Reaching out to the far right – start of a dialogue

We all blog in gated communities. Not by choice, but it happens that way. We mostly read those people whose views we agree with. As a result on most personal blogs, the comments on each post read something like this:

  • You’re so right!
  • I couldn’t have said it better!
  • I agree completely
  • etc etc…

But what are we doing really? A lot of us blog on issues that matter to us. And I’d like some change to come about as a result of that. But it can’t happen if the only people I engage with are those who already agree with me! I need to go out, and talk to those who disagree with me. That way, I can learn how they really feel and get to understand them.

Fundamentally, I believe that everyone is decent and wants to do the right thing. I won’t go and take a superior attitude. I go with the intention to talk – with the understanding that we’re all decent folks. That way, I hope to not only get some of my main ideas across, I seek to understand why they feel the way they do. If I do that, perhaps some of my own opinions will change. And I’m willing to let that happen if it’s a better opinion based on logic. So here goes…

I started with this right wing post. The basic idea of the post is that Muslims and Christians are ganging up on Hindus to fight them. I made an honest attempt to engage in dialogue with those who commented in an attempt to understand where they’re coming from. It wasn’t easy – there were lots of ad hominem attacks on me questioning my education, my character, my motives etc.

One person even asked me why my blog has posts from 2006 when my domain name was registered only in 2008! When I explained that I was blogging on blogspot and migrated all my posts, this was the reply:

“That explains it man. The seeming timing mismatch of your blog posts is wonderfully explained just as I thought it would be. Though if I were you I’d have retained blogspot also, for record’s sake.”

54 comments later, I’m still trying to reach a proper dialogue with those are interested. But in spite of this, there were many cogent responses and some were partially cogent. From what I was able to understand these are the main points (I’m not passing judgment on any of these opinions as of now – I just want to understand):

  1. They feel that Muslims and other minorities are a threat to Hindus
  2. Minorities are trying to eradicate Hindu culture
  3. They feel that the “Liberals” and the “sophisticated intellectuals” forgive the Muslims anything but severely criticize any violation by a Hindu group

For my part, I kept finding these recurring themes:

  1. A willingness to generalize. The word “Muslims” encompasses every single Muslim with no allowances made for the vast majority of non violent members
  2. Many refuse to discuss a particular incident against Muslims (like the Godhra riots) and bring in all the other incidents of violence by Muslims they can remember. They do this because they feel that Muslims are getting a “free pass” by the press and society in general while any violation by Hindus is decried strongly.

I want to dispel some of the paranoia here. If those on the right are reading this, let me set the record straight:

  1. No violence is ever excused. If the violence is committed by a Muslim, they will be criticized as much as possible. Many bloggers have dedicated posts talking about injustices by the Taliban and how stupid fatwas harm soceity etc…
  2. We have nothing against Hindus and Hindu culture. We all have the right to follow any Hindu tradition we like as long as it’s in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Our Constitution is an expansive one. This means that you can do almost anything you want and no one has the right to stop you. If someone tries, all of us “liberal” bloggers will back you up and roundly denounce those who want to stop you from following your traditions irrespective of whether they’re Muslim, or Christian or any other religion.
  3. Our biggest concern is that innocent people will get caught up in any acts of retaliation against a particular community. That is why we denounce statements against “Muslims” in general – it’s because there are lots of innocent and non violent Muslims who don’t deserve hatred.
  4. Importantly, none of us are trying to downplay incidents of Islamic terror. Everyone cannot focus on everything. You have our deepest respect and admiration if you wish to address injustices to Hindus or Sikhs – like the 1984 Sikh massacre. Let’s use our strength in numbers to fight everything and not to bring in other incidents of violence when we’re discussing one particular incident. Let’s bring all the guilty people to justice without getting in one another’s way!

And most importantly, let’s not be at cross purposes. We all want to address injustices to everyone and anyone. Let’s have a dialogue instead of abusing one another. I assure you, we want to do what’s right – and I’m sure you do too. We’re in the Internet age and have the tools of communication. Let’s use this communication to achieve something that has never been done before – achieve harmony, or at least an understanding of where the other side is coming from.

I’m going to be commenting on your blogs from now on and I encourage you to read those written by liberals. Let’s put in some effort to understand where we’re coming from. I suggest tools like guest posts where you can air your views and we can do the same. Let’s be creative.

What say?

