Days ago, I started an experiment to reach out to the other side and start a dialogue. Commenting for five days on the blog with a number of people was…interesting. After days of trying, I think I may have made matters worse. If you read the last 10 comments or so, they now seem to think I’m a bigger threat than anyone else! The 170 comments finally ended with an orgy of virulent bashing.
So much for that idea…
I think the sense of threat pervading these individuals is far too strong. They’re terrified that Islam is going to take over India and that the agenda of all Muslims is to kill them. As Sraboney’s article pointed out, when you’re threatened, you don’t let go of settled notions easily.
Incidentally, there weren’t any suggestions from anyone regarding what to actually do about this perceived threat though I gave them several opportunities to put some forward by inviting them to imagine what they would do if they were in power. So in the end, all the hatred etc seems to be undirected and not tilted towards any particular action.
When political leaders who have such individuals as their base come to power, one of the things that can happen is that they will foment communal violence by playing up the “threat” angle to get votes. In fact, this is what we have seen in the recent past. Everyone is out to “protect” themselves. The Shiv Sena wants to “protect” themselves from non Maharashtrians, and Hindutva types want to “protect” themselves from Islam. Paranoia and conspiracy theories run wild as they’re convinced that society, and the media are biased against them and are going to…what? The most interesting part is that the threat is undefined.
And in the end, there was a consensus that I was the biggest threat of all!
But still I’m hopeful. I’m an optimistic guy after all :) . I have confidence that our Indian democracy will survive all this and decades later we can just look back on all these problems we have and laugh.
"I have been very critical about Islam and all religions in general. No one has ever stopped me."
Try saying that in public.
"Not only were there suggestions that muslims should be killed, there were suggestions that Atheists, Christians and anyone who does not subscribe to Hindutva be killed."
"These sort of statements are ok? If people who make these statements are not far right, what would you call far right?"
You generalize these statements to every participant? And no, they are not ok.
And you did not read what I linked…
I told you already, the practical solution is the most politically incorrect one.
In reply to Radical Humanist
"Try saying that in public."
I just did. And I've written many other articles on this very blog in public.
While it's true that not every participant said this (but there were others who said something like it), not one of them objected (including yourself). And one of them tried to defend it. If the same had been said by a Muslim, you would have gone out of your way to lambast it as much as possible.
I criticize both – whether it's said by a Hindu, or a Muslim. Religion doesn't matter.
I'll read your stuff when I finish work :)
I have no idea what can be done…Religion makes people irrational…It’s about ego…People who believe in a different religion represent a threat to this ego… The only way they can assuage that perceived threat to their ego is to utter irrational words…
In reply to Sraboney
It's about identity I think. Religion causes one side to think of themselves as "belonging" to a group. This becomes the "us" mentality. And of course, once that happens, the "them" mentality also comes to the fore.
The "them" mentality is dangerous because it lumps everyone into a "them" group which immediately becomes evil and a threat – including those members of the group who have done nothing to harm the "us" group.
In reply to bhagwad
The “them” mentality is dangerous because it lumps everyone into a “them” group which immediately becomes evil and a threat – including those members of the group who have done nothing to harm the “us” group.
so true Bhagwad…And i hate it when some people use the words "Muslims and non-muslims".. I correct them- "It is not 'muslims and non muslims', "It is muslims,hindus,christians,atheists,sikhs and so.."
In reply to Nimmy
The "them" is always dangerous…And it's inevitable if there's a war.
I don't get your stand. You are saying you are against violence irrespective of the source.
Do you think you will be free of violence without addressing the source? The measures required come later, but do you even acknowledge Islam as a threat to civilization? You are stressing repeatedly that other ideologies also dispose their followers to violence (I never disagreed with that), but can't you see that Islam exceeds their collective violence by some orders of magnitude?
Or are you just waiting for the next divine act by the pedophile followers tomorrow in order to put the blame on the "individual" and prevent "innocents" from harm? In any case these innocents have rarely said anything against their coreligionists. Of course you must have heard of the planned mosque at the site of 9/11 – not a word of protest, despite it being an act of defecation on the memory of the victims!
