Ananth Venkatesh

I profess that there is immense admiration and fascination in me for Hinduism and for the many divinities that epitomize this faith.

The sacred books such as the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita and many others provide this religion with its seductively cerebral foundations. The duration of the survival of these pious treatises illustrates their attachment to the psychology and mentality of the Indian State.

The gorgeousness of Hindu treatises is that their applicabilities is not confined to the Hindus alone. Sage standpoints are enshrined in the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, etc., which offer suggestions to the individual humans as regards apt and judicious fashions of administering and directing any human life. The advices of these visionary Hindu tomes are not exclusivist. None of these books have been awarded the most paramount position in the Hindu scriptural hierarchy.

The Bhagavad Gita is not exclusivist and does not speak ill of other religions. Photo Source

Christian and Islamic sacred books are defined, at times, by their inferences linking foreign religions to heathenism or incivility or unenlightenment or primitivism. The connotation – displeasingly – in certain pages of these books is that these uncouth foreign religions have to be Muslimized or Christianized with muscularity if necessary. One will struggle to find the same sinful intolerance in the Hindu texts such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas and even the monumental Hindu epics like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana.

Also, the Gods and Goddesses of Hinduism represent sundry stories, lives and messages that have ample relevance for humankind today. The multifarious stories of Hindu deities thrill me to a beefy extent and are so pertinent in the modern world. Their pertinence will always remain.

My respect for Hinduism is unordinary probably as I have never really felt any attachment to the ‘specialty of the purity’ of Brahmanism. I never will.

I have regarded Brahmanic preeminence in ritualistic Hinduism as a concept that wholly mars the vast intellectual extraordinariness of Hinduism. Brahmanic absolute supremacy should be a concept that should be abolished by the Hindu society itself. The theological, cerebral and scriptural richness of Hinduism can survive even in the absence of outright Brahmanic ascendancy.

Brahmin: A person who is literate in Vedas and Vedic Science

Kshatriya – A person who protects and fight for the a kingdom/country

Vaishya – A person involved in running in trade, agriculture.

Shudra – A person who works for others.

From Here.

My cherished mission is to see comprehensive Hindu unity in India, which covers politics, culture and social order. This goal of unity cannot afford senseless, pejorative and preposterous caste hierarchies in Hindu society, which only assist the internal and external foes of Hinduism.

Thus, while I will unendingly venerate and propagate the mammoth knowledgeableness and visionariness of the Hindu faith, its epics, its books, its scriptures, etc, I will never be able to associate myself with the Brahmanic stream of Hinduism. Brahmanic presence may be kept at the same social level as that of other communities.

Vishwamitra (bearded) was not born as a Brahmin. His Brahminism was a result of his work. Photo Source  

On a more lighthearted note, another Hindu issue, which appeals to me immensely, is the issue of Hindu interlingual matrimony. The idea of a Rajasthani Hindu male wedding a Malayalam Hindu female seems such an enticing one. Of course, the Rajasthani man needs to be in a condition of romance for the Malayalam female and vice versa.

I visualize that it would be idyllic socially if interlingual matrimonies were run-of-the-mill affairs in India. But there is strong resistance in some Hindu quarters to the thought of interlingual/intercaste marriages between Hindus. This is simply detrimental to the extraordinary status of Hinduism in the Indian soul.

We need to reach a point where interlingual nuptial ceremonies between Hindus are par for the course. Even now, lamentably, there are Hindu parents, who hesitate to wed their daughters and sons to Hindus of another language. Isn’t this inexcusably senseless?

There are Hindu parents, who are unnerved on realizing that their daughter or son is in a romantic state for a Hindu of another linguistic community. For example, there would be some Hindu parents in Gujarat, who would baulk at the idea of making their son marry a Hindu Telugu female. The hesitation would be not because of the personality of the girl, which may be delightful, but because of her ‘Teluguness’.

Similarly, Tamil parents may worry on comprehending that their daughter has been smitten by a Punjabi Hindu male. The Punjabi boy may be a topaz as regards personality i.e. he may be a pleasant and responsible man. His parents may be immensely lovable. The Tamil girl and the Punjabi boy may have steady compatibility and will want to tie the knot. But the Tamil parents may exhibit procrastination as regards the marriage because of the Punjabiness of the boy. That he is also a part of the miscellaneous Hindu community is overlooked.

Such parents exist in every linguistic Hindu community. I hope that this nervousness about Hindu interlingual marriage vanishes one day in the future.

Inter-caste marriages are becoming increasingly common. Photo Source 

As regards me, I say that, if I am involved in an interlingual (love) marriage with a Hindu female (who is of Punjab or Kashmir or AP or Kerala or Maharashtra or Gujarat or Rajasthan or Karnataka or of other non-Tamil blocks), it would give me copious contentment for several reasons. I would feel that (what I am going to say now may seem heavy…..) I have played a tiny part in strengthening interlingual Hindu unity.

Obviously, I would also be happy that I married the female, for whom I had romance and respect, and who had love and esteem for me. I would be contented that I wedded a woman with whom I had fair compatibleness.

Also, I have to voice this. If I am in a state of love for a female of my linguistic community and the same sentiment is experienced by that female, obviously, matrimony would be one of the next steps for all intents and purposes.

In any case, I firmly feel that certain Hindus will have to gradually stop giving regal status to terms like Brahman, Yadav, Kayastha, Jat, Iyer, Thakur, Iyengar, Nadar, Shetty and Patel among others. This regal status cannot come at the cost of injury to overall Hindu cohesion, especially politically and as regards marital intermingling.

 Sikh-Rajput weddings have strengthened ties between the cultures and helped national integrity. Source

The inward-looking Hindus need to embrace interlingual Hindu marriages for the solid preservation of Hindu structure in the future. Also, they need to embrace it for the sake of sanity.

Another attitudinal transformation wanted in some Hindu minds desperately is the stoppage of female feticide/infanticide. This is a grisly act not worthy of mercy, especially considering the powerfulness of Hindu female divinity and the venerable status that they have in our religion.

