In my attempts to engage those who hold differing opinions, I understood one very important issue. A large number of people feel that violence by Hindu organizations gets much more attention from the media and societies than violence by Islamic elements.
The latest incident of Islamic fanatics chopping off the hand of a person has catalyzed this debate. Lots of people feel that not enough people are getting upset over it as opposed to the outrage following Pramod Muthalik’s infamous pub attack. Here was one comment on the net:
“How did we come to this pass where this class places higher priority over distributing panties to a third-rate, & small-time wannabe politician over being watchful about the more real dangers that it faces?”
So is this allegation true? Did we indeed make a greater outcry over Muthalik’s pub raiding incident than we are doing over the hand chopping incident in Kerala?
Picture Credit: Manishwa.com
Muthalik in Pink Chaddis - Courtesy Manishwa
The answer is “yes.” We did. But it’s not because we’re trying to “pacify Muslims”, “demonize Hindu culture”, or are being manipulated by the media or politicians. There are two reasons why there was greater outrage over Muthalik.
The first is that Muthalik blatantly and openly went after all women who “offended Hindu culture.” In other words, he was moralizing to the whole country – sending out a message that no one was safe who dared go against his personal little outlook – and he was entitled to his actions. The hand choppers attacked a specific person. In reality, this too is a way of threatening everyone, but they weren’t so damn blatant about it. They didn’t stand in front of media people and proclaim their bigotry to the whole world. Muthalik on the other hand gave press statements claiming to be the moral voice of the country. By doing that he obviously pissed people off a lot more than crazy fanatics who hurried through a gruesome act.
Also, Muthalik’s violence was against women specifically. It was a double outrage. Not just against pubbing, drinking and dressing, but against women specifically. I mean what the hell?
In other words, the hand choppers inspired fear. Muthalik inspired outrage. Imagine for a moment that after chopping off this poor Professor’s hand, the culprits had waited for media people and with a smug look boldly told the whole country that they would come for every Christian, Hindu, or Atheist who dared insult Mohammed. Does anyone think we would have kept quiet? The outrage would have been 10 times worse than what we released on Muthalik.
The second reason is that Muthalik and his type are politicians. Violence is bad enough without having the sanction of those who are trying to be in power. Because of this, Muthalik was a much more dangerous threat. If he ever gets a chance to wield actual power, he has the ability to impose his idiocy on all of us! Naturally he’s a much bigger threat. And this is a justified fear since he was even caught on tape offering to start riots for a price.
The difference between Muthalik and the hand choppers is like the difference between the Mafia and regular thieves. The Mafia is organized, runs businesses, and is more systemic and entrenched. Regular thieves are dangerous, but can’t do much worse than steal. We naturally hate the Mafia more than normal thieves!
I hope this clears up some of the misunderstanding for those who feel that we only focus on Hindu violence and Muslim violence. We’re not ignoring any violence, but we focus on that which has the capacity to do much more damage.
//The difference between Muthalik and the hand choppers is like the difference between the Mafia and regular thieves. The Mafia is organized, runs businesses, and is more systemic and entrenched. Regular thieves are dangerous, but can’t do much worse than steal. We naturally hate the Mafia more than normal thieves!//
You summed it.
And one more thing, his action was like those Shabab something – a Taliban group who wanted to grope women because they claimed women were not permitted to wear artificial support to make themselves look attractive. (Sraboney blogged about these creative creeps) – He tried to pass off molestations as pious actions to protect what he claimed was Hindu culture. He was much worse than even Nithyanand who didn’t beat or tore off women’s clothing.
Please may I borrow that stunning picture to put it on my side bar?
By all means :) . The picture was taken from Manishwa's blog.
You really feel that another reason was an excuse to grope around in the garb of morality? I didn't think of that! I thought it was only for political mileage.
And I really can't see why the huge furore over Nithyananda. I mean yeah, I wouldn't go to him for solace, but if other adults want to do whatever they want with him who am I to stop them?
No I didn't think this was an excuse to molest, but couldn't imagine something so disgusting being passed off as saving the culture. What Al Shabab did was an excuse to grope without doubt.
And it’s so silly that anybody thought Hindu women identified with this kind of man, I think he is wearing one of these in this photograph.
http://indianhomemaker.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/because-chaddis-are-foreverphotos/
I think the poor guy was really shocked when this happened. We must ensure that something like this happens to each time so that hooligans will know they'll become famous – but in the wrong way!
This is a very intelligent piece. Well argued, well written, and convincing. Unlike so much news that comes in sound bytes, this explains something important about how and why we choose to respond to the many bad things that confront us in the world.
Thanks Hari :) Glad to know you feel the same way. I wasn’t sure everyone would agree with my reasons…
Oh, I love the picture!
There are others who believe Muslim terrorists get more attention than Hindu ones…This is what Nimmy has to say:
“But it,it also amuses me ,that why all hindutva terrorists are getting away,while all muslim terrorists are getting undue attention they deserve. Even a thief is portrayed as a potential terrorist but not many RSS guys are seen on TV,though they too are included in many blast cases…Maybe this is what they call secularism.” (http://nimis540.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/afzal-should-be-punished-muslim-leader/)
I don’t know who is getting more attention…All I know is that I want this idiocy to stop…It’s not helping anybody…
Tell me about it – it’s idiocy only.
What when some people get hung up on certain ideas, they need to be engaged so that at least a few will be willing to listen. The only thing is, they think the same thing about us! In all my “experiments” till now, I’ve just managed to reinforce existing ideas :(
Having opinions is a right, but what really gets my goat is when people are not willing to listen to contrary opinions…
But the people I’ve been debating with feel that we’re not listening to them! I think I’m willing to listen – but I need a higher burden of proof.
Don’t know if I’m any better though…
=>
"A large number of people feel that violence by Hindu organizations gets much more attention from the media and societies than violence by Islamic elements."
=>
No, not feel. It is true. It is based on facts. Again, do your homework. By using words like "feel", you are being intellectually dishonest.
Take, for example, the two incidents that happened in the not-so-distant-past.
1. Taslima Nasreen assaulted in Hyderabad. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEeuCwxq6k4)
2. Editor and publisher arrested for reprinting an article by Johann Hari. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/edit…
Now, compare that to the outrage over Muthalik and chopping of hands. You'll find your answer – that is, if you are really honest and interested in finding it. As they say, it is impossible to wake up those who are pretending to be asleep.
As for Muthalik vs. chopping of hand, I find it interesting that you feel more threatened by words than by deeds. Usually, basic common sense tells me that it should be the other way round. And it is the media that hypes up threat by people like Muthalik – resulting in people like you and IHM, like sheep, multiplying that outrage – whereas the media slinks away when incidents like the above two happen. So, basically, you're not really applying your mind and doing some independent analysis of your own, but merely echoing the media and being outraged when it tells you to be outraged.
BTW, there were a few ministers from the UPA that voiced their criticism of the burgeoning pub culture, but then again, going by your comments and posts, it seems like it's really impossible for you – at this stage – to look at events without using labels like "conservative", "right-wing" , "liberal" etc. and to rise up above such labeling. I'm hoping you'll evolve to a different place wrt your analysis in a few years as you continue reflecting over these issues. Remember, that article in the Boston Globe equally applies to you – as is quite evident from your sophistry and rationalizations in your comments on the post where you tried to reach out and have a dialog. :)
You've ignored both the reasons I gave for why Muthalik got more outrage. Please read what I wrote and reply to both my points if you wish to have a meaningful dialog.
Bhagwad, read this article http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=1
“Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information.”
Wow – that’s quite an eye opening article. Especially these two paras:
“The more threatened people feel, the less likely they are to listen to dissenting opinions, and the more easily controlled they are.”
and
The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.
I did read it, and my comment was the response.
“[..] but we focus on that which has the capacity to do much more damage.”
Yet you ignore the actual damage, starting with multiple attacks and bomb-blasts by Islamic terrorists from across the border (including killing of Jews in Mumbai – anti-Semitism akin to Nazism), the attacks on freedom of expression and the gruesome chopping of hand. And that’s just in India.
You might want to google Kurt Westergaard, Theo van Gogh (Europe) and Comedy Central (USA) to find out who or what not only has the capacity, but indulges in actual violence.
I'm aware of these attacks. So what do you suggest I do? Blame all Muslims because of these people?
Instead of that, it would be better off to blame all humans since every terrorist till now has been human! Kill all humans and there will be no more terrorism :)
The media, had prior information on what is going to happen, chose to let it happen so that they could shoot it and claim TRP rating, rather than informing the police..
IF they had informed police, this very incident would have been prevented? Why did they NOT do?
Are they not to be prosecuted for this offense?
Perhaps. I'm not saying the media is a saint. But what's your point?
My point is why is the media who filmed that pub attack scene NOT prosecuted? Or why none of the so called liberals and intellectuls NOT even discuss this?
I can only guess that they wanted to film it since it would make a good story. There many be other reasons, but I can’t think of any right now.
Of course, they should have alerted the police. Maybe they were told in advance that no one would be hurt. If they knew someone was going to get hurt then I’m sure they would not have been informed in the first place.
But that’s really no excuse. Maybe our media just needs to become more mature, and a few years later these issues will come up…
You are not directly answering my question.. and you are shielding the media from their crime..
Do you know, as per the law, when some one knows of a crime in advance, but deliberately failed to inform the police, its a crime..
Its very clear, the media had arrived at the scene knowing in advance of what is going to happen, but did not want to prevent it, because they want to shoot the beating of the girls.. This is also a serious crime equivalent to the muthalik and his team who actually did it..
Now muthalik had been arrested, cases filed, and proceedings happening in the court..
What about the media? Why are they NOT prosecuted?
/** I can only guess that they wanted to film it since it would make a good story. **/
Sir.. look at the veracity of your own reasoning.. so, if i want to make a good story, i can calmly shoot a murder which i know in advace, instead of informing police to prevent it..
Is this not a perversion of those urban mindset?
/** Maybe they were told in advance that no one would be hurt. If they knew someone was going to get hurt then I’m sure they would not have been informed in the first place.
**/
Deliberate defending of those media.. Why cant some one defend muthalik on the same line saying that his boys were sent for mere protest and that he did not know his boys would actually beat those women..