The key to this battle is reducing the followers. I don't know the measures. But once they increase, the probability of political assertions and radical acts approaches infinity.
In reply to Radical Humanist
"but do you even acknowledge Islam as a threat to civilization?"
In my opinion, it's not a world shattering threat. The world is too big and has too many people for me to think that Islam is going to take it over. So naturally I don't see drastic measures as being reasonable…
In reply to bhagwad
Even if more and more people will be Muslims in the future….never mind.
In reply to bhagwad
Sorry to butt in, but it's not a threat if merely Islam takes over, but it would be nice if even smaller tragedies like 9/11 could be prevented. I'm not laying special claim to know how they could be prevented, except for what I wrote above.
In reply to Ketan
That's a good argument. Islam isn't a threat per se. I'm not against any religion as such (apart from the general idea that it promotes illogical thought.) What we're worried about are the actual consequences…
That was expected when all you could say was “learn to live with it” or “condemn individuals” et al.
In reply to Radical Humanist
You guys have to get used to fact that Islam is here to stay. I'm not saying get used to violence or intolerance. Those are not negotiable. But you gotta accept that the religion of Islam isn't going anywhere. You simply cannot wish away a system of thought. And using words like "exterminate" and "wipe out" just makes it worse.
For example, I'm against religion in general. But that doesn't mean I go on a crusade to wipe it out. Many religious people are my friends and I respect and admire them. At the most I can have a debate with them when I meet, but that's it. I don't go around condemning every single person because a person has a right to their thoughts.
When you look at violence, you have to only look at the individual person – otherwise you risk a generalization that includes even non violent people. And that is a travesty of justice.
In reply to bhagwad
You seem to suggest dealing with violence without looking at it's cause. Where did the indivual responsible for violence come from?
"I’m not saying get used to violence or intolerance"
And get used to Islam? That is violence and intolerance institutionalized.
"I don’t go around condemning every single person because a person has a right to their thoughts."
Those critical of Islam do not have that right. (in public without being lambasted)
Also, I think you are the one making more generalizations. You seem to lump together all the commenters of the blog as having "conspiracy theories" or being "far right" (your original post) for instance. That blog is no far right one. It is right of course, but it ain't extremist. No one there said "kill all muslims". Many people there were against the "violent individual". Unlike you, they decided to take a look at what caused the violence. Plants don't grow without the apposite soil now, do they?
Read this: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/07/crystal…
This is what you and your ilk probably think will happen. Just replace Britain with India and "racist" with "communal" if you encounter it.
If you are feeling openminded.. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/07/crystal… http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/07/crystal…
inb4 "Look at the individual"
In reply to Radical Humanist
Radical, as I keep coming back to this – what in the world is a practical solution?
And you're mistaken about the following:
"Those critical of Islam do not have that right."
I have been very critical about Islam and all religions in general. No one has ever stopped me.
"No one there said “kill all muslims”
Not only were there suggestions that muslims should be killed, there were suggestions that Atheists, Christians and anyone who does not subscribe to Hindutva be killed.
There were many many more comments that suggested that all muslims were at fault. In fact, I'm willing to go out on a limb here and state that you haven't read every single comment there. Let me know if you want more examples.
To help you out, here are some statements on that very blog you're talking about:
"followers of islam, christianity, atheism, rationalism etc cannot be considered innocent or benign"
“…and hence should be quarantined and slowly eradicated.”
“…You deserve no mercy as you are not innocent”
These sort of statements are ok? If people who make these statements are not far right, what would you call far right?
To make matters worse, others on the same blog defended these statements saying:
"I looked at that comment of psecular, and am puzzled as to what you are so worked up about. "
I don't know about you, but I felt like distancing myself from these guys as soon as possible. That's why in a few more comments, I just gave up. Please look at what people are actually saying.
In reply to Radical Humanist
"And get used to Islam? That is violence and intolerance institutionalized."
I liked that :)
"“I have been very critical about Islam and all religions in general. No one has ever stopped me.”
Try saying that in public."