May be… may be…… the paucity of interlingual Hindu marriages was one reason behind a mainly Hindu India being molested and disfigured by foreign religious forces in the past. The more comprehensively unified Hindus in India become, the better it would be for Hinduism’s durability here and for its ability to combat effectively mortal perils to its existence.

Kartikey Sehgal

I realise that I can’t be writing about ‘male ego and feminism’ and decoding human behaviour in the current political and social scenario. The recent Mumbai blasts have affected me; it’s proof that I am still sane as compared to other Indians who are essentially mannequins or puppets depending on the time of the day. That series is postponed.

I also realise that ‘sarva dharma sambhava’ is understood to mean ‘all religions are equal/possible’ and that the term stands for multiculturalism. It does not.

‘Sarva dharma sambhava’ is not multiculturalism. It does not mean that ‘all religions are true/possible’. Dharma is not religion. Dharma is dharma. It applies to the Indian ‘religions’. Jainism, Buddhism and any other sect or creed that varies around the Indian dharma. It essentially means that they are possible. That duality exists in singularity. That they are the same but seem different or are different and seem the same.

The goat and lion are different animals and yet they go to the same earth [after death]. Or as Bulle Shah says:

[source]

All go to dust, says Bulle Shah. Any yet we are different. Different matis. Or so we think!
It is in reference to such concepts that we should look at ‘sarva dharma sambhava’. Such thoughts are its home; not the ‘all religions are one’ refrain we hear in media and from ‘experts’.

I don’t think proselytizing religions can be a part of this concept. Since they claim to be the ‘superior dust’.

What distinguishes the VoI-brand of Hindutva—and pushes it into the global network of Islamophobia—is its staunch opposition to the mantra of sarva dharma samabhaav, the Hindu equivalent of multiculturalism. [source]

Apply the correct meaning to ‘sarva dharma sambhava’ and this paragraph is meaningless. Meera equates Norwegian killer Anders Breivik with RSS and ‘nationalists’ using such terms. They are the same.
Really?

Possible sequel: The self-flagellating Indians

Ananth Venkatesh

[ Other recent stories by the author: The Double Standards of ‘Freedom of Speech’, Hindus in the Netherlands, The Failure of Islam in Multicultural Europe]

Another related issue that comes to mind relates to the extent of artistic and creative autonomy that should be granted to writers and painters.

In a state like India, what has engendered considerable Hindu unhappiness is that the paintings of the Late MF Hussein, which depict unclothed Hindu Gods and Goddesses, are regarded as a manifestation of his artistic awesomeness. Some public figures in India, who specialize in distorting liberalism, have vehemently asserted that Hussein had the right to paint undressed Hindu divinity, even though some of these paintings had a carnal foundation. Their argument is that the Indian constitutional text endorses artistic self-governance.

Per se, I, as an India citizen, don’t have any problem whatsoever with the unclothed portrayal of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, even if there is carnal suggestiveness in them. I believe that religion mustn’t restrict our minds and intellect. We must explore the diverse facets of religion to obtain a better picture of it. Divine nudeness is not to be denounced straightaway. There is, per se, nothing incorrect in associating divinity with human emotions or humanizing divinity. Though I consider some of his paintings profoundly offensive to overall Hindu sentiments, I deem that he has the right to paint those mages, which he claims, depict the pureness of Indian divinity. While I certainly disagree with this description of his offensive paintings, I grant him the right to paint them.

If any Hindu organization is offended, as was the case in India, it can approach the court demanding penalty for the painter. The judicial verdict needs to be respected. There are provisions in the Indian constitution, which state also that no means can be employed to increase animosity between religious units or to decapitate the feelings of one religious entity.

However, I also support the right of painters to depict images of Islamic terrorism abstractly, subtly, directly or in any other way. Paintings can be made, in which the focus is on Mohammedan violence, and on indoctrination in the madrasas, which is, in several cases, directed towards the Islamic youth to make them virulent and irrational opponents of non-Islamic faiths. No voice of objection should be raised if paintings in an artistic exhibition talk about the subjugation and secondary status of numerous Islamic women in general and, more so, after matrimony. No one should complain then that these paintings hurt Islamic sentiments and that we need to be sensitive to Islamic feelings during the era of the ‘War On Terror’.

Hussein paints nude Hindu divinity and he is eulogized. However, any painter, who paints the harshness of certain provisions of the Islamic culture and jurisprudence, is dubbed as a detester of Islam. Such a painter is condemned, hounded and persecuted by the media, especially in a nation like India, where the media and intelligentsia are famous for kowtowing to Islamic fundamentalism. This is unjust and hypocritical.

Personally, I, as a Hindu, have no issues with films, cartoons, newspapers, online debates, video debates, etc. thrashing out vigorously the corruptions of contemporary Hinduism. My religion, for which I have sizable respect and admiration notwithstanding the dearth of rituality in me, has always told me about the need to be open-minded and ready to undergo changes to improve the functioning of my religion. The discussions on Hinduism in India for many decades have been symbolized by flexibility, profundity and paucity of rigidity and intransigence. I am all for openness as it only enables the removal of any dirt, which exists in Hinduism.

In the previous century in 1998, there was an intense film called ‘FIRE’, which produced a lot of heated anger among some ultrasensitive Hindu socio-political outfits. The two female protagonists in ‘FIRE’ were in a relationship of lesbianism. Their names were Hindu names deeply connected to Hindu spirituality and religiosity. The ultrasensitive Hindu outfits demanded a ban on the film as it depicted lesbianism within a Hindu marital household. But I don’t have any opposition to ‘FIRE.’ Its screening should have been allowed.