Am I defending the media? I clearly said there was no excuse whatsoever…
"What about the media? Why are they NOT prosecuted?"
I can only assume that till now no one has filed a case against them yet.
Is this not a perversion of those urban mindset?
I didn't say you could shoot a murder. I'm not making excuses for the media at all. And what is "urban" about it?
"he did not know his boys would actually beat those women.."
As a person who instigated it, he was responsible for the actions of his goondas. In addition, he openly threatened violence in front of the cameras.
/** I can only assume that till now no one has filed a case against them yet. **/
Then why you have not questioned it in your blog? I understand, its your individual right to write what you want, but i am debating the accountability part of it..
/** And what is “urban” about it? **/
The urban mindset, which thinks it is the moral authority, sets moral standards to itself and all others, and then goes on to brand anyone who violates it..
Then why you have not questioned it in your blog?
I didn’t think about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention – I’m questioning it now.
The urban mindset, which thinks it is the moral authority, sets moral standards to itself and all others
Nothing prevents rural folk from putting their ideas across, challenging orders in court etc. Everyone has a right to free speech as much as anyone else…
@Senthil
I think it’s a big accusation to make that the media knew in advance about the attacks on the women and they failed to inform the police. Would you have any specific evidence that points to media complacency in this matter? i.e. do you have any evidence that suggests that the hooligans had informed them in advance that THEY WILL BEAT WOMEN in the pub? If you don’t have any such evidence, you are making baseless allegations against the media in my opinion.
Cheers!
AD
@AD
Thanks.. but there may NOT be always an online evidence to provide.. we have to rely on interpretations, inferences and enquiries..
You know.. many of the housewives support Muthalik, but they dont express this at public..
We need to acknowledge, that the middle class house holders, feel insecure about the society and various other things, that they dont like.. they want their daughters to study, get a decent job, and settle in life peacefully.. but when they send their daughters to colleges, or other places, they always have a fear that their daughter may deviate to such indecent places like pubs, etc..
There are many indias we have.. the minority westernised india, where pubs, drinking, discothe are their identities.. a large middle class india, where family, family values, relations, family customs, religion, spirituality are their identities .. and a labour class india, where poverty, sufferings, etc are their identities..
The westernised indians are preying upon the middle class india, and unleash all types of intellectual assault.. the middle class india, cannot do anything as they are extremely soft.. however, the lower class india, which shares many of the sensitivities of middle class, attempts something bold like this pub attack.. and the westernised upper class india, starts banishing the other two..
Just my points to ponder.. the media always are under the control of these upper class indians..
@Senthil [August 25, 2010 at 2:30 am]
You have an interesting point, taken in the abstract. Unfortunately, once exposed to facts, it starts falling apart like wet cardboard. Bear with me – I tend to be verbose – while I direct your attention to your own words in a separate post.
@AD,
If media did not know in advance, how come they were present there in the pub.. are you saying, that these media persons came there to cover how those girls and boys dance in pubs?
@Senthil
1) "This is like saying, that if some one seduces a woman, it is up to the woman to respond or not.."
Yes. That's right. It should be up to the woman to decide whether or not to respond to such advances. By the way, I hope you talking about seduction and not eve-teasing; these two are very different!
2) "Or will you say “LEt the parents instruct their daughter to carry condoms always in their handbag to prevent pregnancy”.."
Yes. It's the parents' duty to tell their children to be careful in life. Sex is a fact of life and whether you like or not, children WILL have sex. It's better to tell them to be careful than telling them not to have sex at all because that's simply impossible to achieve!
3) "First of all, pubs, discothes, brothels are all social evils.."
That's YOUR opinion and you are absolutely free to hold that opinion. But you also have to accept that others don't share this opinion and you have to give them equal amount of freedom to hold their own opinions.
Listen my friend, no one's out there to "lure" anyone into doing "immoral things", if you consider drinking alcohol or having sex immoral in the first place! And even if someone feels the "need to save these girls from being lured", bashing them up is hardly the way to go about it! Don't you think?
Let me ask you this – what if someone who believes that vegetarian food is the best food and eating non-veg is immoral? Then this person goes about attacking all butcheries, all restaurants serving non-veg food in the name of vegetarianism. What if this person claims that the non-veg restaurants are luring people who otherwise wouldn't want to eat non-veg? Do you see how absurd it is?
Nicely put Ashish!
@Senthil
Have a look at this link. This should answer your question http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=56202&cnt=3
Yet, I am willing to consider your allegation that the media knew about the attack in advance. You could very well be right. I may have missed something that you didn’t!
You are making a very serious allegation and you should prove that there’s some truth to it. Hard evidence always works! Else, it’s just Chinese whisper!
I hope you see what I am trying to say!
Cheers!
AD
@Senthil
You have made some very valid points about differing opinions within our societies. But I am sure you will agree that we will never have unanimous agreements on any issues even within a very small community, let alone such a diverse nation as India.
So if some people prefer not to drink, party etc., isn’t it up to them to keep away from bars and nightclubs? If some parents don’t want their children to “deviate to such indecent places” as you put it, let them inculcate those values in their children. Clearly, no bar/pub/nightclub would beat people up if they refuse to drink, party etc. Then why should those who don’t want to drink, party etc. beat up those who want to?
Isn’t this exactly what the Taliban is doing in AfPak? The problem with such moral policing is not just that it’s unfair and anti-freedom but it is also plain impractical.
As for your assertion that the majority of middle class doesn’t want to live a western lifestyle, I think that’s simply, for the lack of any better words, delusional. It’s the middle-class that’s consuming western lifestyle more than anyone else today. The proliferation of McDonald’s, KFCs, Pizza Huts and so on wouldn’t have been possible without the middle class. Since 1993, it’s the middle class that has spent most on foreign products and helped India’s economic boom. But that’s getting too much into economics and I wouldn’t want to bore you with it. Suffice it to say that I am a middle-class person and I am happy to accept all the consumerism that has come into India in the last decade.
And what is a western lifestyle anyway? Would you accept people getting beaten up for wearing jeans and t-shirts as well? Where does that end?
Senthil, let’s accept that beating people up because they don’t conform to OUR ideal standards is not the right thing to do. What the Ram Sena guys did is simply wrong and their actions could not have any justification whatsoever. Period.
I am not saving hindu culture.. rather, i want to save the cultural values that majority of the people follows and want to follow in a particular region.. there is no common hindu culture..
if pub is started in an area, where everyone or most people accepts, no one would have problem.. the minority who dont accept will silently move away and settle in an area where there is no pub..
But Senthil, you really don't need to worry! India, being a free country, the majority are also free to do whatever they want – so long as they don't hamper other people's freedom. No one is stopping anyone from living their own lives the way they want to…
If you feel I'm wrong, tell me in what way someone is being prevented from living their life the way they want.
@Senthil
"if pub is started in an area, where everyone or most people accepts, no one would have problem.. the minority who dont accept will silently move away and settle in an area where there is no pub.."
Very well put. I agree with you. Similarly, if a pub is opened in an area where no one wants to drink, it'll itself go out of business, as Bhagwad has already explained.
Gujarat, by the way, is a "dry state". You would think that the majority of Gujaratis don't like to drink. I have been to Gujarat on many occasions and I can tell you from experience and knowledge that booze is very easily available there and is consumed by quite a considerable population. Those who don't consume it there (or don't want to for fear of law!), hop in to Mumbai for a "great night out" :)
My dear friend, no one has ever managed to prevent people from doing something by force. In fact, the more you prevent people from doing something, the more they'll do it. It's human nature!
/** Similarly, if a pub is opened in an area where no one wants to drink, it’ll itself go out of business, as Bhagwad has already explained.
**/
But why should it be opened in an area, when no one wants to drink? suppose there are some 1000 families, all that pub need is to lure atleast 50 persons (NOT families) regularly for it continue.. once it is running permanently, the general attitude of the people will undergo changes.. a residential area doesnt contain just adult people.. it contains teenagers, youths and many other people..
when there is pub nearby, a family cannot always watch their teenage son or daughter.. there are chances that they will secretly go to the pub due to the proximity..
and youths, college students and those who had problems with families are more prone to visiting the pubs..
Once a considerable number of person starts going to pub, then the trend in that area changes.. the remaining people who still dont want pubs, will find them in minority unable to further cope up..
So, starting a pub or wine shop is NOT an individual rights.. its a social issue..
a super market in a residential area will not do any harm to the society.. but a wine shop or a pub, will definitely alter the social values there..
So please dont compare retail commodities with pubs and discothes..
Senthil, isn't it the job of parents to teach their children how to handle the real world? Parents have no right to expect their children to live sheltered lives.
Pubs aren't illegal since all these social problems you've talked about are abstract. There hasn't been a proven effect that pubs damage people. If such a report comes out, then pubs will be banned just like drugs are banned.
When the Supreme court held that Khushboo didn't do anything wrong by saying that pre marital sex was ok, it asked those accusing her to bring proof that some people have been harmed by her statements. They too were saying the same thing – that her words harm society, but they were not able to prove it in a court of law.
/** Pubs aren’t illegal since all these social problems you’ve talked about are abstract. There hasn’t been a proven effect that pubs damage people. If such a report comes out, then pubs will be banned just like drugs are banned.
**/
Pubs can be made illegal, just with passing of a law.. so i dont go in to legal or illegal..
btw, there are lot of researches which had proven drinking is harmful to women..
You are simply ignoring the social aspect of the point.. it seems, you do not know what a society means..
/** When the Supreme court held that Khushboo didn’t do anything wrong by saying that pre marital sex was ok, it asked those accusing her to bring proof that some people have been harmed by her statements. They too were saying the same thing – that her words harm society, but they were not able to prove it in a court of law.
**/
If you feel, supreme court is genuine, its your opinion.. the supreme court judges themselves are accused of lot of scams.. recently the PF scam..
Btw, its an open secret, how judgements are bought out..
"Pubs can be made illegal, just with passing of a law"
Not necessarily. If a law violates the basic structure of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court can strike it down. This has happened in the past.
it seems, you do not know what a society means
You're right. In reality, society doesn't exist by itself. Only individual people exist.