More interesting..Now i doubt myself if I was in some other world,where I saw and heard the whole world against Islam and muslims… ROFL…
"…and also, the followers of the desert cult will actually kill you. For example,"
:) And people of remaining religions are sheeps …
"1. Ban the Qu’ran,
2. Install CCTVs in mosques.
3. Destroy the political aspirations of Islam such as Sharia Law. T
4. Allow criticism of Islam and other primitive ideologies without fear of repression."
This is gem…by someone who named himself/herself as "Radical Humanist".. Good time pass…
And too all except Radical,just so that you may know..
hu·man·ist (hym-nst)
n.
1. A believer in the principles of humanism.
2. One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.
:) :) :) :) :) :) :)
In reply to Nimmy
Yes, I don't see terrorists as humans. Couldn't get the rest of your post.
By “In Public” I did not mean the internet. It would be something like criticizing Islam through a speech in the flesh, with news media present.
I am not even a regular commenter on that blog. However, one person rambling about killing you is very different from a hoard of idiots insinuating the same.
“If the same had been said by a Muslim, you would have gone out of your way to lambast it as much as possible.”
The great thing about Islam is that, you see such examples everywhere you go.
In reply to Radical Humanist
…and also, the followers of the desert cult will actually kill you. For example,
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/07/van_gogh_killer_has_no_regrets.php
Radical, I’m not disagreeing with you that Islam can inspire violence! Any religion can inspire violence – including Hinduism.
The question is what to do about it. You talked about “politically incorrect” solutions. But what are these solutions you’re talking about? I assure you – if you show me a solution that:
1. Doesn’t hurt innocent people,
2. Doesn’t invade a Human’s right to free thought or free speech,
3. Lays down good precedence, and
4. Reduces violence
I will personally see to it that your idea is publicized all over the Internet as much as I can.
In reply to bhagwad
1. Ban the Qu'ran, unless you want free speech of the hate mongering sort. That alone would be no problem, but because Islam demand total submission you will be assured of a group of fools forming a violent vanguard.
2. Install CCTVs in mosques. Why? Because “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…” as said by the Turkish PM.
3. Destroy the political aspirations of Islam such as Sharia Law. This would include the execution or deportation to Saudi Arabia of those enlightened ones arguing for Political Islam such as Zakir Naik, Anjem Choudhary et al.
4. Allow criticism of Islam and other primitive ideologies without fear of repression.
You get the idea?
In reply to Radical Humanist
Thanks Radical. Let's take these suggestions one by one:
1. Ban the Qu’ran
A law must be based on principle. So something like this would occur when you suggest banning the quran:
Q. Why ban the quran?
A. It preaches xyz
…. (Let's assume that everyone actually agrees with this – because then someone will say that bible also preaches violence. In fact, a literal reading shows that the bible contains more violence than the quran.. And lots of people will say that violence is metaphorical etc etc ad nauseum)
But like I said, let's assume that everyone agrees
Q. So you want to ban the quran because it preaches xyz?
A. Yes.
Q. So the law must be – ban all books that preach xyz!
Since a law cannot just ban a specific thing (it has to give reasons and apply those reasons consistently), you will never get a law that just says "Ban the quran." Instead, you'll get a law that suddenly outlaws almost every religious book.
Let's move on to CCTV's in mosques:
Q. You want to put CCTVs in mosques?
A. Yes
Q. Why?
A. Because xyz happens in mosques (again, let's assume that a miracle occurs and everyone agrees)
Q. So – the law must say – Install CCTVs in all places where xyz occurs. This will now not only include mosques, but a whole lot of other places including people's homes.
I agree with points 3 and 4 – but these are already happening. Nothing radical there.
And now my final point.
Let's assume that these laws are miraculously passed. The quran is banned and CCTVs are installed in mosques.
Now what? You think that will help? If anything, it'll make the whole movement even more powerful. You think mosques are the only place people meet? If people want to meet you can't stop them. They'll meet in the bathrooms if they have to.
Can CCTVs cover everything? No.
If any of these measures work, I'll walk naked on the road for 30 mins :D
All you'll end up doing is creating an atmosphere of persecution and give the fanatics all the excuses they will ever need to engage in violence. And at that point, they'll have a solid reason too!
