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 feel instead of banning any religious texts, one should ensure there is open and free discussion and an violent opposition to criticism of religion (or anything else) is banned. If one is sure of one's beliefs why be insecure and try to stop people from hearing an opinion against it?
Like why stop Taslima Nasreen from giving her point of view? What is the fear? That she might convince someone?
Why stop followers and non followers from hearing her point of view? I think a follower has a right to be treated like an adult and they must hear a point of view they may or may not agree with.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
Spot on! Free speech and discussion will also help people evaluate their faith and debate amongst themselves what is right and what is wrong.
We need to encourage free speech not just for religion though. Look at these Shiv Sena goons trying to prevent this Shivaji book from being read!
Wow, Bhagwad you really opened up the proverbial can of worms. Congrats!
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about this dialogue and I am beginning to conclude that perhaps ‘freedom of religion’ isn’t such a good thing in every case. I don’t know about India, but curtailing freedom of religion is an idea that would sink like a rock here in the US.
Like you, I am an open atheist, having arrived at this postion after many years of searching for a ‘flavor’ of religion I can make sense of (there is none, unless we include Buddhism, which to me seems more appropriately defined as a philosophy than a religion).
The violence and related trouble seems to always come from the literalist interpretations of religion, especially Abrahamic monotheist varieties. When people evolve beyond literal interpretations of their favorite archaic text progress toward peaceful coexistence seems much more likely.
It seems to me that perhaps the freedom to practice the religion of one’s choice needs to end when that religion begins encouraging the abuse, torture, or killing of otherwise innocent people who cannot or will not embrace that particular religion. At that point ‘your’ religion begins to interfere with ‘my’ right to life, liberty, etc. and ‘your’ rights are then void.
I realize this is an idea that will probably require many generations and much needless carnage in order for it to reach the mainstream, but let’s be honest; literalist or fundamentalist religious ideologies are a curse on civilized society, no matter what part of the planet we live on, or which god’s name we kill in..
In reply to Thurman
Hi Thurman, thanks for pinging in :)
It's an interesting idea isn't it? I for one would naturally appreciate a move away from religion in general. But if you think I opened a can of worms, just see what a huge tank of worms these would be!
So if we decide to ban religions that espouse violence etc, we'll need to start off by answering some tough questions:
1. Which religions espouse violence? (We're already screwed here since every religion at least formally claims to be peaceful. Many will explain away violent passages saying it's metaphorical etc..)
2. To what extent do we judge? Every major religion espouses some form of violence in some place or the other. Though Buddhism is pretty harmless I think.
3. What do we tell people?
Not everyone follows their religion 100% – which is a damn good thing. If they did, we would not be living in what is possibly the most peaceful time in human history.
I'm pretty much lost after this. I have no way to see how we can go beyond these points. I hope I'm wrong and that history will laugh at me and say "You short sighted moron! Why did you have so little faith in human sense?"
But I'm not holding my breath… :(
In reply to Thurman
Thurman, I think issue is more complex than "'your' freedom v/s 'mine'". A husband abusing wife using religion as template would amount to matter 'internal' to religion? What if the wife also says something to the effect that let them exercise their religious rights by heaping and standing that abuse? What about what all could be done to children in name of religious freedom – after all in other areas of life we recognize parents as the rightful proxies to make decisions on behalf of their children?
IHM,only very few people,very few around me think that Islam is in danger if Taslima writes book or somebody makes a cartoon.. My father said so, "I didn't like what they did.So what? They have the freedom to dislike my choice,just like i dislike theirs..That doesn't mean we both should fight to death..
Only very few radicals make noise on instances like this,sadly,their sound is heard loud and clear… What can we laymen do about it?
I agree Nimmy. A lot of noise is made, often politically motivated, when all the aam aadmi is worrying about is reaching their office in time. My comment is in answer to banning any religious texts – I feel instead have free and open discussions and debates.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
It's nice to think that a huge majority of people don't care about virulent hatred. I only hope it's true. Like you said, who has time for all this? Most people are so busy working they hardly have time for themselves :)
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.
Change is a threat. New ideas are a threat. Young energetic people are a threat. When you combine all three you get a significant threat!
Most elders will tell you that young energetic people should think up fresh ideas to bring about change for "the good". The only problem is that what "good" is, is defined by the elders.
So each set of elders has their own definition of "good" youngsters. The jihadist elders are proud of their suicide bombers, the hindu far right are proud of their boys who "taught those xxxx's a lession in Mumbai in 1993", another section of the hindu far right are proud of their boys who "tamed the Khalistanis", the Israeli elders are proud of their young and dedicated army. At the same time, the "intel"/thinker-type elders are proud those who speak for non-violence and thoughtful dialogue!