And there will always be some corruption everywhere. On the whole, I trust the Supreme Court so far.
@Senthil
It is a matter of individual choice! An individual has every right to open his/her business wherever he/she pleases!
And frankly, your contention that people won't go to pubs or night clubs if they are not in their proximity is simply ridiculous. And young people at that! My friend, no age group is more mobile than the young! If they want something, they'll go any distance to get it! Simple as that.
Senthil, you give an impression of a very insecure person. You don't trust anyone to think sensibly and act rationally! That's a big disadvantage in a 'society'. I don't know if you have children but if you give your children a good upbringing, they'll more likely turn out to be good human beings, however you define it!
So relax and don't worry about "saving" everything from the "young" and the women to the "society" and the "culture"! Trust me, they'll take care of themselves!
/** It is a matter of individual choice! An individual has every right to open his/her business wherever he/she pleases!
**/
NO.. there is no unlimited rights, and unlimited freedom.. the people around, the environment, the prevailing social sensitivies are all to be considered..
As i said earlier, you are not able understand the meaning of society and community..
You're right. Other things must be considered. Which is why you can do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone else.
Harm being defined by the law of course.
/** Senthil, you give an impression of a very insecure person. You don’t trust anyone to think sensibly and act rationally!
**/
Sir.. What is sensible? what is rational? you are not even rational at the most common natural phenomenon.. that an individual are susceptible to various disturbances..
/** So relax and don’t worry about “saving” everything from the “young” and the women to the “society” and the “culture”! Trust me, they’ll take care of themselves!
**/
In that respect, i advise you NOT to worry about those girls.. police will take care of them.. you need not raise voice for them.. their parents will take care and will proceed with police case..
The matter ends..
@Senthil
"Sir.. What is sensible? what is rational? you are not even rational at the most common natural phenomenon.. that an individual are susceptible to various disturbances.."
Are you telling me that you are the only one who understands what is sensible and rational? Where do you get this misplaced superiority complex from? Why are you deciding for the "society", which at best is made up of countless people with their countless opinions?
"In that respect, i advise you NOT to worry about those girls.. "
No I am not! I am not worrying about anyone else but myself! I am fighting to defend my freedom! And defend it from those who are adamant on forcing their twisted "way of life" on me.
You may have valid reasons to hold your opinions Senthil but you need to accept that others too have their own reasons for their own opinions and you need not force yours on them.
You don't go to pubs if you don't want to. You don't send your children (for as long as you could possibly control them) if you don't want them to go. But if someone else wants to go to these pubs and if someone else is happy for their children to go to these pubs, you have no justification to beat those children out of those pubs. That's simply unreasonable and unjust.
@Senthil
"because there is lack of business, the pub owners are luring youngsters.."
I find this very patronizing! What is this "luring" business after all? I am a marketer by profession and I can tell you that you are "lured" into buying everything! You've been "lured" into buying a car, a refrigerator, an air conditioner, shampoos, soaps… you name it! You really don't need most of the things you buy today!
What all things will you give up just because you've been "lured" into buying them? And do you buy every single thing that's been advertised to you? Don't you use your rational thought to decide what you should and should not buy?
How is that different from "youngsters" deciding whether they should or should not drink? A pub owner would advertise his/her pub to get business and quite rightly so! It's up to every individual to decide whether to walk in or not!
By "luring", you are not suggesting that the pub owners hypnotize people in some way, are you?
A good way of putting it Ashish. No one is forced into buying anything. We all have to make up our own minds.
/** I find this very patronizing! What is this “luring” business after all? I am a marketer by profession and I can tell you that you are “lured” into buying everything! You’ve been “lured” into buying a car, a refrigerator, an air conditioner, shampoos, soaps… you name it! You really don’t need most of the things you buy today!
**/
actually i dont have good opinion about marketing persons.. but that's my personal opinion..
but when you market things, you are definitely forcing people by luring.. a quality product will automatically reach people..
/** What all things will you give up just because you’ve been “lured” into buying them? And do you buy every single thing that’s been advertised to you? Don’t you use your rational thought to decide what you should and should not buy?
**/
But what is the criteria for successful marketing persons? the one who makes people buy things.. so arent you employing all sorts of means to sell a product, which amounts to forcing by luring.. i myself had many instances, where i was continually followed up by the marketters, who would tell all sorts of lies, just to sell that product.. i had regretted many times, why i bought that product..
See.. humans are NOT machines who run according programs.. they can be lured away, tempted, bullied, and what else..
In the Clinton – Monica affair, how did the president of a the most powerful lost his balance? A human mind is always susceptible to temptation.. and that is the reason, why people takes care to keep away from such object of temptations to maintain an order..
So if majority people in an area want to have certain values to be followed, they have to keep away all that distract them.. But this is not a necessity for those who dont want to follow any values..
I hope, you got the point..
If you want to have sex as you wish, go to pub and drink and dance with any girl, or to smoke or to do any other nasty things, its very easy for you..
But when people want to follow certain discipline in their life, they need to create an environment for that..
Senthil, real discipline doesn't come from shutting yourself off. Real strength of mind comes when you're able to ignore what you want to ignore.
And that is something the law cannot get involved in. It's a personal matter.
/** Senthil, real discipline doesn’t come from shutting yourself off. Real strength of mind comes when you’re able to ignore what you want to ignore.
**/
Probably, for great saints like you, discipline comes from mind and self control.. but the majority of the people, are just normal human beings, susceptible to various things.. so are you willing to allow them to have their own living environment?
They can have their own environment in their home and property which they legally own.
@Senthil
"but when you market things, you are definitely forcing people by luring.. "
No there's no force. You got to understand the meaning of force. Advertising is not forcing someone to buy something. Even determined persuasion isn't equivalent to forcing something. Forcing would be to literally shoving alcohol down someone's throat! I am more than sure that that doesn't happen.
"See.. humans are NOT machines who run according programs.. "
Precisely my point. Each individual has his/her own way of living life and you can't make them all live like robots, taking instructions from moral police on how to live their lives!
"So if majority people in an area want to have certain values to be followed, they have to keep away all that distract them.. But this is not a necessity for those who dont want to follow any values.."
Senthil I am sorry I don't want to liken you to Taliban every now and then but this statement is right out of their text books!
"But when people want to follow certain discipline in their life, they need to create an environment for that.."
I am vegetarian and I live in the UK. Most of the people here in the UK eat non-veg. But I don't go about demanding that the place I live in should become vegetarian and the people amongst whom I live don't demand that I turn into a non-vegetarian. They serve me vegetarian food whenever possible (and they go that extra mile to make vegetarian dishes for me if they don't make them already!)
Live and let live is the motto. If you don't want to go to a pub or a night club, by all means you should not be forced to go there. But you should not force someone else not to go there either! This whole "luring" argument doesn't stand because it's meaningless. The most you could/should do is not get "lured" yourself. Don't decide for the rest. They will look after themselves.
/** Senthil I am sorry I don’t want to liken you to Taliban every now and then but this statement is right out of their text books!
**/
I too cant, but liken you to taliban.. bcoz, you never understand anything other than individual rights.. just like taliban never understands anything other than shariah..
You dont know what is a society.. you dont know what is a family.. you dont know what is a community.. you dont know what is an environment.. you never understand how a society functions..
Its really futile to debate with such narrow minded person.. the person who thinks that even seducing is an individual right..
Senthil, the Taliban want to hurt people physically and physically prevent them from enjoying their right to freedom.
And I am doing the opposite. I want to make sure that no one is physically hurt or prevented from doing what they want.
/** So if some people prefer not to drink, party etc., isn’t it up to them to keep away from bars and nightclubs? If some parents don’t want their children to “deviate to such indecent places” as you put it, let them inculcate those values in their children
**/
@AD,
This is like saying, that if some one seduces a woman, it is up to the woman to respond or not.. please see practical issues.. the pubs, bars, discothe are only end points of the larger issue.. do you believe, all those girls hear about the pubs and go there directly to get boyfriends? Never.. they are lured at various places and various situations employing various tactics..
If the sons and daughters are ready to hear what their parents say, then there would be no problems today.. but the schools, colleges, medias all unleash a propoganda of values that is contradicting the value of the middle class.. in such case, what do the parents do? Let their daughters to be lured away, and be ditched after that? and do they want their daughters to get abortioned regularly?
Or will you say “LEt the parents instruct their daughter to carry condoms always in their handbag to prevent pregnancy”..
First of all, pubs, discothes, brothels are all social evils.. secondly, these pubs and discothes employ a network of persons to lure college boys and girls, so as to gain profit? What else will the pubs do, if they want to improve their profits or to avoid losses?
So please stop projecting pubs, discothes as individual rights.. then we can discuss about muthalik issue..
And it has become fashionable for the media to equate saffron to taliban, without even applying common thoughts.. Taliban is a totalatarian regime, that wants to implement shariah.. The Muthaliks are reactions to the aggression of westernised dirty values..
and what the media is doing is nothing but intellectual terrorism..
@Senthil
There you go! We are back to "seduction". Please could you clarify your understanding of seduction and why you are so opposed to it? Because if there's no seduction, there's no human race!
And your likening of me to taliban on the grounds you have provided is simply laughable. You clearly don't understand that there's no conflict between individual rights and society, family and so on! Importance to society and family doesn't mean trampling of individual rights! I am sure most people in their right minds would agree with that!
You are right. It's a futile debate because you have no idea of what you are talking about. End of comments from me on this topic.
Thanks Bhagwad for a good article.
Cheers!
AD
@AD
/** 1) “This is like saying, that if some one seduces a woman, it is up to the woman to respond or not..”
Yes. That’s right. It should be up to the woman to decide whether or not to respond to such advances. By the way, I hope you talking about seduction and not eve-teasing; these two are very different!
***/
So, as per your statement, any one in the society, can try seducing any girl or women, by employing any means.. the girls had to defend themselves.. so if any guy successfully seduces the girl, uses her, and then ditches, its the fault of the girl..
I could not believe, people can even think like this..
/** Yes. It’s the parents’ duty to tell their children to be careful in life. Sex is a fact of life and whether you like or not, children WILL have sex. It’s better to tell them to be careful than telling them not to have sex at all because that’s simply impossible to achieve!