In reply to bhagwad
Politically Incorrect, as I said. We have to be something around those lines or await a bloodbath. And doing nothing is going to catalyze it. The latter two Gates of Vienna links pretty much get it for me.
In reply to Radical Humanist
There's a difference between being politically incorrect and destroying your entire justice system. That's like a self goal.
The consequences and implications of violating the principles I just outlined are far more destabilizing than Islamic violence could ever be.
In reply to Radical Humanist
And you also didn't tell me how those measures would help, since my other point was that they would not work.
In reply to bhagwad
You are correct, in a country overflowing with the followers of the pedophile, these measures would not work with the desired efficacy. Maybe I am thinking too much from a "Western" perspective. They would work here, except that the fact no one wants to implement them, barring Geert Wilders in Holland.
And you haven't read those posts till yet?
In reply to Radical Humanist
Going through them – they're very lengthy…
In reply to Radical Humanist
Read them – it's a bit much. Both length wise and speculation wise. Not sure what the takeaway is.
In reply to bhagwad
It's what is going to happen sooner or later – whether we do something or not. But I'd rather have done something against Islam. After all, Islam has already declared was against us since the 7th century AD.
In reply to bhagwad
"In fact, a literal reading shows that the bible contains more violence than the quran.."
But when was the last time you saw a Christian offering to kill his son for Jehovah?
In reply to Radical Humanist
That's not the point. The point is you can't ban a book simply because it has violence.
In reply to bhagwad
Not yet at least. However the world is becoming more anti-Islamic as we post…
In reply to bhagwad
Of course any religion can inspire violence, but the Gold Medal goes to Islam. When was the last time you saw a Buddhist trying to nuke the cube? Or a Christian trying to assassinate Zakir Naik? Or a Jew bombing the German embassy in Tel Aviv?
When was the last time you saw Islam in action? http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jews-reluctan… http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/07/11/… http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0708/N…
This is not about religion, it is about what inspires the most violence. You remain adamant in not seeing that the way to deal with terrorism is by dealing with Islam. And don't get started about Muslims again, as I do not care about them, and neither have I said anything against the lot.
In reply to Radical Humanist
Interesting exchange between Radical Humanist and Bhagwad. Of course, my impression is Radical Humanist grew impatient, while Bhagwad was patient. I liked how Bhagwad illustrated that banning cannot be specific to book of one religion, but has to be based on a consistent principle.
Though, I’d not support banning of religious objects/symbols, if we actually wish to strike consistency across laws/policies operating in India, a case can be made out for banning of objects of one religion, in particular. This I say because a lot of government policies do not look at people as individuals, but rather clump them together and think of them as syndicates. Examples of this are most prominently the reservation policy and ‘woman-friendly’ (and by extension, man-unfriendly) laws. The basic thinking is:
1. “Because on an average, more people of a particular community (e.g., lower caste or religion) are poorer than people of some other community (e.g. Brahmins), let us consider the entire syndicate of lower caste people as poorer as compared to the syndicate of Brahmins. And thus, let us extend reservation benefit to each and every person simply for being born in the syndicate called ‘lower caste'”
2. “Because more men harass women than women harass men, all men are predisposed to harassing women and all women are susceptible to harassment, so let’s make laws that by default view women as victim and men as aggressors.” [E.g., my forensic medicine teacher had told that in case of rape, the onus of proving innocence is on the accused, rather than such onus of proving the guilt of the accused lying with the one accusing. If you might be wondering how this example fits in the point I’m trying to make, it is because particular attributes (‘ability to harass’ and ‘susceptibility to harassment’) have been inferred from a sample (few cases, i.e., cases of rape and domestic violence) and applied to the larger population (of which a sample is just a subset), i.e., the two genders respectively]
So, with above examples I wanted to point out, that *if* statistically it could be proved that people of certain religion have been found to have indulged more in violence (rates of conviction, etc.), then one can prove that there is something wrong with those practicing that particular religion. Now, it could be asked what exactly about that religion caused people following it to be more (the operative word here – in terms of per capita crime) wrong than those following other religions? Lo behold! Now, we’ve gained the license to ban any and which thing (be it their religious book or the clothes they wear) we want that is different about the people following that religion (by using the ‘test and control’ method) than the one not following that religion. Just like how the only thing that separates a set of ‘on average poorer’ people from an ‘on average affluent’ people is their caste (and not e.g., which deity they worship or what food they eat), so let’s implicate caste as that the causative agent (and not e.g., which deity they worship or what food they eat) and counter it with reservation-based on caste.