The problem begins when Islamic fundamentalists are appeased, mollycoddled and when their stubborn and illogical demands are satisfied e.g. the banning of Salman Rushdie’s ‘Satanic Verses’ in India in the 1980s. It was a senseless, shameless, cowardly and impotent move by the Indian national government then, headed by the Congress (I) with a thumping majority. It was the first glaring and dangerous example of corrupted secularism being practiced by the Indian government. On seeing the unreasonable demands of extremist Muslim organizations being met by a shamefully indecisive Indian polity, it was only inevitable that the ultraconservatives among the Hindus would be bolstered. I have no reservations about the ‘Satanic Verses’ or Tasleema Nasreen’s ‘Lajja’, or about James Laine’s tome about the valiant King Shivaji, in which Laine contentiously alleged that Shivaji had Islamic bloodline too. None of these books should have been banned.

One saw how Nasreen was harassed and intimidated in secular India by the wretchedly intolerant Muslim outfits in 2007 and 2008. There needs to be one governmental voice that expressly condemns bullying and intimidation by any religious group, which wants to strangle free speech and expression. No politics of electoral banks!

[This concludes Ananth’s series on multiculturalism and freedom of speech.]

Ananth Venkatesh

[Previously written by the author: Hindus in the Netherlands, The Failure of Islam in Multicultural Europe] 

I have to declare that Europe, especially after overseas decolonization, has been a society very ready to discuss the ills that plague modern Christianity. Certain facets of Christian history and the invidious Christian role in European imperialism abroad have been denounced firmly and, at times, with certain ruthlessness. Therefore, Wilders has the right to decry the bellicosity that exists in certain clauses of the Islamic holy book. He is well within the rights and liberties that the Dutch constitution provides him. He hasn’t surpassed any boundary set by the Dutch law.

Robustness, dispassionateness, comprehensiveness, deepness and candidness have characterized socio-political debates in the Dutch society in the last 25 years. Religion, even Christianity, hasn’t been permitted to subdue the Dutch intellect and reasoning. Therefore, it is inevitable that Islam in the Netherlands and some of its degenerations will also be scrutinized profoundly by the Dutch intelligentsia. If any Muslim is dissatisfied with the depiction of Islam in a cartoon, article, TV show, etc. he can approach the Dutch courts for resolving his grievances.

Belligerent infringement of the Dutch law was done in 2004 when a Muslim Dutchman of Moroccan bloodline, Mohammed Bouyeri, killed Theo van Gogh, a notorious but impactful Dutch media personality. Theo, along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the female Somali writer, made a divisive short film, ‘Submission’, which conversed about the subdual of women in certain Islamic societies.

Consider this; if Indian artist M F Hussein has the right to paint the undressed ‘Bharat Mata’ without respecting the sentiments of innumerable Hindus, then the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard [seen in photo], has the right to show, via cartoons, that Islamic extremists derive inspiration from a number of aggressive passages in the Islamic holy tome.

Westergaard did this in September 2005. Then, his cartoons depicting the scriptural violence in Islam were published in a prominent Danish broadsheet, Jyllands-Posten. One such famous cartoon was the one, in which the Islamic Prophet was wearing a bomb in his turban. I find nothing wrong in these cartoons. There needs to be an honest debate everywhere on the bigotry and antagonism that have permeated sizable Islamic populations in Europe.

This is despite the European continent providing them with wonderful healthcare, first-rate academic institutions, excellent residences, employment, etc. Praying that Europe undergoes Islamization is a manifestation of the ungratefulness of certain immigrant Muslims in Denmark, France, Britain, Germany, etc. Individual European countries will pursue their national interests in Islamic lands militarily or economically. But that doesn’t offer immigrant Muslims in Europe a license to slay blameless Europeans. Such an attitude, which prevails in certain Muslim quarters in Europe, is a demonstration of outright thanklessness by the radicalized Muslims to the advantages the European life has given them. European democracy is extremely liberal in several ways. The Muslims need to understand that and comply with the European principles such as freedom of speech, expression, free press, etc.

It is only natural that refusal to integrate with the Dutch language and Dutch way of life by certain Muslims will naturally lead to political calls for a ban on Islamic immigration.

Westergaard has had to endure two attempts by Islamists to slay him. Westergaard is not alone among the European political commentators, who have highlighted the dangerous degradation and violent autocracy that have crept into Islamic societies in Europe. Geert Wilders generated and discharged a contentious short film titled ‘Fitna’ in 2008, which speaks about Koranic segments being responsible for the emergence of Islamic terrorism and Mohammedan universalism that have blighted Europe and countries such as India.

‘Fitna’ was again the subject of global media scrutiny and Islamic ire due to its relentless criticism of the hostility and backwardness of Islam that is wholly incompatible with the pluralism and liberty of the 21st century Dutch society.

Again, if the Iranian media can organize a pejorative and depreciatory competition of cartoons about the Holocaust, then European commentators have the right to raise uncomfortable queries about Islam. [Photo Left: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the ‘holocaust’ and calls it a conspiracy.]

Certain segments of the Arabic media regularly write and publish anti-Semitic articles, publish anti Jewish cartoons and legitimize the killings of blameless Jews in Israel and globally. It is not that uncommon to read references in the Muslim media that label non-Muslims as heathenish, as kaffirs, as infidels, as nonbelievers. There is not much condemnation of that in the Islamic world.

Close to none.

[Next: In the final part of the series, Ananth considers the duplicity of ‘freedom of speech’ in India]

Ananth Venkatesh

The news of the judicial exoneration of Geert Wilders, the far-right Dutch MP, has re-energized the debate on the degree of multiculturalism in the democratic and pluralistic Western half of the European continent.

Ananth writes that Muslims from the middle-east countries are interested in the better living conditions provided by European-Christian nations. However, if the Muslim intention is not to assimilate but to impose their way of life upon the host nation, then their immigration to Europe must be put to a stop.

[A multi-part story. Kartikey’s story on feminism and male-ego will resume after this series.]

Wilders is the leader of the rightist ultra-nationalist Dutch political party, Party For Freedom. Wilders, who has dynamically directed his party in the last few years, has, recently, been absolved of the accusations of encouraging hatred against the Dutch Muslims via his anti Muslim statements in various fora such as the political campaigns, Internet, broadsheets, films, etc.

