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

Re: Ritu's note

Administrative Note:

Week's Agenda: Economy

> I do agree that there are a lot of people who subscribe to the
> Hindutva line of thought and would not defend it openly. Their
> attitudes have also hardened. You need not try to convince me by
> quoting statistics. 

I did that for a reason. One of the arguents put forward (when I said 
proselytization should be banned) was that in doing so, I was presuming 
to speak for others instead of letting hm have their say on their own. 
Sanjeev, while insisting that he was not patronizing me, said that this 
would be "actually" patronizing on my part, whatever that meant. 
Incidentally, it did not escape me that you quoted the wrong part of my 
comment when you did that, Sanjeev.

At any rate, I said in response that I am not speaking for others at 
all. On the contrary, I've looked at what plenty of others have to say, 
and pay considerable heed to that. My opinion presumes nothing about 
that of others, if anything it endorses what appears to be a large body 
of opinion.

> However, I do not agree that it is the status quo which is 'not
> helping the minorities'. As far as I can make out, it is the 
> reaction of some to the status quo that is not helping the
> minorities.                                          

Semantics, Ritu. If the status quo did not exist, those reactions might 

> Ash no one is stating that economic force is okay.

I'd be happy to hear Sanjeev or Prof.Guptara say that, or any of the 
others who made a distinction between physical and economic force. 
Cleverly lost in that distinction is a point that I made which you 
reiterated, that they are both wrong. Also, the examples we've used are 
not conducive to understanding that the distinction may not be as real.

If I deny you a job, and your family starves to death, is that economic 
force? Instead, if I just kill your family, is that very different? 
Economic force isn't always nicely packaged white-collar crime, it can 
be just as deadly as anything else. Indeed, much of the world's poverty 
can be attributed to economic force, according to some theories. Banks 
that refuse to do business in some neighborhoods are not beating poor 
folks on the head with a stick, they instead simply deprive them of the 
opportunity for economic upliftment. What's the difference?

> Majority opinion isn't everything.

That's what I said. I don't claim that what Hitler did was right, in 
fact I suggested quite plainly the opposite. I don't why you would tell 
me that it was wrong, it appears to suggest that I had originally 
extolled the man, which isn't true.

Sure, we consider the rights of individuals, not just majority opinion. 
But it is reasonable to expect that the majority has rights too, and 
those might be considered too, isn't that right? What happens when the 
rights of one group clash with the rights of another? 

The answer, as I see it, is that rights should be defined to 
individuals, and applicable equally. The rights of one person SHOULD NOT 
contradict the rights of another, by creating different groups of 
persons, we enable the kinds of conflict that might otherwise not exist.

The problem is that there are two kinds of responses which have become 
standard to this kind of argument. (a) By telling me that Hitler was a 
bad guy, you appear to create the notion that I didn't agree with that. 
(b) By telling me that since Hindus are the ones who are messing around 
with others, PG implies that I needn't care, clearly implying that I 
have a pro-Hindu bias.

If I can get a few minorities to vouch for me, would that make you guys 
wrong. If it turns out that I am the only one who is actually married to 
a non-Hindu, will it make my argument any stronger? All that is 
nonsense, what I say must stand or fall on the strength of its own 
merit, these implications do no justice to the argument.


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