[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The mechanics of clapping and Shri Chowgule's comments

Administrative Note:

Week's Agenda: Economy

First, I would like to take up the issue of the mechanics of clapping. 
Almost everyone would agree that one hand clapping doesn't quite work 
[except, of course, for Terry Pratchett who holds that one hand clapping 
works well enough- its just that the sound you get is just 'CL' instead 
of the usual 'CLAP']. However, I don't really see how the analogy fits. 
Tolerance, religious, social or political, is not the domain of a group. 
It is a personal decision taken by each individual for himself. To 
elucidate further, I do not decide to be tolerant because my group 
[social, political or theological] requires it. I decide to be tolerant, 
if indeed I do, because my brain tells me it is the only rational and 
moral thing to do.  Sir, a person chooses and adheres to virtues and 
values because they are right, NOT because others are doing it too. The 
decision to follow a code of morality is not based on a pre-condition of 
reciprocity. The same argument can be applied to any other virtue. 
Doesn't one decide to be honest even though a lot of people around us 
are corrupt? Besides, the policy of 'an eye for an eye' leads only to a 
nation of blind.                        Shri Chowgule wrote:                                                    "A Christian said to a 
RSS leader, "Since you believe in Sarva Dharma Samabhava, why are you 
against conversions?"  The RSS leader said, "Since you do not believe in 
Sarva Dharma Samabhava", I am against conversions."                                             I think the 
Christian had a valid point. If I believe in Sarva Dharma Sambhava and 
'Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudda Vadanti' [and I do], how can I possibly mind 
if person A decides to follow path Y [instead of path X] to the 'Ekam 
Sat'? To reiterate the point made above, my beliefs are not conditional 
upon his beliefs. The question has the same answer in a socio-political 
context, though for different reasons. We are all guaranteed the freedom 
of belief and free speech by the Indian Constitution. My faith says 
'Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudda Vadanti'; the constitution guarantees me the 
freedom to both believe in it and to propagate it. His faith says 'This 
is the one and only true path to God'; the constitution guarantees him 
the same duo of rights. If either of us wishes to change our beliefs, 
that too is a fundamental right.

Shri Chowgule wrote: "However, the vandalism of the site has been well 
established, based on historical, literary, legal and archaeological 
basis.  Having done this, the question now becomes why a temple should 
NOT be rebuilt."
        The only valid answer to this question is found in the point 5, as 
enumerated by Shri Chowgule. "The attempt for a negotiated solution did 
take place - - - - -, these negotiations failed." That ought to have 
settled the issue. The organization that owned the property in question 
did not choose to abrogate its rights to the same. The only viable 
option at this point is further rational discourse, aimed at persuading 
the other to agree to one's proposal. Any other option is unethical and 
illegal. It is a rational, civil society [and not a personal belief 
system] that is dependent on the principle of reciprocity. If I believe 
that my rights ought to be respected, I may not abrogate someone else's 

This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/