“Governance in India” – Join the Discussion @ IIT, Delhi

Please join us on Monday, 2nd August if you can at this discussion jointly organised by the IIT Delhi Alumni Association and Freedom Team of India.

6:30pm – 9:30pm

August 2nd (Monday) 2010

Location:  7th Floor Main Building, IRD Hall,

Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas

FTI Home Page

The discussion will focus on issues in “governance” in India, the present situation and how can it be improved. As one of FTI’s founder-members Sanjeev mentioned:

India’s governance shows no sign of improving, stumbling from one crisis to another. Our security is threatened, our economic growth stumbles every few years, we have terrible infrastructure, and one of the lowest standard of living in the world. There are more poor people in eight states of India than in the 26 countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

This discussion is an attempt to discover why and what can be done about this.

About FTI :

FTI is a forum for policy, strategy, and leadership development to promote our freedom.

FTI is a team of leaders who identify with freedom and everything it implies, such as:

  • Enforcement of rule of law
  • Law and order, and equal justice
  • Accountable government
  • Equal opportunity for all
  • Tolerance of all but pandering to none
  • Prosperity through free enterprise and minimal regulation

The Freedom Team is actively looking for leaders to come together to lead India to freedom. FTI is not a political party. You can join us if you believe in the ideas of freedom.

FTI’s first task is to bring together outstanding leaders – individuals of unimpeachable integrity and sound liberal thinking.

For more details and registration, please visit the event page on Facebook.

***

About B Shantanu:
A political activist by choice and an engineer by training, Shantanu Bhagwat (aka B Shantanu) is also a one-time diplomat and a venture investor. These days he divides his time between India and UK, working with early stage companies and on ideas to improve political systems and governance in India. He is the author/publisher of a popular blog on Indian politics, history and religion at http://Satyameva-Jayate.org/

A graduate in Computer Engineering, Shantanu holds an MBA from London Business School where he was a Chevening Scholar. Prior to that, spent several years in the Indian Foreign Service, working in New Delhi and Tokyo.

***

Related Posts:

Notes from North-East: Politics, FTI and Corruption

Why India desperately needs good leaders today

Changing India – Step III

***

Please note that I am travelling until the 5th of August and may be delayed in responding to and/or moderating comments. Thank you for support and understanding, as always.

To avoid having your comment getting stuck in the spam queue, pl mention your email id – or use this while making a comment: satyacomment@gmail.com Thanks

B Shantanu

Political Activist, Blogger, Advisor to start-ups, Seed investor. One time VC and ex-Diplomat. Failed mushroom farmer; ex Radio Jockey. Currently involved in Reclaiming India - One Step at a Time.

You may also like...

109 Responses

  1. Nanda says:

    Though its been few years since I came across FTI and Mr.Sablok, I still find it difficult to get convinced to get associated with FTI or Sanjeev due to huge difference of perception about the sangh groups and FTI’s policies towards religion. I’m just afraid if I would inadvertently associate myself with groups that may not appreciate the cultural characters of my mother India. Nonetheless I have huge respect for FTI and its policies on other area.

  2. Anupam says:

    @Nanda

    It is true that FTI is Sanjeev’s idea and he came up with the plan of finding 1500 leaders first and then contesting elections on all constituencies of India and founded the group. FTI is not Sanjeev and Sanjeev is not FTI, he has never claimed this and always maintained ( in words and action ) that group should not be dependent on one person. Every FTI policy is agreed upon by all FTI members and will remain a draft until all 1500 members have assembled and signed off on it.

    I am a member of FTI but I disagree with Sanjeev on following points –
    1. His view on RSS.
    2. His view on origination of caste system in India.
    3. His view on recent attacks on Indians in Australia

    But I agree with him that –
    1. India needs a top down change.
    2. Indian governance needs serious reforms.
    3. Middle class needs to play an Active role in politics.
    4. Socialism is a failed doctrine.
    5. State has no role in religion other than protecting the right of individual to practice the faith of his choosing. ( Hence the religious policy )

    Let me assure you that FTI poses no threat to the culture and religion(s) of India. FTI believes in Freedom. FTI believes in freedom of all to practice their faith and freedom to choose any vocation to earn their living, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the freedom of others to do the same, at which point it becomes a law and order issue.

    Here is the link to FTI religious policy – http://freedomteam.in/blog/content/religious-freedom-and-tolerance Please feel free to raise your objections here or on the FTI website.

    Anupam

  3. JC Moola says:

    I don’t think any of the points mentioned above are achievable. The points of FTI lean on the side of Utopia. There is no attachment to the values of Bharat in the above points of FTI. It has more attachment to America/ Europe philosophy which is failure.

  4. Anupam says:

    @JC Moola

    One has to be a dreamer if one wishes to change the conditions of India given the dire situation.

    Indian Parliamentary system is Westminster system, do we need to change this as well. Democracy is a western concept as well. Your thoughts awaited.

    What is the harm in borrowing good things from different cultures and religion.

    PS: I could be wrong in stating that democracy is a totally western concept, see the link below. But that’s not the point. Point is that it is a good thing and no harm in adopting something which is good. I am not providing this link to digress but just to make it clear that I am aware of this debate, before people leave the main point and start debating on how the ancient India had republics and this Greek concept was not exactly Greek to us.

    https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/04/04/democracy-in-ancient-india/ bu

  5. Anupam says:

    Shantanu,

    I think my reply to Nanda is stuck in the queue..