Okay, I was being facetious above, and though I’ve tried to be systematic in putting forth my arguments, they might contain flaws. Foremost being, trying to justify one wrong (caste- and religion-based reservations and lopsided ‘woman-friendly’ laws) to do another wrong (banning a book).
I had read somewhere that there were proposals to ban Hitler’s Mein Kamf (I’ve never read it), but a commentator had instead suggested that it should not be banned, but robustly criticized. Are we ready for robust criticism of our religions and their symbols? Of course, we are not! There’s one more flaw with what Rational Humanist suggests. Those who might be provoking impressionable Muslim people to do wrong things, don’t really need to buttress their claims by citing verses in the Quran (this is not a commentary on whether the Quran actually contains provocative verses or not)! It is written in Arabic, and anyway I don’t think majority of followers of any religion have read their respective religious texts or actually developed sufficient irreverence to question their religious leaders to verify if they are speaking the truth! Truth, more often than not, is what one likes to hear (it does not require substantiation by an authoritative source). I do not have exact data, but I believe very few Muslims must have read the original Quran, otherwise perhaps they would have not held on to their religion so obdurately.
I’m glad you’d asked for practical suggestions. Honestly, this whole religion-thing is like a self-propagating disorder, something on lines of concept of memetics. I’d read that some American association of philosophers was proposing to have philosophy as one of the informal subjects in school curriculum. It was also proposed that it should not have ritualistic syllabus, but e.g., arguments/debates would be put before students and they would be asked to critically examine them and point out flaws in them. I believe, this activity in schools should be made compulsory [hahaha! I hope, we’ve not started hating that word already! ;) ], as it would make children much more critically examining adults. We gloat a lot about India’s growing educated youth, but the fact is our education system is based entirely on rote learning, and most educated people cannot make out what PoV-insertion, weasel words, ad hominem, a priori assumption and arguing from authority, etc. mean. So, if children are trained to be rationally questioning right from the childhood, they would become much more discerning and tolerant adults. This might also alter tastes and what they consequently do for entertainment (e.g., getting paranoid about the survival of their religion, hatching out conspiracy theories, getting offended at slights by other religions, etc. v/s reading science, economics, philosophy, etc.) But the problem is how do we get teachers trained in such vocation? Would the government ever realize the value of critical thinking? Instead, what we have today is ‘moral sciences’ (whatever that means!). Yes, to effect all this we will need a strong economy with good infrastructure so that people of all economic strata can send their kids to school. And how to do that is something beyond me!
Now, if we teach children ‘how to think’ (which is different from what to think, or rather what to have ‘faith’ in), we will be able to create individuals and communities that can withstand robust criticism of (symbols of) religions they were born into. Perhaps, many might not even require to withstand such criticism, for, they would have themselves rejected those insane ideas. The reason what I suggest might succeed is because, religious faith would be a meme that would compete against another meme – critical thinking. Today, religion and tradition (that largely form the core of cultural conditioning) as memes are going uncontested. Our challenge lies in making critical questioning a influential enough cultural meme. Most school-going kids are exposed only to ideas of their religion in their families and neighborhood. Most people think that what we learn in schools (in particular, science) is to be restricted within the four walls, and is to be used only to pass exams and earn degrees. Also, schools are largely religion-neutral (or much worse, provide the same reinforcing inputs as children’s parents on religion). But all this would require government to be convinced. And government means politicians. And when one talks of how to make politicians in representative democracy do things we might want them to do – my logic stalls completely!
Thanks for reading such a long comment [I’m assuming a priori that you’ll read it]!
