pointing out.
I also would like you to note that I have no angst as an ethnic Kharkhwaa and Indian about such matters and definitely English language has not been a barrier. I do like to talk about secularism in a social setting since it makes a good conversation piece.
O'Deka
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
O'Deka:So, what is YOUR view of things? Care to share?Too bad Khushwant Singh, as much as I like his attitudes. has not yet figured out the meaning of secular, choosing to give it one meaning in India and a different one for the Christian world.Once again, it must be that damned English language that is at the root of desi and kharkhowa angst.O'mAt 4:11 PM -0800 2/25/05, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:
In case you missed the article in the Sentinel, I am posting it below. We had discussions on secularism in this net many moons ago and many netters took part in it.
I found it interesting that two of the central ministers with different political leanings engaged in a debate about secularism and displayed knowledge and thoughts that we do not normally associate with Indian politicians.
What do you think of Aiyar and Shourie?
More Secular than Thou!
Khushwant Singh
None of our languages have an exact equivalent for the word secular. It means something quite different in western democracies which are almost entirely Christian than in the Indian context: India though predominantly Hindu has a sizeable population of Muslims, Christians and Sikhs. So far I have arrived at only two means of deciding whether a person is or is not secular. One, anyone who subscribes to no religious belief is an atheist or an agnostic, and is per force secular. Their numbers don�t count because most Indians are proud of belonging to one or the other religion. My second test is even more down to earth and relevant to our present state. When it comes to the nitty gritty what determines whether or not a person is secular is his or her attitude towards the minority communities, mostly towards Muslims who matter much more than Christians or Sikhs. I have a further test: anyone wh! o did not co! ndemn LK Advani�s rath yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya and the destruction of the Babri Masjid is anti-Muslim and has no right to call himself or herself secular. This may sound somewhat arbitrary but I stand by it. I also sought further enlightenment. So I went through Mani Shankar Aiyar�s Confessions of a Secular Fundamentalist (Penguin Viking). It is a pretty comprehensive collection of articles embracing different points of view on the subject. I will confine myself to a dialogue between Aiyar and Arun Shourie which took place in September 1995 and forms the first chapter of this book. I do so because I regard both Aiyar and Shourie as the brightest, cleanest and the most well-read and well-informed men in their respective parties. Aiyar is a Minister in Manmohan Singh�s Congress-led government; Shourie threw his lot with the mosque-breakers� party and was a minister in Vajpayee�s BJP-led government. Aiyar is an atheist; Shourie a Hindu who rejects the exi! stence of! a compassionate God (he has good reasons to do so) subscribes to the Buddha�s belief in all pervading dukh (sorrow) and visits Sufi dargahs. He has also written books which hurt the sentiments of Dalits, Christians and Muslims. Aiyar chose to confront him on his views on Islam and Indians Muslims. Aiyar put in to Shourie as bluntly as he could:"Does being a Muslim make it more difficult to be an Indian than being a Hindu makes it to be an Indian?"
Shourie replied: "Adhering to Islam in purity would make it impossible to live in a multicultural, multi-religious society and still abide by the tenets of Islam. But for a Hindu..."
Aiyar pressed his point further: "If you�re faithful to the edicts of Islam as enshrined in the Koran and the Shariat, you would have difficulty in being a good Indian?"
Shourie answered in the affirmative and went further in defining a good Muslim: "If �good Muslim� means brotherhood of man and so on, then there is no difficulty. But if it means, as 1000 verses in the Koran say, �Spread Islam, have nothing to do with these Kafirs, kill them, they are untrustworthy, they are unclean,� then? The Hadith is full of this. There are rewards for killing the kafir. If this is a good Muslim, then a multi-religious society in India would become impossible."
I leave it to the readers to decide which of these two men are really secular.
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