Wilders has accused sections of the Islamic immigrants in the Netherlands for being culpable for the distortion, corruption, mutilation and decapitation of the traditional Dutch socio-political principles of liberality, tolerance, liberty, broadmindedness, egalitarianism and uninhibited speech.  The dread of offending the voluble Islamic minority in the Netherlands has, in the recent past, resulted in the Dutch polity following the path of the appeasement of the Muslims.

Subconsciously and, in a growing number of cases, consciously, certain Dutch, Danish, French, British Muslims, etc. are sympathetic to the chief demands of the Islamic fundamentalists, one of which is that Islamic laws like the Sharia govern the Islamic existence in the European continent. 

There is a general Islamic resistance in European societies to integrate and assimilate in public life with the European way. After all, Wilders has only assailed certain portions within the Islamic theology, which prevent Muslims from integrating with the crucial values of their adopted homeland (non-Muslim homeland).

At the centre of this obdurateness, is a sentiment among these European Muslims, which is that Islam is the best and truest religion in the world. This sentiment is seen in Internet fora, mass media, mosques, political campaigns, Islamic movies, etc. where the concerned Muslims constantly blabber about the intellectual supremacy of their religion. This sentiment is, unsurprisingly, even expressed by the Muslims educated in the most liberal colleges of the West.

This view is articulated nonchalantly even in general discourses among certain European Muslims.

Their reference to non-Muslim faiths as practitioners of heathenism or as infidels is well-known. It is another glaring example of the deep-seated intolerance, with which the ordinary Muslim mind, even in Europe, has gone to bed.

The roots of this intolerance and narrow-mindedness again go back, to a fair extent, to the ‘sacred Islamic texts’, which promote, in certain passages, a brand of chauvinism, which is wholly incongruous with the modern world, and which is more amenable to the cultural darkness of the Middle Ages in Europe and the Middle East.

It is necessary to disparage the audaciousness, with which influential Muslim theologians, in Christian Europe and in Hindu India, mock, belittle and berate the faiths of their host countries. Instead of expressing gratitude to the Christians in Europe and to the Hindus in India for permitting the Muslims to live with dignity and practice their faith openly, what is observed in certain voluble Islamic quarters is the assertion of the desire that Muslims in Europe be fully segregated from the rest of the Europeans with the introduction of the Islamic penal code.

This is undeniably condemnable.

This is already the case in a nation like Hindu India, which, despite clear constitutional mandates and judicial declarations, due to its supine politicians, continues to let the Muslim personal law administer several segments of the lives of Indian Muslims.

It is the duty of the Muslims to follow the secular laws of secular European nations and India.  The Muslims have to respect the constitutional secularism of these nations. If the Muslims are keenly desirous of adhering to the Islamic way of life, the option of relocating to the Islamic Middle East exists.

Europe is not Islamistan. Also, it would be difficult to witness any Middle Eastern national government sanction the creation of new churches, which is an attitude that differs from the presence of numerous gorgeous mosques in European nations.

It is true that the Muslims in the European ghettos, which are European citadels of self-enforced Islamic segregation, look at certain demands of Islamic extremist outfits sympathetically. There is no option for these Muslims but to assimilate with their host nations. If the Muslim intention was not to assimilate but to impose their way of life upon the host nation, then they should halt their immigration to Europe.

Obviously, the European life is attractive for these Muslims as it offers higher salaries, enhanced standard of livelihood, better education, superior infrastructure, etc. It is the responsibility of every right-thinking Muslim to integrate with the country that offers them these benefits. Integration needn’t mean releasing yourself from your faith in your religion. It is just that you need to respect your host country’s constitution. The problem is that the liberalness of the European constitutions is indigestible to sizable Muslims there due to their intercourse with the ultra-orthodox chapters of Islam.

Wilders has urged that the Dutch Muslims amalgamate themselves with the core Dutch political and intellectual principles, which are, in any case, not opposed fundamentally to the presence of diverse religions in the Dutch society. Wilders is entitled to seek a restriction on Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. It has been mentioned by numerous non-Muslim Dutch citizens that considerable Dutch Muslims don’t even know to converse in Dutch fluently. Knowledge of Dutch is essential. It needs to be remembered that the European continent includes States that are dominated by a solitary language i.e. French in France, Spanish in Spain, Portuguese in Portugal, German in Germany, etc. Of course, there also exist linguistic minorities in European nations. Numerous Dutchmen complain that not many Muslim Dutch can communicate in Dutch as their primary language. The Dutch, similar to other Europeans, are passionate about their language and really honour those immigrants, who are aware of the Dutch idiom.

[Next part: immigration and the Dutch Hindus]

Kartikey Sehgal

Overview

Samvartha is an acquaintance and we have shared pleasant conversations. On the pretext of being unhappy about Indian fans’ behaviour during the India-Pakistan match in the on-going Cricket World Cup, he indulges in reproaching Hinduism, casteism and the Indian Army. (His story here or here)

He says that he is not happy with anti-Pakistan comments but it is clear that he is not happy with ‘Hindu celebrations’ as that defeats his idea of a ‘not-Hindu’ secular nation.

Introduction

I have written about cricket, women and commerce here and here. They are oft read stories on my website and they don’t ridicule cricket, women or commerce. Any observation is backed by thoughts or science. I may write that India is a second-rate country, but I would not invent or misuse social situations to prove my point.

Therefore, I will not use the smashing of a Muslim man’s car as a sign of national hatred and not write ‘things’ like:

What had he done? His only ‘mistake’ is that he is a Muslim?

And if I am tempted to nag, then I will give credence to the occurrence of burning firecrackers every time an Indian wicket falls. The occurrence defined in an Indian city.