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (3)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

76 thoughts on “Reaching out to the far right – start of a dialogue”

  1. Dear all,

    I have been reading all the comments here and the blog which Bhagwad referred here. I am simple guy and this comment may look foolish and emotional here but what I observed in this entire discussion is:

    1. Everyone is discussing about Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, but no one ever talked about Humanity.

    2. We all are discussing on Gujarat, Andhra, Rajasthan, Malegaon, Kashmir and so on, but no one wants to think about a united India.

    Soumya, Shakthi and Gyan P, you provided very good insights.

    Let's do something for our country then resting our belief on religious differences. To start with, do give your beautiful smile to the Human siting next to you…

    Reply

    • In reply to Sajid

      Quite correct Sajid. My most sincere feeling is that we should just stop using words like Hindu, Muslim etc. What a person has in his head is not my business. Let's just look at actions instead of thoughts.

      That way we can focus on those who are really causing violence instead…

      Reply

  2. GyanP please feel free to contact me via hupages on any one of the articles I have written. You do not need to be a member of hubpages to leave your comment. Though why not become a member and at some stage when you feel like also write articles. Even otherwise hubpages is a nice friendly place. Many there write quite carefully and with pleasure.

    bhagwad. I feel a bit sorry but it looks like you still prefer to be lost in games. Wish you all the good luck

    Reply

  3. =>
    "Thanks for your careful reply Soumya. You rightly said that I can make mistakes in a personal blog and I accept them when it’s pointed out. And of course, blogs are different from newspapers in that they’re essentially personal opinions. Unlike a newspaper, I have to be less careful about being impartial."
    =>

    I'm not sure why a blogger doesn't have to be careful about what s/he writes. The responsibility of speaking the truth and being honest shouldn't be limited to just newspapers/media, but applies to all who write a public blog. Yes, the consequences of media being dishonest are worse as compared to an individual blogger, but that doesn't mean a blogger should have no such standards for oneself.

    As for impartial, everyone has their loyalties (even you do), but that doesn't mean one plays with the truth.

    Reply

    • In reply to Kaffir

      When I say I have to be less impartial, it doesn't mean I play with the truth. It means I will give my own opinions and interpretations of facts which a news channel can't.

      This isn't a news blog. You can find many news websites if you wish. But when you come here, you will listen to my opinions and we can then have a debate on those if you wish.

      Reply

    • In reply to Kaffir

      I love all the bad arguments here. “I’m not sure why a blogger doesn’t have to be careful about what s/he writes.” Neither am I. On the other hand, I AM sure about why they have to be LESS careful, i.e. what was actually WRITTEN.

      Being non-impartial is always a problem, but on a blog-something sought out more by discerning people, since not everyone is interested in reading about politics on the internet, and that influences less people in general-being a bit less impartial can be excused, since the people coming here are more equipped to handle it and the damage is contained by the lower amount of viewers.

      On a big news show, a huge amount of people watch it. Many don’t have the defenses, i.e. the understanding and critical thinking, to see if something is being slanted in the favor of one side. So, if you do that, you can get a lot of incorrect information and bad attitudes into people’s heads.

      When did he play with the truth or say he did or say it was okay for him to? I can’t find anything like that anywhere. Yes, I recognize that could be taken as a general statement, but it seems more like a rebuke. For what behavior, precisely? Are you saying he’s playing with the truth by not being impartial? If so, where?

      Reply

  4. =>
    "But to allow long ago historic events to prevent us from seeing the situation as it is now is counterproductive. For example, when an incident of violence takes place, we shouldn’t say “But in 2007…etc etc). What is important is that violence has taken place now and the instigators need to be punished end of story."
    =>

    True, history can bog one down. But, lack of awareness of history results in repeating the same mistakes. For example, one needs to question what are the motivations of people who indulge in violence today, and in what ways have these motivations changed – or not – over the past century/historically.

    Reply

  5. =>
    "So is it really true that the media selectively ignores Muslim violence and hypes up Hindu violence as is being claimed?"
    =>

    Bhagwad, why do you need to ask this question of others? You seem like a sharp guy – do your own research. As I suggested, take 5-6 incidents over the past few years and then compare the outrage – in media, among bloggers – over those incidents to get your answers. You'll start seeing some patterns soon.

    Reply

  6. Hi! Kaffir
    Thanks for one more try. Though as I write in a comment at another place it is not going to work. That Gandhi's quote "One can wake up a person sleeping but for a person pretending to sleep what one can do. I had decided not to come back – after his sentence "I have to be less careful about being impartial".

