From: seetam@hub.eng.wayne.edu (Seetamraju Uday Bhaskar Sarma)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian.telugu
Subject: ... on secularism & future of India ....
Date: 21 Jan 1993 17:17:20 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

This post of mine represents a collection of thoughts that I feel
are linked, very much.   This is posted in 2 parts on s.c.i ...
change Ur newsgroups line if U want to post Ur responses to both groups...

Lets first consider pakistan.

<FACT> It was formed for muslims.  Two generations ago, muslims in the
	subcontinent overwhelmingly voted for the creation of pakistan.
It is now clear, that was more of a political messsage than a strong desire
to realise the import of that vote.  But the vote was one of the most
important events in the history of the sub-continent.  It clearly meant
that the muslims were dead against `dissolving' into the multitude.
This fear was widespread, in spite of the fact that muslims in the subcontinent
accounted for about a quarter of the whole population before partition.
A quarter is a heck of a lot to feel insecure.  But many did.  But the import
for the hindus was much more than insecurity.  It was a plain statement of
the fact that the people who `wanted away' were kicking aside many millenia
of cultural heritage, to START FROM THE SCRATCH elsewhere.  The people who moved
didnt want anything to do with any part of the ethos and life in the `remainder'.

<FACT> Though a few muslims left for pakistan, a much larger percentage
	stayed back.  In spite of all rhetoric and political intrigues
played out by everyone, when it came to making the actual step of moving
to pakistan, many muslims faltered.  My opinion is that they didnt even
falter.  They just stayed put.  In spite all the analysis that one saw (still see),
it is now clear, that the muslims who stayed, stayed, for the simple reason
because the place where they were, was their home.

If a muslim youth is angered when I question his `patriotism' , he simply demonstrates
the fact that he is just another of the bloody westernized bull-shitting
brown sahibs.  A person to whom, alien notions of Nationalism, Patriotism,
National Identity, National character, Rule of formal law etc..., are
the only things humans are living for, and for which, humans should live
for, and for which, humans who are not living for, should live for.

You will find a whole range of such emotions, but never will U see a
response from the urbanized muslim, which means to say ``Fuck U, this is
my home, so was it my father's, and so was it my ancestor's"

No, he will blabber about secularism and good of mankind, global peace,
uniformity of thought, the need to make jeans mandatory for all, the
need for a common language, the need for a common religion, blah blah blah...
Show me such a response from the villages and smaller mussofils...

That's just like the secularists, who never hesitate to denounce the religion
which shaped them.  Now they swear allegience to western notions, and
are confidently sermonizing about it, completely ignoring the innumerable
pronouncements of people right from gandhiji to economists of repute
(all over the world).  No, its gotta be western style democracy and
the ideals that the western cultures believe in.  None of the notions
of cultural diversity, cultural variedness, etc... ever stands a chance
of their true unemotinal scrutiny.

I cant see any difference between these modern secularists and J.Nehru.
All are clones of that man (maybe he was a clone of someone else).  I dont
see anyone of the so called secularists indulge in cultural discussions
on the net.  To them, their reason to live is secularism, and their cultural
depth is the width of the word secularism.  They talk for hours about
the rule of law and this and that.  Their analysis of events is based
only on events starting on the 15.Aug.1947 and after.  I think their
cultural activities is not worth studying, as we have all seen sheep dogs.
	BTW, jinnah, was a bigger ashole than Nehru.  The pakistanis
	know best.  Ask one.  He was the worst among all brown sahibs.

The secularists are fools.  If the british, left behind a `country' that
included burma, and afganistan included, and called it Boozland, then our
dear secularists will today, (in that alternative time/history) be yelling
from the rooftops about the ideals and ideas that made up boozland.
If instead it was a Trashland, and is not today's india, then, U wont
see any change in their mouthings, save some pattern-search-replacements.

