Unity and Delusions

On our side of the border, we have Kupamanduka who claims that the Pakistanis’ religiosity gives them strength that Hindus lack. Ergo, we Hindus should unite, so that our country achieves the heights that Pakistan has achieved.

On the other side of the border, we have Ejaz Haider who claims that we Indians have developed a sense of nationalism that binds our various institutions, civil and military,  and that this has helped us pursue a tough policy, in contrast to the softer Pakistan.

17 thoughts on “Unity and Delusions

  1. For those who are interested, the translation of the above comment is:

    “If you were a true Hindu, you would instinctively and viscerally feel the truth of what I had said. Those who aren’t true Hindus will, in any case not understand what I said. Therefore, there is no point defending the content and every point in discussing the affiliation of those I am arguing with.”

  2. Sez the man for people objecting to “Hindu rate of growth” are Hindutva conspiracy theorists. Really what a broad brush you wield.

  3. Let it be noted that to this point, no answer to my criticism has been offered. The only things I have got in response is a question about my affiliations or my past arguments.

  4. 1. Your “translation of the above comment” is wrong. I wrote the comment because I really thought that is what you meant. And as long as you don’t even clarify I can’t feel sure about it.

    2. I didn’t say I want India to be more like Pakistan *in every respect*. I wanted Hindus who are believers to be less apologetic about their views as well as not to curtail their sense of religious affiliation in the name of faux-universalism. I was not making a Botswana-Zimbabwe-type comparison between the two nations.

    Why should such an identity consciousness necessarily translate to militancy?

    3. The statement “Kupamanduka wants India to be more like Pakistan” is misleading – connotation vs. denotation type argument. That this should come from “the man who gave us the connotation vs. denotation argument”!

  5. Froginthewell, to help with my translation, I took as input your discussion on Gaurav’s post where the subject was whether I really consider myself Hindu or not. I do, but why is that relevant to the subject of the post?

    It is instructive to note that an argument that Hindus should be more united inevitably turns into a question over people’s affiliation. There is a reason that happens, and I hope you will think about it.

  6. Ravi, thanks for clarifying that. I doubted that you considered yourself to be a Hindu because there was a very old post on your blog where ( perhaps it was authored by 7×6, not you, but it was on Examined Life ) it was said that agnostics were “even more stupid” than theists.

    I know atheists who call themselves Hindu ( invoking Charvaka etc. ) but I didn’t think you would fall for that nonsense.

    As for the remaining points I will need to read your new post etc.

  7. “I know atheists who call themselves Hindu ( invoking Charvaka etc. ) but I didn’t think you would fall for that nonsense.”


  8. FITW,

    The atheist point is irrelevant to this debate. Your take on Hindu unity/disunity is political and moral (in terms of what we should do with our lives), while the theism debate involves morality only in the ontological sense (what is the source of morality). One can EASILY be an atheist and yet subscribe to your views on Hindu unity or be a theist and not subscribe to them.

  9. Ritwik : I did not use the atheist point to put my main point across at all. The comments on “Ravi and atheism” were merely to justify my claim that my motivation for comment #1 above was not the as fundamentalist as Ravikiran thought.

  10. I was hoping that you will point out a fallacy or two in Adiga’s reasoning. I remember you reviewed his book.

  11. OK, now you’ve made me read it. All I will say about it is that just as beauty contest participants are trained to make platitudinous motherhood statements, I am sure there is a school somewhere for Indian writers in English where they are trained to make slightly more sophisticated sounding, but equally platitudinous statements.

Comments are closed.