I would never throw in subliminal messages in a story and use cricket to pass on my views on Hinduism and its ills. Especially the views that are bereft of any backing and are purely sentimental sops. Therefore,

I cant even undertand the photoshop knowledge displayed by many where a Pakistani player is falling to the photo of Sachin Tendulkar, who is in the get up of a Hindu- more specifically- Brahmin God. How do we understand this?

would not find an unwarranted mention. Or I would explain and mix-in ‘Brahmin God’ with the rest of the story. I would not assume that my notions on religious interpretation should and would resonate with the notions of my countrymen. Else, I would write on a more private platform. (This sounds very similar to ‘Brahmanical Discourse’ used in the Arundhati Roy story.)

Human Nature, Sports

Samvartha, cricket is not the first or the favourite sport of Australia, England, France and other nations. Have you, ever, heard of sporting violence on the basis of football scores? Or are you averse to the ‘faults’ of the world in favour of spanking your own nation? Your article criticises your own countrymen and culture. It is inferior in information and facts.

You write:

A friend wrote something like, “Pakistan, apply oil to your asses we are going to hit you hard.” Another wrote something like, “Two years back few Pakistanis couldn’t be stopped from entering Mumbai, now the onus is on 11 Indians to stop some from doing so .” Not to say there was no anger displayed against Australia. There were some like “It is victory over the Aussie arrognace.” There were friends who had jokes on Australia too. Like, “Today Pointing is renamed as Disappointing.” But it did not get as vulgar as it got with the Indo-Pak match. Plus, the anger expressed towards Australian team had references made to instances and examples from within the game of Cricket. But when it came to Pakistan references were being made to the issues and examples outside the game of Cricket. But what is the connection between 26/11 and 30/3? What is the connection between Kashmir and Mohali? To ask such questions is just to make way for questions being raised about your own patriotism.

You’d be naive to think that ‘vulgar’ comments are characteristic to Indians . Unless you are hell-bent on being a moral cleanser for your country, who is unconcerned about worldly habits, be wise to know that neither Pakistan nor the passionate Aussie fans are civil during passionate sporting ties.

You need to only crawl the various internet forums and Facebook pages to expand your horizon on human nature. ‘Rivalry’ existed in ancient Rome, and during the time of the prolific William Shakespeare. And you need not crawl any history book to prove this; it is, human nature. And we may espouse as much sentimentality as we can, but nature wins if you battle it.

As such, there has been no violence on Pakistani players or fans. Even from the ones claiming that they would bust their whatever body part.

You write that Indians were not hateful to Australians and the anger had “references made to instances and examples from within the game of Cricket”. Yes, that’s because we are not in any state of war or perpetual discord with Australia.

You mention yourself that

When India played against England no Indian said, “They colonized us. Let us give it back.” When India played against Australia no Indian said, “They attacked our people who went there to study.”

This should not be criticism but credit to the fans.

But when India played against Pakistan almost every Indian said, “They attacked Mumbai” or “They are after our Kashmir” and hence “Let us kick their ass”.

Almost every Indian? And based on what you write afterwards, this amounts to ‘every Hindu’ (everyone of Sanatan Dharma). Also, “Let us kick their ass” in the cricketing field only and not demanding peaceful Pakistani fans to protrude their posterior for spankings on roads.

The people knew about the attacks on Indians in Australia (and Hindus in Pakistan). They didn’t link those attacks to the visiting Australian team (and Pakistani team). To register some protest, the people could have stoned a bus (as in Bangladesh) or at least thrown a waffle cone at them outside the stadium or the airport. Or asked people to not buy products featuring those cricketers. Anything.

And the nation has not forgotten the 26/11 terror attacks. There has been no closure to any attack on India from Pakistani soil. Remember that the political establishment in Pakistan has made disparaging comments about these attacks. The anger towards them and the ‘vulgarity’ is being expressed through words and banners and not through missiles. It is perfectly healthy. It is appreciable. No Pakistani fan was harmed in the stands at Mohali; no revenge was exerted.

You then go on to question patriotism and nationhood.

Now, if one were to see the game as just another sports event without letting the idea of nation and patriotism seeping in, what is wrong if one supports the other team and not the team carrying the name of the country to which he or she belongs?

Patriotism and ‘the idea of nation’ do not necessarily make you incognizant to the cricketing habits, styles and cultures of other nations. Supporting Australia or Ireland may not draw the ire and suspicions of the people. With Pakistan, you may like to clarify that you like them for cricketing reasons. Despite that, people would be hurt if you supported them loudly. They’d be hurt; it’s simple psychology that applies to people everywhere. People cling to roots, and thereby cling to their self; scanty assurance in a life that guarantees death and sorrow. And therefore, your friends have plausible scientific reasons for ‘strangeness’ and ‘offense’.

A friend of mine shared her “new experience” with me saying how in her hostel many were supporting Pakistan, which she found strange. Another friend of mine also said the same and he felt offended by the fact that many were supporting Pakistan. In the Sabarmati hostel of JNU, the broadcasting of the match was stopped because some of the viewers were supporting Pakistan.

Obviously, without the idea of nation and patriotism, we would not feel a lot for the terrorism attacks, which would render us weak and spineless and lay the ground for further invasions.

Which brings me to your attempts of ‘majority-bashing’.

Nationhood and Hindus

If you use use ‘one’ attack on a minority-member as an example of national intolerance during the on-going cricket matches, then you may be as (or more) intolerant than the attackers.

A report in a news channel showed a Muslim man whose car was smashed after the match in India. The man in his byte to the channel said, “I suuported India. But still they attacked my car. I dont know why.” As if no one would believe his words he shows, to the camera, his photo with the Indian bowler Shreeshant. What had he done? His only ‘mistake’ is that he is a Muslim?

You are transplanting an individual incident into the realm of the existing communal disharmony and using it to characterise the cricket fans!

