90:98 vs 56:64-97 (fwd)

[Maureen Fadem]

salil, the same question you ask is being discussed on indology. :)) a
good question.
sometimes in good ol' america, we use certain ethnic terms quite wrongly.
starting with indian, which, here, means native american. thus, the term
hindu is often used to mean the actual meaning of indian--as if to be
indian is to be hindu--an idea which makes one cringe so at its glaring
ignorance. i wonder if the descriptive 'hindu writer' was not necessarily
meant to have religious significance, but rather to have a cultural/ethnic
connotation?
ridiculous i know, but possibly true. and maybe inconsequential in light
of the issues detailed in the article.
best,
maureen.
*************************
Maureen Ellen Fadem
fademm at castle.beaver.edu

Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which
  a minute will reverse.
                       --TS Eliot

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Salil Tripathi wrote:

> Here's the same post, clarified for one ambiguity. Sorry!
>
> Salil
>
> Am I the only one to be concerned that Tunku Varadarajan is identified as "a
> Hindu" writer? Do editors have to assume writers' faith when they write on
> issues of this kind?
>
> I faced a similar problem once; I wrote a commentary critical of Babri
> Masjid's destruction on Dec 7, 1992, ie, the day after, as it were. The
> newspaper that published it, in Southeast Asia, waited four days, and after
> that, insisted that it call me a Hindu. When I complained, they reluctantly
> called me "an agnostic Hindu"--whatever that may mean. It appeared as such,
> because I did want the piece to appear in print. I had said they could've
> called me "an Indian journalist living in Singapore". So it is Tunku's turn
> now to face a similar "identity crisis", I suppose!
>
> Salil
>