Politics Of Indian History -2

[acharya]

http://churumuri.wordpress.com/2007/06/08/...ve-sl-bhyrappa/


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Controversially, the best-selling author says India’s social harmony, which his critics accuse him of seeking to destroy through the book, is “superficial, artificial, and therefore not permanent.”

    “The kind of harmony you are speaking, since independence, does it exist? It doesn’t exist because you are starting on a false foundation. Most of our Constitution framers were Hindus, most of them were upper class. Alladi Krishnawamy Iyer, K.M. Munshi. Babu Rajendra Prasad, C. Rajagopalachari. All of them unanimously abolished untouchability, saying that those who practice it should be prosecuted and jailed, that Dalits should be given special privileges, and those those who intermarried with Dalits should be given special incentives.

    “That means, they (the Hindus) realised the mistakes in our society which was historically practised and tried to rectify it. Have Muslims tried to do overcome their mistakes? The Hindus have clearly realised that untouchability and social inequalities were practised from certain points in our history. We are open about it and we are ashamed of it. Have the Muslims realised what they have done is wrong and what is the source of what they have done?

    “The source of what they have done is in their sacred religious texts. Now, are they prepared to go back to it and say these are the portions which we want to disown? Till they are prepared to do that, this social harmony is based on false foundation. Therefore to say that just because a certain truth is spoken, to say that it disturbs social harmony… for how long can you live with the delusion of building social harmony under false foundation.

    “You must have the freedom to criticise every religion in the world: Judaism, Christianity, Shintosim, Hinduism, etc etc. Now to say you have every freedom to criticise different streams of Hinduism or Christianity, but you should not speak anything Islam, shut up… when you come to that point, is that fair? Progress is possible only when there is free criticism, which the western people have reached.”

Also read: S.L. Bhyrappa versus U.R. Anantha Murthy


<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->

many many thanks for the video. this quality, this length talks only independent media sans market considerations can bring. thanks for keeping the zoom & pan still for the most part. Perhaps, the haNe shot, can be your signature shot. The video presented without interfering in what we were seeing. In the background there was a bird chirping away at some thing. Perhaps, metaphorically.

Who has the problem? Does politics (academia, media, intelligencia apart from political parties) have a problem with multi religious society, or is it that multi religious society itself has an internal problem of livability (is it hard for people of different religions to interact in day to day life)?

perhaps you could have pointed out to bhyrappa that the actual, at-ground social harmony in India, even if influenced by politics, is not a result of the politics. Hindu muslim interaction in India precedes independence, modern politics, & even marx. And that basic interaction is perhaps driven by practicality & humanity & is for most part not incumbent upon historical truth. One does not think of aurangajeb when dealing with a neighbor of 60 years in a vaTaara even in the heart of the most communally sensitive city in the whole of SI. So what then does bhyrappa mean by saying that india’s social harmony is not permanent?

On the other hand is a multireligious society a problem to our politics? Is it really a problem for our politics to carry all religions equally? Is the change in hindu fold internal or is it that the political system could initiate & carry those changes far more easily wrt hinduism than others? Why does the political system not initiate or hesitate to initiate these changes in other religions? Why has the politics become so skewed that look alikes of anti humanists of the worst kind are paraded in political rallies with support from all & sundry? How can you talk of secularism, humanism, multiculturism without even question the vulgarity & indecency of propaganda & conversion?

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->