In reply to Ketan
Thanks for the opinions Ketan. Your raise some interesting points regarding caste reservations and women friendly laws. While I realize you were partly joking, the issue should be addressed.
The reason why we can't discriminate based on religion is that unlike other segregations based on gender and even caste, it's not possible to say what one means exactly by "belonging to a religion." Meaning suppose my parents are Muslim, but my personal faith is Atheism. Am I then a Muslim? To apply different rules to me then would be a travesty! On the other hand, a man is different from a woman and this is easily measurable. Caste is a bit tricky since though it's inherited, I think one can give it up voluntarily by saying so in the Census.
I personally think the issue with our education system is that there's too much focus on becoming an engineer or a doctor or an accountant. None of these jobs require creativity of the sort that's found in the arts and one is also exposed less to things like ethics, different cultures, and people with differing points of view. Instead, focus is placed on receiving knowledge from authority :)
And you correctly assumed I would read your whole comment :)
Bhagwad comments and posts like this made me think for a while that India was doomed to communal disharmony. Anytime I wrote a word against Hinduism, commenters appeared from nowhere and demanded I criticise other religions too etc. At other times they wanted me write against the Congress Party. Other bloggers have been through similar experiences, one said in a comment, he was amazed there were any ‘liberal blogs’ at all.
But I now feel that those who have, a moderate outlook are not bothering to blog about these perceived threats and about victimhood – just after the election results this year, there were just little sentences in posts… like, one blogger simply mentioned how she has been humming all morning not because who won, that didn’t matter – but because who lost. I was glad too – the way Muthalik was never really taken charge of and the CM had started talking about the Pub and Mall Culture after the Pub Attack in Managalore had worried a lot of people. These people did not leave vitriolic comments – but they are all there writing about the parties they enjoy, clothes they love, pubs they visit and drinks that they drink. Ordinary people who want to live their lives happily are a majority, just a few voices of hate can create only temporary conflicts.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
*asking hopefully*You really think so? That these sort of guys are in a minority – but because they’re passionate about their views they have a larger voice?
I need this sort of reassurance right now – five days in the opposite camp with everyone going at me hammer and tongs made me lose faith in my fellow countrymen.
I’m now more convinced than ever that people like this need to be kept out of power. Imagine what a disaster it’ll be if they ever get to dictate national policy – so much hatred and violence just waiting to be unleashed.
I wonder what the average demographics of these guys are – do they have jobs? How many males, how many females etc. Not that any of it is actionable, but older people with good jobs tend to not have violent ideologies exceptis excipiendis. In which case, as the economy improves more and more, these sort of guys will get a lesser and lesser voice.
Here’s hoping…
I think the entire humanity wants to live peacefully – why else were people like Gandhi so popular? Remember the way people had collected outside the Taj Hotel after the Mumbai Blasts?
Also take a look at this , I have no idea what to make of it.
http://blog.blogadda.com/2009/03/30/bloggers-meet-with-bjp-in-mumbai
In reply to Indian Homemaker
Neither do I. Must have been some way for the BJP to “win over” a vocal section voters who have the power to create and disseminate opinions.
After all, aren’t we the “Urban Elites” and the “Sophisticated Intellectuals?” :D
Asking a group to refrain from demonizing and then turn around and do the same is hypocrisy. To get out of this trap, start with the understanding that your perception is, by definition, limited. Then challenge yourself to see past the blaming and fear mongering into the truth.
Gosh! What a dialogue…
Banning the Quran will stop violence? What an idiotic solution…If anything, it'll worsen things…Doesn't Radical get it? What about people who quote Hindu scriptures when committing violent acts against women and low caste people? Is that alright because the culprits are Hindus? Radical Hindus are as bad as radical Muslims or Christians…I think people like Radical need to look into their own religion first before commenting on other religions…
In reply to Sraboney
He's an Atheist :)
He just feels that Islam is more dangerous than all other religions.
In reply to Sraboney
All religions are foolish, but some are more foolish. I have no religion also. You could petition to ban the Bhagwat Geeta for all I care.