    A person with that type of attitude can say any thing or do any thing. He seems to prefer that choice time being. But you and Gyan still tried hard. Thank you. I hope he understands that our good luck wish to him is for him to become a much -much better person.

    Reply

    • In reply to soumyasrajan

      Thanks for coming here soumya. I'm sure you feel you're right. I'm still willing to listen to you if given demonstrable evidence.

      What you've given me at worst highlights incompetence and not manipulation. Your allegations are pretty heavy and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I haven't yet received extraordinary evidence.

      For a theory to work it has to be falsifiable – meaning you should be able to say: "If xyz occurs, then my theory is wrong." I'd welcome such a construction from your end.

      It'll be even better if you were to make predictions. If you can say "Just watch – such and such observable event will occur in the future" that would lend enormous credibility to your idea that the media is being manipulated overwhelmingly in favor of a particular political party. But you haven't made any such claims till now.

      As an intelligent person who doesn't want to make a mistake, how can I in all good faith believe what you say?

      Reply

  7. =>
    For example you’ve mentioned more than once that the train burning incident in Gujarat didn’t get enough attention by everyone including the media. If you know, tell me why this happened, and who suppressed it…was anyone controlling the media? If so, who?”
    =>

    Here’s an op-ed by Vir Sanghvi (a secular) – where he, in a rare manner, chose to be honest – to get you started:

    “One-way ticket

    Author: Vir Sanghvi
    Publication: The Hindustan Times
    Date: February 28, 2002

    There is something profoundly worrying in the response of what might be called the secular establishment to the massacre in Godhra. Though there is some dispute over the details, we now know what happened on the railway track. A mob of 2,000 people stopped the Sabarmati Express shortly after it pulled out of Godhra station. The train contained several bogeys full of kar sewaks who were on their way back to Ahmedabad after participating in the Poorna Ahuti Yagya at Ayodhya. The mob attacked the train with petrol and acid bombs. According to some witnesses, explosives were also used. Four bogies were gutted and at least 57 people, including over a dozen children, were burnt alive.

    Some versions have it that the kar sewaks shouted anti-Muslim slogans; others that they taunted and harassed Muslim passengers. According to these versions, the Muslim passengers got off at Godhra and appealed to members of their community for help. Others say that the slogans were enough to enrage the local Muslims and that the attack was revenge.

    It will be some time before we can establish the veracity of these versions, but some things seem clear. There is no suggestion that the kar sewaks started the violence. The worst that has been said is that they misbehaved with a few passengers. Equally, it does seem extraordinary that slogans shouted from a moving train or at a railway platform should have been enough to enrage local Muslims, enough for 2,000 of them to have quickly assembled at eight in the morning, having already managed to procure petrol bombs and acid bombs.

    Even if you dispute the version of some of the kar sewaks – that the attack was premeditated and that the mob was ready and waiting – there can be no denying that what happened was indefensible, unforgivable and impossible to explain away as a consequence of great provocation.

    And yet, this is precisely how the secular establishment has reacted.

    Nearly every non-BJP leader who appeared on TV on Wednesday and almost all of the media have treated the massacre as a response to the Ayodhya movement. This is fair enough in so far as the victims were kar sewaks.

    But almost nobody has bothered to make the obvious follow-up point: this was not something the kar sewaks brought on themselves. If a trainload of VHP volunteers had been attacked while returning after the demolition of the Babri masjid in December 1992, this would still have been wrong, but at least one could have understood the provocation.

    This time, however, there has been no real provocation at all. It is possible that the VHP may defy the government and the courts and go ahead with the temple construction eventually. But, as of now, this has not happened. Nor has there been any real confrontation at Ayodhya – as yet.

    And yet, the sub-text to all secular commentary is the same: the kar sewaks had it coming to them.

    Basically, they condemn the crime; but blame the victims.

    Try and take the incident out of the secular construct that we, in India, have perfected and see how bizarre such an attitude sounds in other contexts. Did we say that New York had it coming when the Twin Towers were attacked last year? Then too, there was enormous resentment among fundamentalist Muslims about America�s policies, but we didn�t even consider whether this resentment was justified or not.

    Instead we took the line that all sensible people must take: any massacre is bad and deserves to be condemned.

    When Graham Staines and his children were burnt alive, did we say that Christian missionaries had made themselves unpopular by engaging in conversion and so, they had it coming? No, of course, we didn�t.

    Why then are these poor kar sewaks an exception? Why have we de-humanised them to the extent that we don�t even see the incident as the human tragedy that it undoubtedly was and treat it as just another consequence of the VHP�s fundamentalist policies?