While wondering why we mix politics with sports, you go about and  do the same perversely:

“India does not lose when a 22-year-old Dalit youth sets himself on fire over a land dispute. India does not lose when a young mother and her infant are killed by her family less than 50 km from its IT capital for marrying a man from a lower caste. It is not India’s loss when 90 per cent of its media gets dominated by a community that makes up 3 per cent of its population. India does not lose when a bunch of gun totting hooligans, who call themselves commandoes, kill and rape its own people. It does not lose when a timid judge in the Karnataka High Court issues a stay in an open and shut case of corruption against the Chief Minister. But India WINS when 11 individuals employed by a private company win a cricket match”

You have now brought in the caste equation to Hinduism, and included Kashmir, North-East and the Indian Army to your story that, apparently, is about cricket fans, vulgarity and bleeding blue. There should be little patience for propaganda and subliminal messages in journalism. It is a dishonest act and is dishonourable to journalism.

In any country, at any given time, there are problems and issues that demand urgent attention. There is no reprieve from death and sorrow and corruption. That is no reason to not win. By your reasoning, no country can ever win anything. While demanding that we segregate politics from sports, you bring in and make a khichdi of sports, politics, religion and subversion.

Next, you bring in saffron flags and communalism but go on to realise that religious intolerance exists in our neighbouring country as well. Except that you need not have written this paragraph if you were aware of it’s universal conclusion! Unless, of course, you wanted to bring about the “very scary” saffron-communal elements.

The celebration in coastal Karnataka, of the victory of India over Pakistan, was very scary i must say. This part of the world, known for its communalism, had a lot of saffron flags being waved during the celebration of the semi-final victory. What is the saffron flag doing in the celebration of the victory of India, is not a question one should ask in costal Karnataka. It is a part of the collective subconscious that India is a Hindu country and hence the victory of India over Pakistan is a victory of Hinduism over Islam. From a note titled, “To Afridi, With Love”, written by a Pakistani, i understand that even in Pakistan it was viewed as a war of Muslims against the Hindus.

In this paragraph, you define and criticise the subconscious of the nation. But by your ending statement you imply that the same subconscious exists in Pakistan, and thereby strengthen the notion that the concept of nation, patriotism and ‘Hindu’ subconscious must exist in our country to counter the opposition’s subconscious—and all acts of terror that emanate from the same.

You are, in effect, coming to oppose your own thoughts, without the knowledge of doing so. And that is scarier than any saffron or green flag.

It should not be our undertaking to redefine Indian culture, weed out the national subconscious and suit it to our purposes.

The Brahmin-God. . . Hain?

I cant even undertand the photoshop knowledge displayed by many where a Pakistani player is falling to the photo of Sachin Tendulkar, who is in the get up of a Hindu- more specifically- Brahmin God. How do we understand this? (pic attached)

I shall grant you the status of the Brahmin, as per the original attestations to the term in the Gita (from the vedas), if you can explain to me accurately what constitutes the Brahmin-God? And who then is the Kshatriya-God? And which philosophical-line have you adapted it from. I need to know this.

Although, of course, your reasons for mentioning this are exclusive to my need for information. And exclusive of any need to seriously re-study of the vedas. I hope they are not exclusive to truth.

Indians generally do not indulge in the act of burning flags of other nations. And the art of photo-shopping is not limited to Indians alone. They also don’t break beer bottles on your head if your preferences for teams and players does not match theirs. Patriotism that is verbal and loud or ‘vulgar’ but doesn’t indulge in violence and—followers of modern history would concur—genocide  is preferable. Unless we remove from the minds the concept of nation, which you seem to be very keen about.

We are also lying when we say that Cricket unites the nation. It also breaks the nation, even if symbolically in the form of breaking the glass of a car belonging to a Muslim.

Symbols are creations. Problems and sorrows are part of human life, cricket, for some time, relegates them to the background.

If Cricket were to be our religion, we would have enjoyed the Cricket as a game without letting geopolitics and other aspects govern our excitement about the sports.

If only you followed that in your story and limited it to cricket.

Kartikey Sehgal

The author writes that, “‘Indian culture’ is a cover-up for religious enforcements. Most colleges that enforce codes to ‘protect’ culture are protecting the religion. If Indian culture was so dear to them, then the study of Indian philosophy would be an important, if not a compulsory part of the curriculum.”

A popular college in South Bombay (Mumbai) had, some years ago, and much to the dismay of the students, banned the prom night. Nobody called it a fascist (oppressive, dictatorial) move. Mind you, the ‘night’ was absolutely banned and it was not to exist in any form or variation. The students were not taken into consensus and the decision was described as cultural. Something on the lines of ‘It is against Indian culture…’. It was either a sad decision or an unfortunate one, but it was not fascist; it was not described as fascist by the society. 

Near to this South Mumbai (Bombay) college is another college of note; it allows shorts and skirts and other such things that are disallowed by the other college. Are we to believe then that this college, that allows the students their choice of attire, is against Indian culture? Or do we conveniently use terms to get through uneasy explanations? Perhaps ‘Indian Culture’ is an excuse to justify restrictions. ‘All that I consider good and moral must be accepted since I use the trump card of ‘Indian Culture’.

Clearly, one of the above colleges is not cultural. One of them believes that shorts are not conducive to education but the other one does not feel so.

Restrictive colleges are not called fascist and there is no movement to fight the restrictions. At the most they are called conservative. The conservative tag does not apply to political parties that stop youngsters from candooling on the beach side. That is called fascism. The party does the same job as the teachers in the college; it stops ‘moral degradation’. But the college is termed as conservative and the party as fascist. It may be argued that the party forces its moral dictums on the youth and at times uses physical violence but then the college doesn’t even give space for dissent. ‘Inappropriate’ clothing is banned outright. You are not allowed to enter the premises if you are dressed ‘loose’’. If you have a problem with the ‘rules and regulations’ then leave the college and find another college. Who, then, is more fascist?

