05-04-2006, 01:45 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->dailypioneer.com/indexn12...nter_img=5
<b>The conspiracy of selective silence</b>
Op-Ed, The Pioneer
When a mosque was demolished in India there was an international outcry, but nothing when a temple was destroyed in Malaysia, says Seema Sarin
A century-old Hindu temple was demolished in Malaysia despite devotees pleading with the authorities to stop the operations. Though the Malaysian Hindus were understandably upset, the Hindus in India did not react, which is fine.
The Government of India did not react, which might have been right, had it not officially objected to the Danish Government about the publication of the Prophet's cartoons in a Danish newspaper. The UPA Government had even suggested the Danish Prime Minister to postpone his visit to India.
The International Herald Tribune published a cartoon depicting US President George Bush as Lord Shiva. Though an organisation, Indiacause, did find the cartoon offensive, most Hindus did not react to it. When Mohammed's offensive cartoons were published, Muslims all over the world, including in India, protested. One must not forget that the cartoons were first published in September and the protests occurred months later.
Hindus did not react similarly when the Malaimel Sri Selva Kaliamman temple was destroyed in Malaysia, nor when a Krishna temple was demolished in Moscow. Hindus are not obliged to react like Muslims when such incidents occur. Even many Muslims, though they might have been offended by the Danish cartoon, did not participate in the protests. But should not have the Government of India reacted in similar manner to these religious incidents?
Secularism means treating all religions equally. If the Government can officially object to the point of postponing a prime ministerial visit on cartoons of the Prophet being published in a Danish newspaper (which had nothing to do with the Government), how can it claim to be secular when it says nothing to another (Malaysian) country about demolition of a Hindu temple - an act which done by the Malaysian authorities?
Perhaps the best policy would be not to react to religious incidents abroad, be it related to Hindus or Muslims. Religious occurrences abroad are not the affair of the Government of India, whether they involve the publication of offensive cartoons or demolition of Hindu temples. The UPA Government does seem to observe that policy, except in the case of Muslims. Is it fair to have different policies for different religions in a secular country?
As for the world and the media, these too seem to have double standards when it comes to religion. There was a huge outcry when an unfrequented mosque was demolished in India, but nothing happened when a well-frequented temple was destroyed in Malaysia. Never mind that the temple was destroyed at a time when 300 devotees were praying there.
Now the Indian press has found some justification for reacting to the first incident, while ignoring the second - because the former incident happened in India, while the second occurred in a foreign country. But why should the global media create such a hue and cry over the destruction of a mosque in India, but remain silent over the demolition of a temple in Malaysia? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>The conspiracy of selective silence</b>
Op-Ed, The Pioneer
When a mosque was demolished in India there was an international outcry, but nothing when a temple was destroyed in Malaysia, says Seema Sarin
A century-old Hindu temple was demolished in Malaysia despite devotees pleading with the authorities to stop the operations. Though the Malaysian Hindus were understandably upset, the Hindus in India did not react, which is fine.
The Government of India did not react, which might have been right, had it not officially objected to the Danish Government about the publication of the Prophet's cartoons in a Danish newspaper. The UPA Government had even suggested the Danish Prime Minister to postpone his visit to India.
The International Herald Tribune published a cartoon depicting US President George Bush as Lord Shiva. Though an organisation, Indiacause, did find the cartoon offensive, most Hindus did not react to it. When Mohammed's offensive cartoons were published, Muslims all over the world, including in India, protested. One must not forget that the cartoons were first published in September and the protests occurred months later.
Hindus did not react similarly when the Malaimel Sri Selva Kaliamman temple was destroyed in Malaysia, nor when a Krishna temple was demolished in Moscow. Hindus are not obliged to react like Muslims when such incidents occur. Even many Muslims, though they might have been offended by the Danish cartoon, did not participate in the protests. But should not have the Government of India reacted in similar manner to these religious incidents?
Secularism means treating all religions equally. If the Government can officially object to the point of postponing a prime ministerial visit on cartoons of the Prophet being published in a Danish newspaper (which had nothing to do with the Government), how can it claim to be secular when it says nothing to another (Malaysian) country about demolition of a Hindu temple - an act which done by the Malaysian authorities?
Perhaps the best policy would be not to react to religious incidents abroad, be it related to Hindus or Muslims. Religious occurrences abroad are not the affair of the Government of India, whether they involve the publication of offensive cartoons or demolition of Hindu temples. The UPA Government does seem to observe that policy, except in the case of Muslims. Is it fair to have different policies for different religions in a secular country?
As for the world and the media, these too seem to have double standards when it comes to religion. There was a huge outcry when an unfrequented mosque was demolished in India, but nothing happened when a well-frequented temple was destroyed in Malaysia. Never mind that the temple was destroyed at a time when 300 devotees were praying there.
Now the Indian press has found some justification for reacting to the first incident, while ignoring the second - because the former incident happened in India, while the second occurred in a foreign country. But why should the global media create such a hue and cry over the destruction of a mosque in India, but remain silent over the demolition of a temple in Malaysia? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->