    The answer, I suspect, is that we are programmed to see Hindu-Muslim relations in simplistic terms: Hindus provoke, Muslims suffer.

    When this formula does not work — it is clear now that a well-armed Muslim mob murdered unarmed Hindus – we simply do not know how to cope. We shy away from the truth – that some Muslims committed an act that is indefensible – and resort to blaming the victims.

    Of course, there are always �rational reasons� offered for this stand. Muslims are in a minority and therefore, they deserve special consideration. Muslims already face discrimination so why make it harder for them? If you report the truth then you will inflame Hindu sentiments and this would be irresponsible. And so on.

    I know the arguments well because – like most journalists – I have used them myself. And I still argue that they are often valid and necessary.

    But there comes a time when this kind of rigidly �secularist� construct not only goes too far; it also becomes counter-productive. When everybody can see that a trainload of Hindus was massacred by a Muslim mob, you gain nothing by blaming the murders on the VHP or arguing that the dead men and women had it coming to them.

    Not only does this insult the dead (What about the children? Did they also have it coming?), but it also insults the intelligence of the reader. Even moderate Hindus, of the sort that loathe the VHP, are appalled by the stories that are now coming out of Gujarat: stories with uncomfortable reminders of 1947 with details about how the bogies were first locked from outside and then set on fire and how the women�s compartment suffered the most damage.

    Any media – indeed, any secular establishment – that fails to take into account the genuine concerns of people risks losing its own credibility. Something like that happened in the mid-Eighties when an aggressive hard secularism on the part of the press and government led even moderate Hindus to believe that they had become second class citizens in their own country. It was this Hindu backlash that brought the Ayodhya movement – till then a fringe activity – to the forefront and fuelled the rise of L.K. Advani�s BJP.

    My fear is that something similar will happen once again. The VHP will ask the obvious question of Hindus: why is it a tragedy when Staines is burnt alive and merely an �inevitable political development� when the same fate befalls 57 kar sewaks?

    Because, as secularists, we can provide no good answer, it is the VHP�s responses that will be believed. Once again, Hindus will believe that their suffering is of no consequence and will be tempted to see the building of a temple at Ayodhya as an expression of Hindu pride in the face of secular indifference.

    But even if this were not to happen, even if there was no danger of a Hindu backlash, I still think that the secular establishment should pause for thought.

    There is one question we need to ask ourselves: have we become such prisoners of our own rhetoric that even a horrific massacre becomes nothing more than occasion for Sangh parivar-bashing? “

    link: http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/guild/1.html

    Reply

    • In reply to Kaffir

      He has a point. Note the date the article was published – 28th Feb 2002.

      When Sanghvi wrote this, the Godhra riots hadn’t fully unfolded. Doubtless the resulting Godhra riots tended to overshadow the tragic train burning incident. What made the riots worse was the allegations of political complicity, whereas so far as we know, the train burning incident wasn’t politically motivated.

      The train burning incident was a tragic loss of human life – women, children and other innocent people didn’t deserve to die. It’s highly unfortunate that the gruesomeness was overshadowed by what took place afterwards. It’s a flaw that does exist, but I’m not convinced that it was a deliberate conspiracy to hide it.

      Reply

  8. =>
    “Who is right here?”
    =>

    Use the facts and your critical analytical skills to arrive at the answer yourself. This is not a game where you have to appease all sides, or have to “fair and balanced”. Facts are facts.

    Reply

    • In reply to Kaffir

      The incidents mentioned in Nimmy’s blog about Hindu terror are also facts. In your urgency to find an underlying thread, don’t make the mistake of seeing patterns in a series of unrelated events.

      If I were an idiot, I would read Nimmy’s blog and conclude that all terrorists are Hindus. But I’m not an idiot and so I don’t blindly condemn an entire group of people.

      Reply

  9. =>
    It’s very easy to see patterns when none exist.
    =>

    Even after I (and Gyan and soumyasrajan) have given numerous examples in my (our) comments, you still are unwilling to concede that point re: media bias. Seems to me that you’re not really interested in a dialog, as you wrote in the post. Oh well, at least I and others tried.

    Good luck!

    Reply

    • In reply to Kaffir

      You don’t understand. Many feel that the media is biased in the opposite direction!

      What about their facts? Am I supposed to ignore them? A theory has to be falsifiable and predictive. None of those test have been met yet. Our media may be incompetent in many ways, but I don’t believe they’re evil

      Reply

Leave a Comment