**/
NO comments.. the middle class dont want a situation, where children will be lured to have sex.. the middle class and lower class, want to have a social environment to prevent these kind of situations.. they want a school, which teaches these values.. they want colleges which imparts the values they believe.. they want the society, where children dont have the chances to do what they believe is wrong..
Their values are rejected by people like you… and people have to depend on people like muthaliks, to safegaurd themselves..
Actually, if the common sense prevails, the opinion of the common people in mangalore should have been sought, and acted accordingly..
/** That’s YOUR opinion and you are absolutely free to hold that opinion. But you also have to accept that others don’t share this opinion and you have to give them equal amount of freedom to hold their own opinions.
**/
but majority of people hold this opinion that drinking, pubs and discothes are social evils.. in the name of freedom, you cannot impose this on the society..
/** Listen my friend, no one’s out there to “lure” anyone into doing “immoral things”, if you consider drinking alcohol or having sex immoral in the first place! And even if someone feels the “need to save these girls from being lured”, bashing them up is hardly the way to go about it! Don’t you think?
**/
You might have recently heard about “love Jihad”.. the daughter of a communist politician is being lured and they forcibly saved their daughter.. the luring is there, and young girls become prey to these.. and we have so many incidents, where girls are trafficked to prostitution through this means.. please acknowledge this..
Bashing up the girls is wrong.. muthalik has apologised for that.. but the pub has to be closed.. and discothe should not be allowed to open, if majority of the people opposes..
The freedom to save a culture, is more important than the freedom to throw away the culture..
“So, as per your statement, any one in the society, can try seducing any girl or women, by employing any means.. the girls had to defend themselves”
Yes. Exactly. As long as it’s not a physical assault and the girl is an adult, it’s her life. With freedom comes responsibility. That’s the way this country works.
“the middle class dont want a situation, where children will be lured to have sex”
Who is this middle class? I am also middle class. What gives you the right to speak for me?
“and people have to depend on people like muthaliks, to safegaurd themselves”
You have the right to only safeguard yourself from physical or financial harm. No other “harm” is valid.
“but majority of people hold this opinion that drinking, pubs and discothes are social evils”
Proof please? Also, just because the majority wants something doesn’t mean they will get it. It’s not a mobocracy. It’s a democracy. And the Constitution is more important than anything else.
Remember how the Delhi HC decriminalized homosexuality? There too the “majority” didn’t want it. But they had to accept the Constitution. That’s the way India works.
The freedom to save a culture, is more important than the freedom to throw away the culture..
You can save your culture for yourself. Don’t tell others what culture to follow.
/** Yes. Exactly. As long as it’s not a physical assault and the girl is an adult, it’s her life. With freedom comes responsibility. That’s the way this country works.
**/
No sane people will accept the freedom to seduce that you are advocating for.. responsibility never comes in pub or discothe my friend.. responsibility comes through accountability, through respecting social values and through good behaviour..
In US, the land of unlimited freedom, the number of rape cases is more than india’s.. so please introspect yourself..
/** Who is this middle class? I am also middle class. What gives you the right to speak for me? **/
I am also middle class.. i have right to speak for myself.. and its not just middle class.. Even lower class and part of higher class wants to have social values.. Please come out of the attitude, that only people at metros and cities are the india.. they are only micro minority. the majority of india still resides in rural india..
/** “but majority of people hold this opinion that drinking, pubs and discothes are social evils”
Proof please? Also, just because the majority wants something doesn’t mean they will get it. It’s not a mobocracy. It’s a democracy. And the Constitution is more important than anything else.
**/
As said above, majority of india still resides in village and small towns.. metros and cities are NOT the only india..
its the secular and liberal mobs, which is shouting at all other people.. yes.. this mobocracy should be stopped..
It is democratic principle, where a decision is arrived based on majority votes.. btw, constitution is NOT a religion perse.. between, constitution doesnt give any one right to seduce others..
/** The freedom to save a culture, is more important than the freedom to throw away the culture..
You can save your culture for yourself. Don’t tell others what culture to follow.
**/
Exactly.. we never care about what you follow or what you do.. we ask you, dont do all those nasty things among people who dont like that.. and we want to save our culture from people like you..
If a woman asks you for protection, then by all means it’s between the two of you. But if an adult woman wants to do what she wants with her life, who are you to stop her? Are you her guardian? By what right?
You have the right only to speak for yourself. If you don’t want to go to a pub, don’t go! What is your problem here exactly?
“responsibility comes through accountability, through respecting social values and through good behaviour”
Who defines “social values?” Who defines “good behavior?” Some crazy mullah will say that good behavior means that girls should stay at home and make babies. Should we listen?
/** You have the right only to speak for yourself. If you don’t want to go to a pub, don’t go! What is your problem here exactly?
**/
you are not attacked by muthalik.. right? you are not prevented from going to pub by muthalik.. right.. so why dont you just look after yourself.. let those girls affected speak for themselves..
Issue settled..
If you feel, you have right to speak for those girls affected by muthalik, then i have the right to speak for those majority who dont want pub itself..
If I was to go and bash up Muthalik, then you have a point. Otherwise, I have the freedom to criticize.
You also have the freedom to criticize. I may not agree with you, but you have that right. My problem with Muthalik is that he didn’t criticize. He used physical violence.
Physical violence is not acceptable. Let him sing a song or something if he wants to object.
@Senthil
I guess you would be more happy in a Taliban-controlled country. Or perhaps Saudi Arabia! Fortunately, contrary to what you suggest, a majority of India doesn’t share your beliefs.
I think this should be the end of the discussion here. Let’s leave it to the readers to decide what idea of India they would like to live in – your’s or mine!
Good evening!
AD
@AD..
I am convinced, that there is nothing difference b/w taliban and the so called liberals.. i would better name it as secular and liberty talibans..
fine.. end of discussion here.. and i am sure, people will note your point, that any guy can attempt to seduce any girl he want..
You’re right. The difference only lies in what is fought for.
The Taliban fight for their restrictive laws. We fight for freedom.
yes.. every one thinks, they are fighting for freedom.. the taliban fights for freedom to impose islam… and you people are fighting for freedom for imposing obscene and immoral values on the society..
No difference..
But how am I imposing it? Am I forcing you to go to a pub? If not, how can you call it imposition?
but you are forcing pubs & discothe in my location, which majority of the people dont want..
If people don't want it, the pub will close down for lack of business.
Also, you don't own the locality. The pub owner bought it legally. You need not go inside. If they built it in your house, then you have a case. Otherwise no.
/** If people don’t want it, the pub will close down for lack of business. **/
You have now come to the main point. because there is lack of business, the pub owners are luring youngsters..
/** Also, you don’t own the locality. The pub owner bought it legally. You need not go inside. If they built it in your house, then you have a case. Otherwise no.
**/
There is a collective ownership of the locality.. and i am stressing.. if majority people dont want, the pub cannot be forced upon..
the pub owners are luring youngsters..
If they are not adults, the parents have every legal right to stop them. If they're adults, then it's their choice no?
There is a collective ownership of the locality
This is plain wrong. There is no such collective ownership. What is your proof for this statement?
@Senthil
Why are you so stuck on women and pubs?
Btw, if you do sufficient research, the Hindu culture that you are so desperate to “save” didn’t have any problem with either drinking or sexual lives of men and women. These restrictions came in far later with the Arab invasions in the 11th/12th century. So what you are essentially trying to defend is not Hinduism but Islam’s influence on Hinduism.
Try to see the point Senthil. Stop for a moment and think about it.
/** No I am not! I am not worrying about anyone else but myself! I am fighting to defend my freedom! And defend it from those who are adamant on forcing their twisted “way of life” on me.
You may have valid reasons to hold your opinions Senthil but you need to accept that others too have their own reasons for their own opinions and you need not force yours on them.
**/
No one came and beat you.. no one stopped you from going to pubs.. so you need not worry about muthaliks.. let those affected girls take care of themselves..
As i said, if you dont believe in existence of society, its up to you.. if you dont believe, that a society has common values its up to you.. but the reality is that so many people has common values and form a society..
If you dont understand anything other than individual rights, then please stop advising others.. Individual rights comes only after individual duty, individual responsibility and individual accountability..
@Senthil
What you have expressed in your comments above is quite easy to understand, but is not consistent with any kind of democracy or any kind of free society. Let me summarise your postulations:
1. There are cultural norms and rules which are absolute, and apply to everybody;
2. These are determined by whether or not a majority respects them and wants them;
3. Any minority which wants to observe a different set of norms and rules is not free to do so, because it is the majority’s views that prevail;
4. The majority that determines these rules happens to be the religious and cultural majority in the country, and within that, the socially-conservative sub-set;
5. In line with their beliefs, pubs, discos and dance clubs – any social association that is associated with culture from elsewhere, in other words – is equivalent to a brothel (this is implied, since you have clubbed them together in several places);
6. All women who go to pubs, discos and clubs are vulnerable to sexual seduction, and all men who go to these know that women who come to these do so to be seduced;
7. Pubs, discos and clubs must be shut down whether or not they comply with the law, because they don’t comply with the religious majority and the socially conservative sub-set within that; the law of the land no longer matters, the views of the chosen outweighs any legal issue;
8. Women who go to these must be beaten up for their own good, to prevent them from being seduced;
9. They do not have the choice of being seduced, or of seducing men, as they are not equal to men, OR as they do not realise the consequences of what they are doing;
10. There may be parents who wish to give their children independence, but such parents don’t count; their children don’t count anyway, being children of somebody, and therefore perpetually immature and unfit to take decisions;
11. There may be parents or mature people who choose their own freedom over their own minds and bodies, but they should not be allowed such freedom, as it clashes with the views of the religious majority, and the subset within, the socially conservative segment;
12. Senthil is the person who knows what this subset of the majority really wants, and is entitled and authorised to articulate this want.
Does this reflect your views, or is it an exaggeration? If it is an exaggeration, either can you disprove it or prove it an exaggeration by a citation from your own words, or may we prove that these points reflect your views by citing your words?
Have you ever either had to move against pubs, discos and clubs, or is all this your only response to the matter?