‘Indian culture’ is a cover-up for religious enforcements. Most colleges that enforce codes to ‘protect’ culture are protecting the religion. If Indian culture was so dear to them, then the study of Indian philosophy would be an important, if not a compulsory part of the curriculum. The culture tag is used to hide the religion tag to avoid problems. Once the culture tag is used, no questions are expected to be asked. To differentiate themselves from the political parties and organisations, the educational institutions use the term ‘fascist’. They are fascist, we are not, we may be conservative. But observe that these educational institutions come across as stricter and harsher than the so called rightist and fascist organisations whom they curse.

Hold a girl’s hand and walk in the college premises. And wait for the teacher’s halting orders. Be prepared for rustication orders should you not abide by the law. Any questions on reasoning are ultimately met by the ‘Indian Culture’ response. If you know about your Indian culture then be prepared to hear the merits of non-distracting dressing. The result is singular; listen or be expelled.

(Bear in mind that conservatism may or may not be good for education but this story is not about the righteousness of dressing.)

Now wear a skirt and walk on the road and ensure that the top is sleeveless. The rightist/fascist people will not always (at least in the cities) stop you and ask you to leave the mohalla/ country if you don’t abide by their dressing rule. If they trouble you then you can approach the police/media/passersby and bring an end to your trouble. You can argue with people that the midis and minis can be graceful if the woman can carry them off with grace.

Try arguing in the college. Tell the Principal that you have been brought up well, that you know your body and that you are confident and aware of your womanhood. Tell him that you believe that conservatism should apply to women who are confused and not ready to make decisions or don’t understand the meaning of decisions and who are charmed by factors other than self-will. Tell him that you are aware and confident of dealing with stares from men and women who have been brought up on the wrong dosage of Indian culture and should you encounter cat-calls and whistles or teasing, then you are capable of conversations and tactfulness. Convince him that you are the quintessential Indian woman who loves her saris and ghagra cholis and festivals and who knows the importance of conservative dressing as a means to entice men and who alters between politeness and nakhras to play biologically sanctioned mating games with the opposite gender. Then, if you want, sing a song for the principal; do anything you like.

He won’t budge. He won’t make exceptions or listen to your reasoning because religion demands obedience. Maybe he’ll smile at you and express regret, ‘”Sorry daughter, I wish I could listen to you but the culture does not permit”.

He is sure that you know nothing about Indian philosophy. It is not taught in schools and colleges and parents don’t bother about it. If you do know about it then go ahead and argue with him and let me know about the results. Chances are that he won’t make exceptions for you.

Educational institutions based on religion maintain religion and use ‘culture’ to prevent any problems from the organisations they call rightist/fascist. If they don’t agree with you, then they are conservative, if you don’t agree with them, then you know what you may be.

Kartikey Sehgal

I had predicted problems for Omar Abdullah in my earlier story on Jammu and Kashmir’s (J&K) Chief Minister.
“Omar would be better because others would be worse. And that shall be the bane of being Omar Abdullah.”
[Read that story Here]

The Omar led government is now funding an organisation that aims to spread jihad; and cleanse non-Muslims from the state. Former J&K chief-minister and Omar’s grandfather Sheikh Abdullah had described the organisation as “the real source for spreading communal poison.” More on this later; let me talk about Omar first.

First things First
Omar first sought to placate the Muslims, telling them that the land to be transferred for the benefit of travellers to the Amarnath Yatra was Kashmiri land and “we will fight till we die” to ensure that the land was not given to the Hindus. In effect, he worked towards dividing the state into two parts; he implied that Kashmiri land was not a part of Jammu and Kashmir.

The people who supported him are now after his neck. They want him to be the same old Omar who had once espoused anti-India sentiments and who had successfully bartered nationality for power.
If he doesn’t listen, then they will implicate him in a sex scandal. Basically, they’ll make it tougher for him to be the boss.

Omar had threatened to resign over the scandal. His resignation was refused. He claims he is upset. Or maybe it is drama. In any case, he is not able to govern a state that requires ICU level treatment. So what’s the use, Omar?

Brace Yourself
From the article published in The Hindu.

“Back in 1945, Islamist ideologue Abul Ali Mawdudi called on his followers to “change the old tyrannical system and establish a just new order by the power of the sword.”…
Last week, the National Conference-Congress government quietly moved to help realise Mawdudi’s ugly dream. Hundreds of jobs, a Cabinet decision taken on July 14 mandates, will be handed out to schoolteachers linked to the Jammu Kashmir Jamaat-e-Islami, the party set up in Mawdudi’s name.”

At the end, the writer says,
“Chief Minister Omar Abdullah — whose secular credentials are impeccable — must act to prevent the poisoning of the State’s school education system.”

Perhaps it is right to say, “…whose secular credentials were impeccable”, secularism implying that no harm comes to any community. In addition, as the chief minister, he is responsible for the “poisoning” as the writer calls it. So he can only remove the poisoning; the task defines his role and it is not a favour.

I had also written in the earlier story that,  
“Perhaps, in his private chambers, he will regret his religious tones and vow to never repeat them. Maybe he has sure ideas for economic and social prosperity of the state.”

Where? And,
Now what, Omar?

Kartikey Sehgal

I met the poet Gulzar some days before he was nominated for the Oscar award. We were at the National Centre for Performing Arts (NCPA) that was hosting a theatrical adaptation of his writings on Indo-Pak border issues titled ‘Lakeerein‘.

“Would Pakistan have allowed such a performance in its theatres?”
“Is the polity there as embracing as it is here?”

Such questions got lost in the midst of questions in the post-play section where the audience got to interact with the poet.

“What happened to us (26/11 attacks in Mumbai) and what our neighbour allows in its territory is unfair and needs condemnation,” some ladies discussed someplace behind me.

A question about Pakistan supported terrorism was asked and Gulzar said that many warnings were given to the Indian government about the possibility of such attacks but it did nothing. A vague answer; he could have declined to answer any political questions; his prerogative.

A lady stood up and said that her family member had suffered in the 26/11 attacks and in a long-winded statement that was hard to decipher she stated that an Indian soldier during the rescue asked the troubled member if he was a Hindu or a Muslim.