		++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

	What the heck happened to the millenia of history in this part
of this world.?  Do U see any trace of it in the govt, the lifestyle of
the city people? Do U see it in the education?  DO U see it in the
outlook of people, do U see in the dreams of the future of these people?
No trace of it.  It might as well not have existed.

I am serious.  Lets suppose, india had a totally different history.  Now
what would change in today's india? -- suppose that india had
a majority religion called Sada, and that there is a clash between the sad-ists
and the muslims (for some god-forsaken shit, or whatever).  Can someone
please tell me if the secularist's behaviour or their lives would be different.
Can U show me one institution, in that country we ran away from, that is based
on THE PRESENT CULTURAL MILIEU (Leave alone the history).

Initially democracy is what the secularists were aiming for.  Then they saw, that
the majority community can vote to pulverize all their stupid notions.
And so then, it was respect for the law.  What law ?  Law that can be
amended by a govt voted by a majority and amended by following other laws
that tell U how to modify the 1st.
So, now its basic human beliefs, and god knows what next.

Two communities clash.  The arbitrer was not the supreme court or any
court till the final round was played.  But the secularists deemed themselves
the `moral guides' and the `sitting judges' to the whole drama of the past
decade.  If the law and democracy was really something that was so holy
then why weren't such avenues pursued earlier?  No one knows.

It is a farce being played out to keep the label `uncompromizing'
on hindus.  What prevented the mob-ism that was demonstrated at ayondhya,
and has shown itself in BBY, from having recurred in the past?
Do U sincerely believe, only a secular education can make a peron
tolerant to other religions?  Do U sincerely believe that rules and laws
can stop a person or persons from snatching something that he feels is
denied to him?  Why cant the onus of controlling violence be placed on
each person, and let the person decide.  Do U sincerely belive, that
the average man, unaware of western ideologies will behave like a savage?

If something is denied by an external force, protest is inevitable.  Force
begets an equal and opposite reaction.  Leave the power in the hands of
whoever gets the majority.  And convince me that once the hindus get to
power, the people ruling will be the `indian-mafia' (now, the sangh is an
equivalent to the word mafia in the secularist dictionary).  And convince
me that the hindus would start persecuting the muslims.  And convince me
that once the BJP is in power, it will give way to the hard-core right -
i.e., the RSS/VHP.  And convince me that : there are no humans among
hindus, who will `vote' to prevent anything bad to the muslims : or that :
: they will be a silent majority.

And convince me that this streak of radicalism in hinduism is a random
happening in history.  And that the hindus who watched from the sidelines
as outsider after outsider dragged a trail of destruction thru the subcontinent
were not the ancestors of the people of today.   That the hindus of today
are as aggressive and possessive as anyone can be, unlike his ancestors.
That he no longer deserves to be called hindu, as there is a world of difference
between the hinduism, that the secularits scream is dead, and the
hinduism that is practised today.

And convince me that the hindus would avoid bismillah khan's shahnai
recitals, or that hindus will refuse to work together with prof. kalam,
or that bhabha reactor will be renamed... etc...   I cant fathom the
cause (or the fear) that forces the secularists to behave the way they do.
Violence cannot be suppressed.  Even in 5000 AD, the UTOPIA that's the
stuff secularists dreams are made up of, will also have killings simply
because there is always the fringe element.  But because of the fringe
behaviour, U have no goddam right to tie up the rest.  Law cannot
force a person to behave.  Its responsibility.

I dont care about the RJB-BM dispute, personally.  But what I care about
and want to see is THINGS LIKE THIS : Whoever wins the next elections,
congress or BJP, I dont care : when they are stepping into the parliament
for the first time for the new session, I want to see an arati being done
to those WHO LIKE IT DONE.  To the `others' who dont like, either walk
in earlier or later.

If U see religion or bigotry in that arati, go to hell.

Seetamraju Udaya Bhaskar Sarma
(email : seetam @ ece7 . eng . wayne . edu)