Have you ever had a near and dear one exposed to harrassment and threat by the factions that you seem to be so fond of?
If you found a pub opening next door, would you oppose it?
If you got arrested and bound to hold the peace by a magistrate, are your views strong enough to make you break the peace to make your point?
Have you ever stood for election? Even in a college or school election?
I am curious to know what your reactions to this are.
Thanks for the detailed response Vajra. I think it's fairly accurate. Of course, we shouldn't assume this is exactly what is being conveyed, but when he responds we can find out if this is what he means…
@bhagwad
Looks like he got put off and stumped off in a huff.
Maybe he didn't get the notification of the new comment…
@Vajra
/** What you have expressed in your comments above is quite easy to understand, but is not consistent with any kind of democracy or any kind of free society.
**/
Do you really understand, what is meant by democracy?
/** 1. There are cultural norms and rules which are absolute, and apply to everybody; **/
I never said like this.. india has thousands of communities each having their own culture.. there are NO uniform cultural norms.. what i am asking people like you is “Dont impose your culture upon them”..
For eg, an area which has major hindu population, considers killing cow as sin.. you cannot go and establish a slaughter house, in the name of individual rights..
/** 2. These are determined by whether or not a majority respects them and wants them; **/
There is no nationwide majority in india.. every region is unique.. Metros like Delhi is highly westernised.. and no one objects pubs there in delhi.. its their culture.. but mangalore definitely is NOT.. Try to respect the sensitivities of the local people.. you have unlimited rights only within your house..
/** 3. Any minority which wants to observe a different set of norms and rules is not free to do so, because it is the majority’s views that prevail;
**/
As long as it does not spoil the environment, the minority always have their own right.. There is a saying.. your freedom exists only up to the other man’s tip of nose..
/** 4. The majority that determines these rules happens to be the religious and cultural majority in the country, and within that, the socially-conservative sub-set;
**/
There is no religious hindu majority here.. neither cultural majority.. and there is no centralised authority in hinduism to set rules.. hindus are NOT bound by any holy book rules..
/** 5. In line with their beliefs, pubs, discos and dance clubs – any social association that is associated with culture from elsewhere, in other words – is equivalent to a brothel (this is implied, since you have clubbed them together in several places);
**/
Its not just belief.. its a contradiction of social values.. as i said earlier, people dont want within their region.. they dont care, if its in delhi or any other metros..
In my personal opinion, pubs and discos are equivalent of brothels.. that’s a different case to argue..
/** 6. All women who go to pubs, discos and clubs are vulnerable to sexual seduction, and all men who go to these know that women who come to these do so to be seduced;
**/
I cannot comment about all women in pubs. & discothes. but all girls new to pubs and discothes are highly vulnerable to sexual seduction, because they are lured there only for that? Otherwise, for what people are going there? TO pray?
/** 7. Pubs, discos and clubs must be shut down whether or not they comply with the law, because they don’t comply with the religious majority and the socially conservative sub-set within that; the law of the land no longer matters, the views of the chosen outweighs any legal issue;
**/
the law of the land is decided by majority.. again thats a different thing.. Law is an ass in many circumstances.. so i want to discuss based on human conscience..
As i said earlier, there is no religious majority here in india.. its official myth and a misnomer.. again, its a different case to debate..
The normal people are NOT arguing for nationwide uniform law against pubs .. what they want is that they dont want these within their region.. you can keep it in delhi or any where else where you dont find any opposition..
/** 8. Women who go to these must be beaten up for their own good, to prevent them from being seduced;
**/
I never said that.. Even muthalik himself apologised for beating women.. but government should NOT have allowed the pubs in that place, amidst people’s opposition..
/** 9. They do not have the choice of being seduced, or of seducing men, as they are not equal to men, OR as they do not realise the consequences of what they are doing;
**/
Seduction is NOT a choice.. i said it many times.. Seduction is NOt an individual right.. humans are always susceptible to temptations or luring, and they are lost to their senses.. It may not be a problem for those people like you, who do not believe in chastity.. but its a problem for majority of normal indians, who believe in chastity and who wants their children to be good and properly settle in a peaceful family life..
Its easy to live without any values.. but a culture needs a common value followed , where one generation trains the next generation with these values..
/** 10. There may be parents who wish to give their children independence, but such parents don’t count; their children don’t count anyway, being children of somebody, and therefore perpetually immature and unfit to take decisions;
**/
There is no unlimited independance.. few parents may allow their children to go astray as they wish.. but majority of parents believe their children to be brought up in an environment with values they have themselves followed..
No parent opposes when children take decision responsibly..
/** 11. There may be parents or mature people who choose their own freedom over their own minds and bodies, but they should not be allowed such freedom, as it clashes with the views of the religious majority, and the subset within, the socially conservative segment;
**/
See.. dont think that those who are going to pub have freedom.. and also dont think, that all youths of india are craving for pubs and it is parents who dont allow
Freedom has value in being responsible.. and NOT in becoming slave to one’s own desires and temptations..
There is no unlimited freedom.. Freedom do have a cost and boundary.. this boundary varies from community to communty and region to region..
/** 12. Senthil is the person who knows what this subset of the majority really wants, and is entitled and authorised to articulate this want.
**/
Yes.. because i come from that subset of so called majority.. i live among those people, interact with them and understand what values they have and what they want.. and i find that the micro minority of those adopt western values occupy key positions in media is deciding everything for whole india..
/** Have you ever had a near and dear one exposed to harrassment and threat by the factions that you seem to be so fond of?
**/
i bet, You dont what harassment really is..
/** If you found a pub opening next door, would you oppose it? **/
Definitely.. i would do everything possible to NOT allow it..
/** What you have expressed in your comments above is quite easy to understand, but is not consistent with any kind of democracy or any kind of free society.
**/
/*Do you really understand, what is meant by democracy?*/
If I didn’t, why would I be asking you? That is a tactic known as answering a difficult question by asking a question back.
For your information, in response to your attempt to dodge an answer, I studied Political Science in college; I very well know what a democracy is, in technical terms, and in terms of its variations, and can teach it too.
So what about answering the question, instead of asking a question back?
/** 1. There are cultural norms and rules which are absolute, and apply to everybody; **/
/*I never said like this.. india has thousands of communities each having their own culture.. there are NO uniform cultural norms.. what i am asking people like you is “Dont impose your culture upon them”..
For eg, an area which has major hindu population, considers killing cow as sin.. you cannot go and establish a slaughter house, in the name of individual rights..*/
But that is what you have argued, throughout all your points. If people have a culture which allows them to go to pubs, why are you forcing them to stay at home?
/** 2. These are determined by whether or not a majority respects them and wants them; **/
/* There is no nationwide majority in india.. every region is unique.. Metros like Delhi is highly westernised.. and no one objects pubs there in delhi.. its their culture.. but mangalore definitely is NOT.. Try to respect the sensitivities of the local people.. you have unlimited rights only within your house..*/
Mangalore is a westernized place as much as any other, except for its Hindutva element, which is of recent origin, and initiated by the eight Udupi temples. They are far more pub-compatible than many parts of Bangalore.
Have you actually been to Mangalore yourself? Am I right in saying that unlike me, you are speaking from second-hand knowledge and have never been to Mangalore in your life?
/** 3. Any minority which wants to observe a different set of norms and rules is not free to do so, because it is the majority’s views that prevail;
**/
/*As long as it does not spoil the environment, the minority always have their own right.. There is a saying.. your freedom exists only up to the other man’s tip of nose..*/
Then if I open a pub outside the private space of any other citizen, within the laws of the land, with the consent of the municipality, the Excise Department and the police, why should anyone object?
/** 4. The majority that determines these rules happens to be the religious and cultural majority in the country, and within that, the socially-conservative sub-set;
**/
/*There is no religious hindu majority here.. neither cultural majority.. and there is no centralised authority in hinduism to set rules.. hindus are NOT bound by any holy book rules..*/
Then which majority is it that you are quoting against pubs? What group do you belong to that gives you the authority to decide for others?
/** 5. In line with their beliefs, pubs, discos and dance clubs – any social association that is associated with culture from elsewhere, in other words – is equivalent to a brothel (this is implied, since you have clubbed them together in several places);
**/
/*Its not just belief.. its a contradiction of social values.. as i said earlier, people dont want within their region.. they dont care, if its in delhi or any other metros..
In my personal opinion, pubs and discos are equivalent of brothels.. that’s a different case to argue..*/
Whose social values are being contradicted? Can you define them? Is it an anonymous mass?
Is it that all regions outside Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata are not places where people want pubs? How do you know? Have you any source of knowing this?
Have you any proof that (in the North) Ludhiana, Amritsar, Chandigarh, Patiala, Gurgaon, Faridabad, Agra, Kanpur, Lucknow, Allahabad, (in the East) Patna, Ranchi, Dhanbad, Jamshedpur, Siliguri, Darjeeling, Burdwan, Guwahati, Tezpur, Jorhat, Shillong, Itanagar, Kohima, Manipur, Agartala, Aizawl, Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, Puri (in the West) Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Alwar, Kotah, Pune, Satara (in the Centre) Bhopal, Sagar, Gwalior, Indore (in the South) Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, Vijaywada, Trichy, Pondicherry, Madurai, Tuticorin, Coimbatore, Kodaikanal, Trivandrum, Kochi, Cannanore, Mysore, Mercara, Ooty, Coonoor, Belgaum all do not want clubs, pubs or discos?
Do you know which of these places listed have a common drinking culture, where men and women habitually have a drink together in licensed drinking houses, as part of their popular culture?
Is it going to be your personal opinion that determines the laws of the land? What happened to the majority?
/** 6. All women who go to pubs, discos and clubs are vulnerable to sexual seduction,
and all men who go to these know that women who come to these do so to be seduced;
**/
/*I cannot comment about all women in pubs. & discothes. but all girls new to pubs and discothes are highly vulnerable to sexual seduction, because they are lured there only for that? Otherwise, for what people are going there? TO pray?*/
You keep talking of girls being lured there. Have you any experience of this, or any proof? Do girls go there who are not lured?
