From: banerjee@hsc.usc.edu (Samit Banerjee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: (misleading) Indian Express Advertisement re: RJB
Date: 27 Jan 1993 01:11:57 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: hsc.usc.edu

ghosh@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sanjoy Ghosh) writes:

>Thank you very much.  Maybe I am pushing my luck here, but I am praying
>your generosity and magnanimity continue to hold.

Well this may be your lucky week, although you shouldn't allow that to 
let you take my benevolence for granted. Also dont embark on any ambitious
plans to test it's farthest limits like Nimmala did.

>What I am getting at is deliberate misrepresentation of the truth with
>the intention of inciting ill-will towards muslims.  

Aha and you think that SCI as a think tank that dictates GOI policy in
Kashmir and how the rest of India reacts should not be used in this 
manner. So far so good. A bit far fetched perhaps, but that's probably
your style. 

>The constitution 
>says non-kashmiris cannot own property in Kashmir, period.  In my book 
>saying anything else is a lie.  Barring non-kashmiris from buying prop 
>is as unfair to a muslim non-kashmiris as it is to hindu non-ks.  

Interesting. Indulge my ignorance for a minute, will you? 870 million
Indians (out of an estimated 880 million population) cannot own land in 
Kashmir and 85 % (or about 740 million Hindus) stand deprived of their
fundamental constitutional right to do so. What is then wrong in saying
that Hindus (except for the remaining 3 million) cannot own land in 
Kashmir? If somebody says the same thing for Muslims/Sikhs/Christians, 
I am ready to accept it. Would you have complained still?

You obviously assume that the author of the original article had 
ulterior motives for saying what he did. Maybe you are right. But even 
after giving you the benefit of the doubt, I must still point out
that statistically speaking, you are arguing a lost case.

>Extending 
>your line of reasoning (the default bit) would make the adjective Indian 
>useless.  Because, by default the Indian population is hindu.  And so 
>henceforth we could refer to Indians as Hindus and not Indians.  

You can refer to them by whatever suits your political color. However, 
even though I specifically mentioned that I would have preferred if the
author had used the term Indian to replace Hindu (although from a 
statistical point of view, he is quite correct), you seem intent on
ascribing my reasoning to a particular political identity.  

>Particularly in this charged atmosphere, misrepresenting the truth in
>this manner is at best irresponsible, and more likely malicious.

Maybe so, but there was no misrepresentation. The same can be said for
any other religion and would still be true. It seems that you are bent
on chasing paper tigers and resurrecting imaginary ghosts.

>>If the above paragraph dosen't educate, please let me know.
>
>Unfortunately, the wrong kind of education.

Again, a matter of perception. Education itself can never be wrong. The
socio-political events that shape it's course often are and that in the 
end is the only unfortunate part.

>>Maybe and may be not. Depends on wether it's your perception that I have an
>>imaginary axe to grind.
>
>Again, irrelevant in either case.

Not if you quote me out of context and make thinly veiled attempts at
ascribing incorrect political identities.

Samit
-- 
Samit Banerjee,			    |  
University of Southern California   |  A man who smiles when things go wrong,
Internet: banerjee@scf.usc.edu      |  has found somebody to blame it on.
Bellnet : (213) 342-1401            |