Of course, each group considers the youngsters of all other groups a threat and want to protect themselves from this threat. I do not personally consider all threats as equal. However, an 'unbiased' view would treat them so — this is the problem of trying to be unbiased!
In reply to Kapil
Hi Kapil – thanks for visiting :)
At least the non-violent types can't be considered threats!
In reply to bhagwad
At least the non-violent types can't be considered threats!
They can. For example they are seen as shielding the other threats from sterner action. Similarly, their ideas are "dangerous" because they challenge the orthodoxy of the other groups which is certainly a threat.
jal park(jp),
i take it that you feel that:-
1.there does not exist a threat from muslims for hindus.
so can you explain the reasons for the ethnic cleansing of hindus from pakistan and kashmir.
In reply to ashwani
There are troubled regions in the world. It doesn't mean I have to use that to perceive a threat in other places where everything is peaceful.
In reply to bhagwad
are you afraid of tackling the question head on?i asked for your views regarding the reasons for the two situations mentioned.is this the way you intend to discourse.
In reply to ashwani
If you were to ask me, I would say the reasons are political and economics based. Not religion. Religion is just an arbitrary division which people use to form into groups.
In reply to bhagwad
expand on your theme
In reply to ashwani
This is a very long theme. There are many resources on the net which give a background on this. Here are some to get you started if you want:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/… http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Religious-Violence-Ide… http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/world/asia/04ih…
To quote:
"Economic development implies a rising opportunity cost of participating in religious services and prayer."
Deterioration in economic conditions is associated with the likelihood of educated men becoming terrorists.
Islamic violent sects are embedded in inefficient or failed states with few public services and poor economies.
If you want, more there's lot of material on this theme online.
Note: This doesn't mean that religion is good. Ideally I would want all religions to be done away with – not just Islam.
In reply to bhagwad
in your tech section you mentioned the quote from einstein.here in regard to my question on two specific situation you throw tomes written by christians related specifically to the european situation and news reports from kandhamal,at me to see you line of thinking.
means that you cannot handle the two specific cases that i mentioned in your own words.
are you really seriously trying to follow einstein?
In reply to ashwani
Ok then.
Well off people don't like fighting because it can lead to a change. And people who are well off don't want change exceptis excipiendis.
1.“Economic development implies a rising opportunity cost of participating in religious services and prayer.”
2.Deterioration in economic conditions is associated with the likelihood of educated men becoming terrorists.
3.Islamic violent sects are embedded in inefficient or failed states with few public services and poor economies.
your
pt1. means with devlpmnt people lose religion
pt2. means economically poor == terroists.
pt3. islamic violence due to failed states.
pt4.Well off people don’t like fighting because it can lead to a change. And people who are well off don’t want change exceptis excipiendis.
ok?
none of your points explains the two events that i mentioned.
i think that you want me to find out the links between the events that i presented and the logic that you present.
is it?
In reply to ashwani
Look, Kashmir and Pakistan are highly politicized environments and aren't a good test case to apply for any other politically stable area.
What are we discussing here exactly?
thnx for meandering near the point i raised in beginning(post 49).
you say:-
"Look, Kashmir and Pakistan are highly politicized environments and aren’t a good test case to apply for any other politically stable area."
i think you understand that as for pakistan i am reffering to the period ~1947.so the whole country was politicized in equal measure so why the cleansing in paki only.
any way how does politicization => ethnic cleansing. for both the cases
In reply to ashwani
It depends on what the politicization is. For your point to be proven, the onus is on you to prove that religion was the only cause.
Both Hindus and Muslims were killed during the partition.
In reply to bhagwad
so are you excusing yourself from proving your point that politicization => ethnic cleansing.
as regards onus on me it will fall once you excuse yourself from proving your assertion,as i started with your assertion that muslims are not a threat to hindus and my query ther on rgrdng the reasons for your assertion.
the point is not about who was killed but was about ethnic cleansing.
In reply to ashwani
I didn't say that all politicization leads to ethnic cleansing.
When you say that Muslims are a threat to Hindus, you're talking about all Muslims all over the world. I've had many Muslim friends and none has tried to hurt me.
Therefore my point is correct that Muslims are not a threat to Hindus in general.
In reply to bhagwad
"I didn’t say that all politicization leads to ethnic cleansing."
then what is the meaning of:-
"Look, Kashmir and Pakistan are highly politicized environments and aren’t a good test case to apply for any other politically stable area."(post 59)?
i am not refferring to individual cases i am reffering to cleansing from pakistan/kashmir of whole societies.many among the displaced may have had friendships with mulatas but that is not the point.