And does it ever occur to you that people go there to be in the company of their friends, perhaps all friends of the same sex, and relax over a drink and something to eat, and good music? Why is it that to you, the only reason to go to a pub must be sexual in some manner?
It may be that no one ever invited you, and that no girl or young woman has spoken to you. Is that what the trouble is, and is that why you are so angry? Out of envy and hatred of something you can’t be part of?
Could I ask you, have you ever drunk alcohol?
/** 7. Pubs, discos and clubs must be shut down whether or not they comply with the law, because they don’t comply with the religious majority and the socially conservative sub-set within that; the law of the land no longer matters, the views of the chosen outweighs any legal issue;
**/
/*the law of the land is decided by majority.. again thats a different thing.. Law is an ass in many circumstances.. so i want to discuss based on human conscience..
As i said earlier, there is no religious majority here in india.. its official myth and a misnomer.. again, its a different case to debate..
The normal people are NOT arguing for nationwide uniform law against pubs .. what they want is that they dont want these within their region.. you can keep it in delhi or any where else where you dont find any opposition..*/
First the majority, now it is human conscience. Now if nine people have consciences that say pubs should be allowed, and one has a conscience which is different, who should prevail?
How do you know that pubs are opposed in Mangalore? Where are those people coming from who were in that attacked pub, other than Mangalore?
/** 8. Women who go to these must be beaten up for their own good, to prevent them from being seduced;
**/
/*I never said that.. Even muthalik himself apologised for beating women.. but government should NOT have allowed the pubs in that place, amidst people’s opposition..*/
Why did Muthalik’s goons then threaten people in Bangalore, in exactly the same way, accosting young women in their 20s and 30s, not girls, as they came out and abusing and insulting them? Are you aware that the law describes verbal assault as ‘assault’, and physical assault is classified as ‘battery’? Are you aware that the pub in question was not opposed by anyone, because it was not in a residential area to begin with? Are you aware that Muthalik’s men were moving from apartment to apartment, crowding into people’s flats, and asking them whether they supported their activities or not? Are you aware of this campaign of intimidation in Bangalore (not in Mangalore) which finally led to a court binding order on Muthalik? Are you even aware of all this?
/** 9. They do not have the choice of being seduced, or of seducing men, as they are not equal to men, OR as they do not realise the consequences of what they are doing;
**/
/*Seduction is NOT a choice.. i said it many times.. Seduction is NOt an individual right.. humans are always susceptible to temptations or luring, and they are lost to their senses.. It may not be a problem for those people like you, who do not believe in chastity.. but its a problem for majority of normal indians, who believe in chastity and who wants their children to be good and properly settle in a peaceful family life..
Its easy to live without any values.. but a culture needs a common value followed , where one generation trains the next generation with these values..*/
It is you who defined it as seduction, as you obviously believe that men and women are not equal. Could I ask you a series of questions on that issue, to prove that you are biased against women?
It is not a question of chastity, it is a question of values. Why do you assume that your individual values must be the norm for everybody else? Here you speak of a majority, earlier you said that a majority might not be available, so human conscience should be the criterion, which is your point of view? Would you be surprised if a majority of parents asked were to say that you or any third person should not set rules for their children, over and above what they themselves think fit to set?
/** 10. There may be parents who wish to give their children independence, but such parents don’t count; their children don’t count anyway, being children of somebody, and therefore perpetually immature and unfit to take decisions;
**/
/*There is no unlimited independance.. few parents may allow their children to go astray as they wish.. but majority of parents believe their children to be brought up in an environment with values they have themselves followed..
No parent opposes when children take decision responsibly.*/
First please define child. Is a person of 21 a child or an adult? Is such a person entitled to take decisions for herself or not? Is such a person to be considered a dependent on her parents, even if she is working and her income is the main income for the family?
And please let us know, how old are you?
Second, please explain who informed you that the people of over 21 (a criterion for entry into pubs and some discos) had not taken responsible decisions? How do you know that?
/** 11. There may be parents or mature people who choose their own freedom over their own minds and bodies, but they should not be allowed such freedom, as it clashes with the views of the religious majority, and the subset within, the socially conservative segment;
**/
/*See.. dont think that those who are going to pub have freedom.. and also dont think, that all youths of india are craving for pubs and it is parents who dont allow
Freedom has value in being responsible.. and NOT in becoming slave to one’s own desires and temptations..
There is no unlimited freedom.. Freedom do have a cost and boundary.. this boundary varies from community to communty and region to region../*
It is not a question of freedom being equated to going to a pub. Freedom is the choice to either go to a pub or stay away. How can you take freedom away from people by deciding for them that they should not go? Even if the law permits, even if the majority agrees, even if they are independent and earning, why should your choice be their choice?
How can your community’s definition of boundaries restrict people from other communities? How can your region’s definition of boundaries restrict people from other regions? How can you, for instance, determine what Mangaloreans should or should not do? You are not Mangalorean. You are not Bunt or Tulu-speaking. You are not Christian.
Or are you?
/** 12. Senthil is the person who knows what this subset of the majority really wants, and is entitled and authorised to articulate this want.
**/
/*Yes.. because i come from that subset of so called majority.. i live among those people, interact with them and understand what values they have and what they want.. and i find that the micro minority of those adopt western values occupy key positions in media is deciding everything for whole india..*/
Ah, the mysterious majority again. And the subset, which you denied existed only a few lines ago. So your religious group and your conservative subset within that group should be obeyed by everybody else because they are the majority? What about the Christians, including Mangalore Christians, who find nothing wrong with drinking and dancing, although they are as conservative as any other community in all other matters? How do you explain their position? Or do you think that they too are the micro minority of those who adopt western values?
/** Have you ever had a near and dear one exposed to harrassment and threat by the factions that you seem to be so fond of?
**/
/*i bet, You dont what harassment really is..*/
You lose.
I do, exactly and precisely.
Why don’t you answer my question?
/** If you found a pub opening next door, would you oppose it? **/
Definitely.. i would do everything possible to NOT allow it..
Even if a majority around you were to be for it? Is it majority now, or conscience?
In separate posts, I shall ask you why you did not answer certain questions I asked you, and what the significance of those omissions was. I shall also answer your scandalous remarks of your other post. Meanwhile, please try to give proper and honest answers, without dodging and turning and twisting.
/** What you have expressed in your comments above is quite easy to understand, but is not consistent with any kind of democracy or any kind of free society.
**/
/*Do you really understand, what is meant by democracy?*/
If I didn’t, why would I be asking you? That is a tactic known as answering a difficult question by asking a question back.
For your information, in response to your attempt to dodge an answer, I studied Political Science in college; I very well know what a democracy is, in technical terms, and in terms of its variations, and can teach it too.
So what about answering the question, instead of asking a question back?
/** 1. There are cultural norms and rules which are absolute, and apply to everybody; **/
/*I never said like this.. india has thousands of communities each having their own culture.. there are NO uniform cultural norms.. what i am asking people like you is “Dont impose your culture upon them”..
For eg, an area which has major hindu population, considers killing cow as sin.. you cannot go and establish a slaughter house, in the name of individual rights..*/
But that is what you have argued, throughout all your points. If people have a culture which allows them to go to pubs, why are you forcing them to stay at home?
/** 2. These are determined by whether or not a majority respects them and wants them; **/
/* There is no nationwide majority in india.. every region is unique.. Metros like Delhi is highly westernised.. and no one objects pubs there in delhi.. its their culture.. but mangalore definitely is NOT.. Try to respect the sensitivities of the local people.. you have unlimited rights only within your house..*/
Mangalore is a westernized place as much as any other, except for its Hindutva element, which is of recent origin, and initiated by the eight Udupi temples. They are far more pub-compatible than many parts of Bangalore.
Have you actually been to Mangalore yourself? Am I right in saying that unlike me, you are speaking from second-hand knowledge and have never been to Mangalore in your life?
/** 3. Any minority which wants to observe a different set of norms and rules is not free to do so, because it is the majority’s views that prevail;
**/
/*As long as it does not spoil the environment, the minority always have their own right.. There is a saying.. your freedom exists only up to the other man’s tip of nose..*/
Then if I open a pub outside the private space of any other citizen, within the laws of the land, with the consent of the municipality, the Excise Department and the police, why should anyone object?
/** 4. The majority that determines these rules happens to be the religious and cultural majority in the country, and within that, the socially-conservative sub-set;
**/
/*There is no religious hindu majority here.. neither cultural majority.. and there is no centralised authority in hinduism to set rules.. hindus are NOT bound by any holy book rules..*/
Then which majority is it that you are quoting against pubs? What group do you belong to that gives you the authority to decide for others?
/** 5. In line with their beliefs, pubs, discos and dance clubs – any social association that is associated with culture from elsewhere, in other words – is equivalent to a brothel (this is implied, since you have clubbed them together in several places);
**/
/*Its not just belief.. its a contradiction of social values.. as i said earlier, people dont want within their region.. they dont care, if its in delhi or any other metros..
In my personal opinion, pubs and discos are equivalent of brothels.. that’s a different case to argue..*/
Whose social values are being contradicted? Can you define them? Is it an anonymous mass?
Is it that all regions outside Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata are not places where people want pubs? How do you know? Have you any source of knowing this?
Have you any proof that (in the North) Ludhiana, Amritsar, Chandigarh, Patiala, Gurgaon, Faridabad, Agra, Kanpur, Lucknow, Allahabad, (in the East) Patna, Ranchi, Dhanbad, Jamshedpur, Siliguri, Darjeeling, Burdwan, Guwahati, Tezpur, Jorhat, Shillong, Itanagar, Kohima, Manipur, Agartala, Aizawl, Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, Puri (in the West) Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Alwar, Kotah, Pune, Satara (in the Centre) Bhopal, Sagar, Gwalior, Indore (in the South) Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, Vijaywada, Trichy, Pondicherry, Madurai, Tuticorin, Coimbatore, Kodaikanal, Trivandrum, Kochi, Cannanore, Mysore, Mercara, Ooty, Coonoor, Belgaum all do not want clubs, pubs or discos?
Do you know which of these places listed have a common drinking culture, where men and women habitually have a drink together in licensed drinking houses, as part of their popular culture?
Is it going to be your personal opinion that determines the laws of the land? What happened to the majority?