The people were confused but they got the last part of the statement and some of them started murmuring and clapping. While clapping, the ladies behind me and many other men and women were confirming the details of the statement. Nobody bothered about the actual turn of events. No clarifications were sought form the lady. But they all clapped in support of the lady and against communalism.

Outside the theatre, a small group was still decoding the statement. But it was agreed that the soldier was communalist.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

The superhero stumbled as he jumped across the roofs of the neighbouring buildings.

Superhuman effort.
Saviour.
Proud of you.

The superhero reached the building and saved the maiden from the raging fire.

“Come now, say something romantic to me”, the maiden said to her saviour.
The saviour thought about the green fields.

“Ai lady, are you country or city?”
“City”, she blushed.

The saviour thought of cow and milk.

“Working or homely?”
“Homely”, she shied away.

Then the saviour thought about her habits, her style of greeting and what she wore when not these torn clothes.

“And lady, are you Hindu or Muslim?”

Then the lady told the people about her talk with the soldier.

They didn’t understand why he asked her about milk and green fields and religion. But he asked about religion.
“Tch..tch..”
He must be communalist.

Kartikey Sehgal

About the personal and cultural disintegration of a tribal village

There is a small tribal village in India. Malathi belongs to this village. The women here are happier than women in Delhi.

After puberty, Malathi was inducted into the village dormitory where she learnt weaving, knitting and other arts from the elder women and men. She also learnt the art of love-making through practice. By the time she was out of the dormitory, she was sexually and socially confident. Unlike the city girls, Malathi and her friends did not face ‘growing-up problems’ or ‘attitudinal disorders’ that lead you to the psychologist.

Sure, she did not study like the city girl. Many city girls read about USA and China and Russia. They attend ballet dancing classes and sing beautifully. Then they fall in love and depend and sometimes cut their wrists. Or they grow serious, laugh a little and are praised by the society for their “focus”.

“She is such a focussed girl. You must be like her”

The tribal girls, instead, focussed on happiness. They were natural, as God or aatman or nothingness made them. Whenever they felt that they were losing this natural state of being, they let out their pent-up psychological tensions till they were satisfied.

One evening, Malathi’s friend was feeling gloomy. Malathi asked her to sing and dance in the moonlight. At some distance, a young sociologist observed the girls and wrote in his diary that the tribals needed civilization.

Moving on; the tribals were thrilled when condoms were introduced in their society. The procedure of using this balloon-like thing was better and easier than their traditional methods. New tradition! Progress. Happiness. Much Joy.

“Promiscuity”, noted the young sociologist who would soon be a leading writer.

Of course, the tribals needed progress and new tools and new money. But all that did not dictate their happiness. In the coming sentences, the government will take away their land and relocate them and some religious groups will force their religion on them and spoil the tribal life. But let it be known that happiness-essential to live-was a characteristic of these tribals. And now I proceed.

Malathi and others refused the new religion. They were tortured. Some tribal men and women attacked the preachers. They were branded as savages. Promiscuous savages. Some were arrested, some ran away from police. And some women were raped. Etc… The regular.

Malathi’s male friend, one of her lovers in the dormitory, who had happily welcomed the introduction of condoms, went to Delhi/Mumbai for job and money. His land was taken away by police/government/religion.

Without education, he struggled. He had lived like a king in his village. Here he was dying. Before his death, he scribbled in his book… “tribal society progress… same life plus education. Preserve….”

Some other tribal men grew accustomed to city life. They saw that women here, even the rich ones, were treated like money. There was no dormitory here for them to relax. Instead, there were open brothels. The tribal men laughed. And perhaps they grew mad.

Something major happened to Malathi in the village. She got raped. Rapes didn’t happen in tribal socities. Very few. But Malathi didn’t mind. She coped well. That sex education!

The boy who raped her cried when he was told about his crime. This is his story:

The village dormitory was shut down by the police/preachers/government and instead of the dormitory, the boy was provided religious lessons. Women are bad, or they are inferior. Man of the house. Sex is sin. God is great. Tch..tch… very confusing to him. Then he went to town to look for a job. Here he was told that he is ST/SC/Adivasi/ABCD. He laughed at the official’s “stories” and was, therefore, suitably thrashed by him. With no money for hospital care, he went to a village where all women covered their head with dupattas or burqas when they saw a stranger amidst them. Until one woman tore a part of her dress and covered his wounds and gave him water and gave him food.

Stupid woman. Didn’t see her husband watching her. Didn’t realize that what she tore was not just the sleeve but a large part of her blouse. The boy smiled at the husband and told him that that nothing is shameful and that all humans were born equally… the husband pulled the wife inside the hut. Three days later he divorced her by saying, “I divorce you” multiplied by three.

The boy went back to the village. He was told that he suffered because he had forsaken God. The boy was hurt, angry, confused…he was a boy after all. Didn’t you wonder why I have been calling him “boy”?

With rising psychological tensions and insecurities, he raped Malathi just to prove to himself that he was a man and that he existed.

The village elders, in consultation with Malathi, forgave him because he was really suffering… the boy met Malathi, cried and apologised, promised to get back on track…the elders reminded the boy of his tribal education and the pride of the village… Malathi forgave the boy… The Women Rights Association stormed into the village, met Malathi and told her that men are pigs… the police arrested the boy and tortured him… the boy hung himself on a tree.

The preachers photographed the boy hanging from the tree. They pointed at him. This is what will happen to you if you don’t listen to God.

The young sociologist, now older, came to the village with some journalists.

No food, no electricity.
These tribals are against development.
Women are promiscuous.
No culture.
They have always been unhappy…

Boom … boom … as soon as he heard the last sentence, he threw the smuggled bombs at the sociologist…  “Eminent sociologist killed by tribal terrorist”

As he was being dragged away, he called out to Malathi.

“Daughter, try not to pick arms, but continue our struggle. Remember our happy times. Get education and write about it. We were happy once daughter. I love you”