Cultural war in India

[Arun Gupta]

The comparable act to the vandalism going on in Afghanistan would be for
Hindus to declare open season on the destruction of all mosques and Islamic
art in India.

While the destruction of a place of worship is contemptible, the
significance of the Babri Masjid in the scheme of things is next to zero.
If the government had acquired under eminent domain for some purpose other
than a Ram temple, I doubt that anyone would have said anything.

So, the Taliban excuse of Ayodhya is a bit of BS, to put it politely. In any
case, they are destroying primarily Buddhist artifacts -- and this hits Sri
Lankans, Japanese, Taiwanese, etc. much more than Hindus.  The Dalit
Buddhists are supposed to ally politically with Muslims against Hindus, and
I doubt this will dent their alliance.

In India, there are two vocal groups -- one side cannot say anything good
about Islam and the other cannot say anything bad.

For instance, when Dr. Fosse wrote :

"Otherwise, all we can do, is lament the folly of religious fanatics if
they go through with this."

he was equated to a Nazi.  This is a symptom of the Indian "secular"
disease, correctly called pseudo-secularism, that nothing, no matter how
truthful, can be said about anything Islamic. Being sensitive to the
sentiments of minorities in India means never being able to speak the truth
or even tolerate it from non-Indians.

It doesn't matter what the Taliban do -- ensure by their behavior that they
are not recognized by any but three countries, ensure by their behavior that
they are not a member of the OIC ( Org. of Islamic countries), put all kinds
of restrictions on women, even humiliate the Pakistan soccer team for
wearing shorts and no beards -- labelling them as religious fanatics is a
crime against humanity.

There are any number of excuses -- ranging from dire circumstances to
actions of the anti-secular Indians -- proferred for Taliban behavior.
It never occurs to the p-secularist that two wrongs do not make a right.

The other symptom of Indian p-secularism is that any and all vituperation is
justified against Hindus.  It can be an Islamic sect, the Deendar Anjuman
blowing up churches in Karnataka, but it is still Hindus' fault, because
someone or the other says so.   Conversely, despite numerous news-items of
Pakistani army regulars fighting alongside the Taliban, Pakistani help to
the Taliban is only "alleged".

Thus, anyone who teaches Sanskrit, sets up a Hindu school, restores an old
Hindu temple, publicly reveres the Bhagavad Gita, sings Vande Mataram is at
best, a Hindu revivalist who poses a danger to the peace.  The fine
distinctions that we must draw in the case of the Taliban -- that maybe,
perhaps, and only because of dire circumstances, one or two of them might be
religious fanatics, and then, because of the statutes of multi-culturalism,
we should not even say that -- all these evaporate when the Indian p-sec.
addresses Hindus.

I had thought the p-sec. was a phantom, an invention of the Hindu right, but
you have witnessed it on this list.

You all are also aware of the other set, those who can speak no good of
Islam.  It is very easy for them to take the most extreme example -- Taliban
or Saudi Arabians, Timur or Aurangzeb -- and label these as the archetypes
of Muslims.  The extreme Muslim fundamentalist/fanatic and this set agree on
the definition of Islam, no other version is legitimate.

There is a middle ground, where the truth is not mangled and is politely
spoken and accepted.  I hope that the Indologists who love India use their
scholarship and all the interesting things that they can educate people
about to expand this middle ground.

-Arun Gupta