/** 6. All women who go to pubs, discos and clubs are vulnerable to sexual seduction,
and all men who go to these know that women who come to these do so to be seduced;
**/
/*I cannot comment about all women in pubs. & discothes. but all girls new to pubs and discothes are highly vulnerable to sexual seduction, because they are lured there only for that? Otherwise, for what people are going there? TO pray?*/
You keep talking of girls being lured there. Have you any experience of this, or any proof? Do girls go there who are not lured?
And does it ever occur to you that people go there to be in the company of their friends, perhaps all friends of the same sex, and relax over a drink and something to eat, and good music? Why is it that to you, the only reason to go to a pub must be sexual in some manner?
It may be that no one ever invited you, and that no girl or young woman has spoken to you. Is that what the trouble is, and is that why you are so angry? Out of envy and hatred of something you can’t be part of?
Could I ask you, have you ever drunk alcohol?
/** 7. Pubs, discos and clubs must be shut down whether or not they comply with the law, because they don’t comply with the religious majority and the socially conservative sub-set within that; the law of the land no longer matters, the views of the chosen outweighs any legal issue;
**/
/*the law of the land is decided by majority.. again thats a different thing.. Law is an ass in many circumstances.. so i want to discuss based on human conscience..
As i said earlier, there is no religious majority here in india.. its official myth and a misnomer.. again, its a different case to debate..
The normal people are NOT arguing for nationwide uniform law against pubs .. what they want is that they dont want these within their region.. you can keep it in delhi or any where else where you dont find any opposition..*/
First the majority, now it is human conscience. Now if nine people have consciences that say pubs should be allowed, and one has a conscience which is different, who should prevail?
How do you know that pubs are opposed in Mangalore? Where are those people coming from who were in that attacked pub, other than Mangalore?
/** 8. Women who go to these must be beaten up for their own good, to prevent them from being seduced;
**/
/*I never said that.. Even muthalik himself apologised for beating women.. but government should NOT have allowed the pubs in that place, amidst people’s opposition..*/
Why did Muthalik’s goons then threaten people in Bangalore, in exactly the same way, accosting young women in their 20s and 30s, not girls, as they came out and abusing and insulting them? Are you aware that the law describes verbal assault as ‘assault’, and physical assault is classified as ‘battery’? Are you aware that the pub in question was not opposed by anyone, because it was not in a residential area to begin with? Are you aware that Muthalik’s men were moving from apartment to apartment, crowding into people’s flats, and asking them whether they supported their activities or not? Are you aware of this campaign of intimidation in Bangalore (not in Mangalore) which finally led to a court binding order on Muthalik? Are you even aware of all this?
/** 9. They do not have the choice of being seduced, or of seducing men, as they are not equal to men, OR as they do not realise the consequences of what they are doing;
**/
/*Seduction is NOT a choice.. i said it many times.. Seduction is NOt an individual right.. humans are always susceptible to temptations or luring, and they are lost to their senses.. It may not be a problem for those people like you, who do not believe in chastity.. but its a problem for majority of normal indians, who believe in chastity and who wants their children to be good and properly settle in a peaceful family life..
Its easy to live without any values.. but a culture needs a common value followed , where one generation trains the next generation with these values..*/
It is you who defined it as seduction, as you obviously believe that men and women are not equal. Could I ask you a series of questions on that issue, to prove that you are biased against women?
It is not a question of chastity, it is a question of values. Why do you assume that your individual values must be the norm for everybody else? Here you speak of a majority, earlier you said that a majority might not be available, so human conscience should be the criterion, which is your point of view? Would you be surprised if a majority of parents asked were to say that you or any third person should not set rules for their children, over and above what they themselves think fit to set?
/** 10. There may be parents who wish to give their children independence, but such parents don’t count; their children don’t count anyway, being children of somebody, and therefore perpetually immature and unfit to take decisions;
**/
/*There is no unlimited independance.. few parents may allow their children to go astray as they wish.. but majority of parents believe their children to be brought up in an environment with values they have themselves followed..
No parent opposes when children take decision responsibly.*/
First please define child. Is a person of 21 a child or an adult? Is such a person entitled to take decisions for herself or not? Is such a person to be considered a dependent on her parents, even if she is working and her income is the main income for the family?
And please let us know, how old are you?
Second, please explain who informed you that the people of over 21 (a criterion for entry into pubs and some discos) had not taken responsible decisions? How do you know that?
/** 11. There may be parents or mature people who choose their own freedom over their own minds and bodies, but they should not be allowed such freedom, as it clashes with the views of the religious majority, and the subset within, the socially conservative segment;
**/
/*See.. dont think that those who are going to pub have freedom.. and also dont think, that all youths of india are craving for pubs and it is parents who dont allow
Freedom has value in being responsible.. and NOT in becoming slave to one’s own desires and temptations..
There is no unlimited freedom.. Freedom do have a cost and boundary.. this boundary varies from community to communty and region to region../*
It is not a question of freedom being equated to going to a pub. Freedom is the choice to either go to a pub or stay away. How can you take freedom away from people by deciding for them that they should not go? Even if the law permits, even if the majority agrees, even if they are independent and earning, why should your choice be their choice?
How can your community’s definition of boundaries restrict people from other communities? How can your region’s definition of boundaries restrict people from other regions? How can you, for instance, determine what Mangaloreans should or should not do? You are not Mangalorean. You are not Bunt or Tulu-speaking. You are not Christian.
Or are you?
/** 12. Senthil is the person who knows what this subset of the majority really wants, and is entitled and authorised to articulate this want.
**/
/*Yes.. because i come from that subset of so called majority.. i live among those people, interact with them and understand what values they have and what they want.. and i find that the micro minority of those adopt western values occupy key positions in media is deciding everything for whole india..*/
Ah, the mysterious majority again. And the subset, which you denied existed only a few lines ago. So your religious group and your conservative subset within that group should be obeyed by everybody else because they are the majority? What about the Christians, including Mangalore Christians, who find nothing wrong with drinking and dancing, although they are as conservative as any other community in all other matters? How do you explain their position? Or do you think that they too are the micro minority of those who adopt western values?
/** Have you ever had a near and dear one exposed to harrassment and threat by the factions that you seem to be so fond of?
**/
/*i bet, You dont what harassment really is..*/
You lose.
I do, exactly and precisely.
Why don’t you answer my question?
/** If you found a pub opening next door, would you oppose it? **/
/*Definitely.. i would do everything possible to NOT allow it..*/
Even if a majority around you were to be for it? Is it majority now, or conscience?
In separate posts, I shall ask you why you did not answer certain questions I asked you, and what the significance of those omissions was. I shall also answer your scandalous remarks of your other post. Meanwhile, please try to give proper and honest answers, without dodging and turning and twisting.
Senthil, I'd just like to point one thing out. There is no entity called "culture" which is the same for any subset of people. Each person is alone and has their own individual culture. So in a family of four, there is no single shared culture, but four different ones since no two human beings agree on everything.
There is no majority culture. In fact, society itself doesn't exist. We're born alone into the world and when we die, no one comes with us. No father, mother, friend, or spouse. So each person is an individual and alone whether they're part of a small minority or in a huge group.
For this reason, there is no such thing as "majority" or "minority."
@bhagwad
The man is in such a dark blanket of prejudice that I doubt very much that he himself understands what he is saying. Now that he has a mirror held up to him, watch what happens.
If anyone expects a startled recoil, or contrition, nothing of the sort is going to happen. But just watch.
Well, we shouldn’t discuss him personally when he’s not here. After all, we want to talk about issues and not people…
Mr. Vajra… by your description of me as dark blanket of prejudice, you are exhibiting your european racism (either knowingly or unknowingly).. i have been seeing this trend among many english educated urbanites, who would look down upon with as much contempt as possible on those rural folks, just because they dont know english and they dont share their western values..
I understand what i am talking about.. and i understand what you are talking about .. the problem is that you dont understand nothing beyong your selfish needs..
So before placing mirror before me, first remove the mask of ignorance from you, to see the whole world.. broaden your thoughts, and be sensible..
Senthil, I don't think Vajra made any reference to rural folk and whether or not they know english. It's possible I missed something in his post which you picked up on and which gave you that impression. For the sake of discussion, could you let me know which sentence led you to the conclusion that he's looking down on rural folk?
@bhagwad
Certainly; I applaud your delicacy, without necessarily subscribing to it. What I am saying is in the open, and he has every liberty to call me to account. As I have liberty to call him to account, for some of the tendentious things he has said which might, and do, outrage my feelings and sentiments, and my constrict my sense of freedom.
/** If I didn’t, why would I be asking you? That is a tactic known as answering a difficult question by asking a question back.
For your information, in response to your attempt to dodge an answer, I studied Political Science in college; I very well know what a democracy is, in technical terms, and in terms of its variations, and can teach it too.
So what about answering the question, instead of asking a question back?
**/
Fine.. and you know in a western style democracy, any decision is taken by majority votes.. i mean, in western type of democracy.. but in indian kind of democracy, its a different kind.. i believe, you might NOT have heard about indigenous democracy.. we can a separate discussion on this..
/** But that is what you have argued, throughout all your points. If people have a culture which allows them to go to pubs, why are you forcing them to stay at home?
**/
Actually, its you who are forcing western culture on indian people.. my stance is that, regional culture should not be disturbed. no one is forcing you or any one to stay at home.. the issue is whether pub is wanted or not..
<>
ME: Its the social values of the india, who had inherited from previous generation. The social values of the middle and lower class people, who believe in family system, who have rich social relations, and who all share common set of values, and who all see pubs, discothes as indescent and even barbaric ones..
The set of social values varies from place to place depending on the history of the region and the social composition..
You are a student of political science.. hope you have fair understanding of history.. if you want, we can have debate about this historic aspect in separate post..
<>
ME: which people want pubs? How do you know all people want pubs? Chennai is still a conservative society, with small set of pub-goers, who just silently go there without causing disturbance to others.. there are often excesses, but police take prompt action to rein those overreaching people..
<>
I am from Tamilnadu.. and i can say, majority people of Trichy, Madurai, Tuticorin, Coimbatore, kodaikanal dont want pubs and consider pubs as mark of indescent and shameful one..