"Therefore my point is correct that Muslims are not a threat to Hindus in general."(your post 63) is wholly erroneous.
In reply to ashwani
There are many different types of politicization. Each country and region is different. In this case it lead to violence. In many cases it does not.
As soon as you use the word "Muslim" you're immediately talking about every Muslim in the world. You can't ignore individual cases.
In reply to bhagwad
it seems that IYV:-
"You can’t ignore individual cases."
but you can ignore large scale cases as you seem to be doing.
kindly detail the diff types of politicizations that you have in mind,also which ones lead to the effects that i mentioned in post 49.also you are not answering why did it lead to violence(as you put it)/ethnic cleansing only in muslim majority areas.
In reply to ashwani
I just need to give one example of a non violent Muslim to show that not all Muslims are a threat.
Sorry – that's how logic works. And I can confidently say that most Muslims are not a threat. So my logic is even stronger.
I don't need to show why violence was caused in the case you site. I'm just showing why it was NOT caused.
"I’m just showing why it was NOT caused."
why what was NOT caused??????
one muslim leaves you unharmed => muslims are non-violent.
whereas a big chunk of them perpetrate violence and the rest are either active encouragers/passive onlookers silently asking you to submit to the dictats of the mob make up the whole lot.
is :_
" that’s how logic works." for you ?
and you totally excuse yourself from answering the question(post 49).by saying:-
"I don’t need to show why violence was caused in the case you site."
so your logical mind that was so intent on finding from others, leagally sound means of handling the problem has finally bid goodbye.
In reply to ashwani
"whereas a big chunk of them"
Less than 5% is a big chunk?
In reply to ashwani
Make that less than 2%
how&who measured the percentages involved?
there is something called a silent support.
even if we assume that 2% are enough to set the course of events then it leaves very little room to neglect the threat.the lesser the bigger the threat.beacuse the majority (as you put it)is helpless(as you imply)or is passively supporting(that i claim). in either case threat exists from muslims as hindu 2% were not able to effect similar changes.
In reply to ashwani
Who measured percentages
Even if there are 100,000 violent terrorists (which is a high number), it's just 0.01% of 1 billion Muslims.
If you're paranoid, let's make that 1,000,000 which is still just 0.1%.
If it's 10,000,000 (which is ten times the size of the Indian Army), that's still just 1%!
"it leaves very little room to neglect the threat"
Agreed. But the threat is not Muslims. You need to find a new word to describe these people since saying "Muslims" is just stupid.
I call them terrorists.
In reply to bhagwad
you evade the point as to why these "terrorists"come in such numbers from muzzis that they set the tone of their societies,that is detrimental to the existence of others,while being ineffective (if at all they exist in such numbers) in other religious groups.
In reply to ashwani
At least we've agreed that we can't equate terrorists with Muslims. That's one step forward.
How about we discuss the next question in more detail later? My opinion is that poor economic development, politics, and low education are the root causes of most violence. This doesn't meat we don't punish violence. We do. But we also stop name calling.
And I wasn't evading. I was quoting your sentences in italics and replying point by point. Why do call that evading?
In reply to bhagwad
"At least we’ve agreed that we can’t equate terrorists with Muslims. That’s one step forward."
sorry don't take it for granted.since i have said that the majority of the muzzis are silent supporters.
"Why do call that evading?"
since you haven't taken up the question that i am asking since the beginning as to why it happened in paki/kasmir(muzzi majority areas only) and not in india.you say terrorists but even they are effective only in those areas.
your line regarding poverty if it is relevant in explaining this dichotomy then pls. go ahead.but take on the question of differential bahaviour and explain it.
In reply to ashwani
"since i have said that the majority of the muzzis are silent supporters"
That's something you have to prove, and I don't think you have the ability to do that.
"pls. go ahead.but take on the question of differential bahaviour and explain it."
Given the fact that violent regions and poor development go together, that is a prima facie correlation.
The onus is now on you to prove that religion is the only cause. I've done my job.
In reply to bhagwad
"At least we’ve agreed that we can’t equate terrorists with Muslims. That’s one step forward."
That's why debates with your ilk will always fail. It seems you have a reaction mechanism to assume that a person objecting to terrorism is against all Muslims.
In reply to Radical Humanist
Come, this is semantics. When a person says:
"Muslims are a threat"
Obviously I will assume he's talking about all Muslims – unless otherwise specified.