If you want proof for other regions, probably you can take a survey in all those cities..
<>
In most of the places listed by you, women dont drink.. and in all the cities in tamilnadu, women dont drink, except for few families who were brought up in western culture from their childhood..
But many men go to wineshop for drinking..
<>
The laws are for the people.. and NOT people for the law.. I strongly oppose any centralisation of laws, except for those which deals with national security, foreign relations and other critical domains.. India is NOT a homogenous country.. india is composed of 56 historic desams.. india is diverse in language and culture.. diverse in topography.. Why should you enact a law and force everyone to adhere to it..
Leave it to the local people, to decide what they want.. just like different regions in US have their own laws..
My opinion is limited to the area i live and to the society and community i belong to.. i dont want to interfere with you, and you can live in the area where the culture you want prevails… but by using laws, dont make whole india as colony for yourself..
<>
I already told.. i am not concerned with those girls who were grown up in western life style.. I am concerned only about the girls, whom the ordinary people send for studies to college, but carried away by those loafers and womenisers, who use pubs as a convenient place for seduction..
I dont have any direct expeirence of seduction.. but i had seen many instances, where guys lure girls and had ditched them along with pregnancy..
<>
what a logic sirji.. in our area, there is no culture of inviting to pub.. and no girl in our area ever goes to pub..
The problem is that you are unable to see a world beyond your pubs and discothes.. come out of your shell sir..
<>
NO.. but i had gone with my friends to bar.. they wont force me, and even if i ask them, they wont allow me… they themselves acknowledge, they could not leave this drinking and smoking habit..
<>
The women you are referring are either belong to pick chaddi campaign or those who support them..
are you aware, women from middle and lower class, had supported him, but could not express it publicly?
Ofcourse, muthalik has apologised for harming those women.. but these ordinary women want stricter punishment for these girls..
verbal assault.. physical assault.. but what about media terrorism? and what about your assault of imposing western culture among native people? I can counter you for each and every word.. it wont lead us any where..
/** It is you who defined it as seduction, as you obviously believe that men and women are not equal. Could I ask you a series of questions on that issue, to prove that you are biased against women?
**/
Men and women are NOT equal.. biologically, psychologically, emotionally and in many other aspects men and women are NOT equal.. i am a practical man and i dont live in utopian world of idealism..
<>
Chastity is the highest value and virtue that ordinary people (of all religions) believe in today.. its people like you and those media dons, who are unleashing the propoganda against this.. like those idiots like kushboo, who thinks that every women would be like her..
<>
But you see.. i am part of that majority, and majority of people, have the same opinion like me.. majority of family expects their sons and daughters to be good citizen, not to indulge in drinking or smoking habits, and NOT to go astray.. majority of people work hard to send their children to college for studying and NOT for going pubs or indulge in illicit activities..
It is a micro minority of people like you who occupy key positions, and impose the western values on normal indian society.. the common people do not have any medium to express their opinions.. and i am one among them who is able to do that in internet, clashing with people like you..
<
Maturity, responsibility comes with one’s action and NOT with age.. just because one has attained 21, does not mean, what he did is always right.. as i said earlier, you might not believe in existence of society.. but ordinary people like me, who come from rural background have a rich society to interact with, to have relations, and to have common set of values, customs and traditions, to have community temple, to have specific pattern of matrimony etc etc..
These traditions and cultures are passed on from generation to generation.. my parents inherited it..
I am currently in my late twenties.. and as a youth, we were grown up in our traditional society.. and we have to go to cities for a living.. i am in a tech company, and have stayed in bangalore and chennai, and have seen both ends of indian society..
We (yes.. not just me.. but a lot of youths) are definitely concerned, that the society we came from, is not available to our children..
<>
As said, entry in to pubs and discos are ugly, dirty, shameful and indescent activity for the native indian society.. whether its 21 yrs old or 60yrs old, its considered irresponsible if one goes to pub or disco..
Mind it.. i am talking only about the society i live in.. the society in my region alone..
/** It is not a question of freedom being equated to going to a pub. Freedom is the choice to either go to a pub or stay away. How can you take freedom away from people by deciding for them that they should not go? Even if the law permits, even if the majority agrees, even if they are independent and earning, why should your choice be their choice?
**/
see.. individual responsibility is more important than individual freedom.. there is no unlimited freedom.. you cant say, its my freedom to go naked in the road… the police will nab you and boot you in the jail.. you cant say its my freedom to “f***” in public.. there is always an etiquette, to be followed in different places.. in company, in a mall.. Even in the pubs and discothes, there is always restriction, on how one should come and who all are allowed..
Just like you have a set of western ideals which you confine yourself, we have our own indian ideals, which is contradictory to yours.. the problem starts only when you people, start imposing your culture on us in the name of freedom…
So, please dont talk about freedom in isolated way..
//**
How can your community’s definition of boundaries restrict people from other communities? How can your region’s definition of boundaries restrict people from other regions? How can you, for instance, determine what Mangaloreans should or should not do? You are not Mangalorean. You are not Bunt or Tulu-speaking. You are not Christian.
Or are you?
**//
Ok.. let me not talk about mangaloreans.. i have the right to preserve the culture of my own region.. i have the right to oppose, if you attempt to start pubs here in my region.. do you agree or not?
Btw, do you mean, tulu speaking or Bunt people go to pubs? Do you say, all christians go to pub?
/** Ah, the mysterious majority again. And the subset, which you denied existed only a few lines ago. So your religious group and your conservative subset within that group should be obeyed by everybody else because they are the majority? What about the Christians, including Mangalore Christians, who find nothing wrong with drinking and dancing, although they are as conservative as any other community in all other matters? How do you explain their position? Or do you think that they too are the micro minority of those who adopt western values?
**/
i denied only religious majority which you have said.. here majority means the majority of common people.. dont confuse..
why should you brand my values as conservative first? and how can you say that all christians go to pubs or discothes?
/** Even if a majority around you were to be for it? Is it majority now, or conscience?
**/
Conscience of the majority.. what i said, was my generic view that law is an ass, without human conscience applied..
<>
This is what is called aggression.. a colonial invasion..
if you want to know why, we can have separate broad based discussion on the concept of law, and the purpose of it..
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Marriage…
Now go and fight with the judiciary.. and tell them to retract their laws which interferes in the individual rights.. then you can come to khaps or muthaliks..
Senthil, trust me – if cousin-couples start dying because they're not allowed to live with each other the courts and government will legalize cousin marriage pretty fast.
Moreover this is only under the Hindu marriage act. Many other acts allow cousins to marry each other.
And finally, the court didn't say they couldn't stay together, have sex and even have children if they want. So they have complete freedom to do as they please without anyone interfering.
And how can you compare cousin marriage to khaps? The khaps KILL people! When people are being murdered in cold blood, nothing else matters. No one cares for the motivations. If the end result is murder, that's the end of the story. No wonder the supreme court ordered the death sentence for those who indulge in honor killings!
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
so cool Muslims have found another “Best Friend”
What about the 26/11 attacks, Theo Von Gaugh or thousands other terrorist attacks
Will you ignore that?
Why don’t you write about something about Mo your buddy
I bet your pseudo-intelectual head will be on the table next day.
And about the last comment on cousin marriage…someday you pseudo-secular pseudo-intellectual liberal will ask for real brother-sister marriage.
Why not ffreedom is most imporant, ethics go to hell..
Isn’t it Bhagwad
What’s wrong with brother sister marriage and why is it unethical?
If its not wrong then name one society where it is allowed?
In US even first cousin marriage is not allowed.
Bhagwad you have no sense of ethics, how can you say one can marry his own sister, I think only you can do that.
All ethics have some logic to them no? I’m inviting you to show me why you think brother/sister marriage is unethical.
because it something called “incest”
have u heard the word ; if not go & check wikipedia :P
So your only answer is “because it like that only!”
Try and think beyond what you were brought up with.
Don’t show that u r intellectual, doesn’t suit u….u pseudo-intellectual
If you don’t know anything then better u stop writing on this blog
close relation marriage cause 2 problems:
1. idiocy
2. disease- hereditary
source:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#United_States
2. http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010081111313/life-and-science/culture-wars/muslim-inbreeding-impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society.html
one such disese found in Ashkenazi Jews is tay-Sachs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-Sachs
You look like one of those sorry cases
This is the reason why Muslims are so stupid and ignorant..
I do , that’s why I am not a sickular like you ….
good bye……eat something which improves brainpower
The purpose of marriage is not to have babies. So tell me again – why is brother/sister marriage unethical?
And please refrain from personal insults on my blog. Otherwise I will ban you, and blacklist your IP address so that all other blogs will block you as well. You’re welcome to post as long as your posts remain polite.
the champion of freedom of expression wants to ban, blacklist people for being insulting?
You can’t claim freedom to abuse on someone else’s blog. Go create your own personal blog and fill it with the worst abuse you can think of – no one will stop you.
Indulge in abuse on my blog, and I have the right to blacklist you. End of story.
Ok so your blog is not a place for freedom of expression? I thought you said freedom to abuse in my country is not wrong in many places. You are contradicting yourself with this hypocritical view.
Just like a guest in your house is expected to follow certain rules and not piss on the floor, visitors on my blog are expected to behave themselves.
You have the freedom to abuse on your own blog just like you have the freedom to pee on the floor of your own house. What has this got to do with countries?
You are a hypocrite
Good for you. Name calling is so much easier than logic after all.
Haha, dont you know that in this comment’s section you would need to always start a comment with Strongly Agree or I am your fan? See now you brought upon us another 100+ words of ‘I am right, you are wrong’, why Haha, why??
[...] experienced this on my own blog when I warn someone to curb their abuse in the comment section and I’m accused of censorship. As any reader of this blog knows, censorship is something I abhor and do not support it under any [...]
“Otherwise I will ban you, and blacklist your IP address so that all other blogs will block you as well.”
So why you want to ban the guy from other blogs as well? That sounds like censorship.
The system is a community of bloggers who wish to not have to deal with trolls. We trust each other’s judgment.
And no – it’s censorship only if you’re prevented from starting your own Facebook/Google+ page or your own blog and saying anything you want.