    Anupam

  6. ashwani says:

    my standpoint:-

    1.i see a threat to the existence of present and future generation(past generations have already partaken) of people wishing to lead a life as per their own inner calling rather than being forced to parrot someone else’s bylines which they may not agree with.
    2.i believe that this threat has it’s roots and evidences of it’s strong presence in history,and is amply visible even today in it’s numerous manifestations.
    3.there is a wind blowing & fanned by the powers that be that is every day strengthening my perception/standpoint.a section of the populace that is very violent in it’s behaviour towards people not willing to succumb to their diktats,is being encouraged under the garb of religious freedom / minority rights.i don’t see the existence of a requisite response that can allay the threat perceived by me.many people who have views similar to mine think/thought that rss probably had the potential to meet the threat perceived by us.i very strongly state rss has failed to live up to those expectations,in fact it is slowly showing it’s true colours as an organisation lacking in the necessary requistes required to meet the threat,and lacking in the intent to meet the threat.

    w.r.t. to the above stated position my views on fti.

    1.it professes to be propogating a just ,fair and accountable administration that does not favour any section of the populace with special treatment which probably sums it up.

    imv i feel that fti does not meet my expectations of a force that is capable of removing my threat perception,as also being incapable of doing any real good since:-

    1.either it does not seem to have any perception of the existence of this threat in the past,present and the future,or is simply turning a blind eye to it.
    2.it seems to shy away from acknowledging the numerous positive points of sanatan dharm in it’s eagerness to be acceptable to all sections of the populace(which is precisely the bane of the current situation) thus showing signs of shying away from truth for reasons of political correctness.
    3.waiting for the obvious knife on my throat while enjoying high living standards,corruption free gov. etc… is not my view of life.
    4.i find it amusing how many of the fti proponents find the nincompoop rss as highly dangerous(in their view) without having any facts to support their case.it shows the level of their intellectual integerity.

    so for me fti = waste of time.

    i agree with nanda.

  7. Anupam says:

    @ashwani

    “3.there is a wind blowing & fanned by the powers that be that is every day strengthening my perception/standpoint.a section of the populace that is very violent in it’s behaviour towards people not willing to succumb to their diktats,is being encouraged under the garb of religious freedom / minority rights.i don’t see the existence of a requisite response that can allay the threat perceived by me.many people who have views similar to mine think/thought that rss probably had the potential to meet the threat perceived by us.i very strongly state rss has failed to live up to those expectations,in fact it is slowly showing it’s true colours as an organisation lacking in the necessary requistes required to meet the threat,and lacking in the intent to meet the threat.”

    what you are stating is the failure of law and order. Maintaining law and order and punishing culprits who engage in violation of freedom of others by rioting and engaging in violent activities, ranks very high on FTI’s agenda.

    Certain section of the society are doing this because they know they can get away with this.

  8. ashwani says:

    anupam,

    “what you are stating is the failure of law and order. Maintaining law and order and punishing culprits who engage in violation of freedom of others by rioting and engaging in violent activities, ranks very high on FTI’s agenda..”

    1.it may rank very high on fti’s theoretical agenda but none of the pronouncements of the group or the chief indicate that they have the perception of the faultlines or that they are afraid of even naming them what to talk of tackling them head on in future.fti very safely takes the politically correct line of putting all under the same category using very convenient phrases like where ever it may be etc…

    2.the other point of being oblivious to the existence of sanatan dharm and it’s instituitions and their condition under the present dispensation the organisation does not seem to presenting any change from the current.so if god forbid fti comes to power i feel that all the hindu murtis lying under the surface of the masjids have no hope of seeing the daylight.

  9. Anupam says:

    “2.the other point of being oblivious to the existence of sanatan dharm and it’s instituitions and their condition under the present dispensation the organisation does not seem to presenting any change from the current.so if god forbid fti comes to power i feel that all the hindu murtis lying under the surface of the masjids have no hope of seeing the daylight.”

    That is not on the FTIs agenda and should not be the agenda of any political party or government. Even BJP did not try to do anything like this. Even if what you are saying is true( and I am aware of the history ), you can not try to correct the past by violating the freedom or committing crimes against the humanity today. But under FTI you have full right to protect your temples that stand today and no one will stop you from building new temples as long as it is built on the legally acquired land. Same holds true for other religions.

  10. ashwani says:

    “..you can not try to correct the past by violating the freedom or committing crimes against the humanity today.”

    anupam,

    correcting the past,violating the freedom,committing crimes against the humanity.

    it seems that you have taken to the line of arguements of your fti compatriots on this and other blogs.

    i am yet to see anyone who can fill in the blanks in the logic presented by you.i wonder if you’ll try.

  11. Anupam says:

    @ashwani

    So what is your expectation of a political party regarding the point you have raised. Do you think all standing mosques in India need to be excavated to look for murtis underneath?

    Isn’t that same as what was done under Aurangzeb? I am sure if you have gone to Qutub Minar, the board outside the Quvutul Islam Mosque says that this mosque was built with the ruins of 24 Hindu temples?

    What you are proposing will be same as what Kutub din Aibak or Aurangzeb did? Is this the future of India?

    Anupam

  12. Agree with you Anupam.

    Ashwini, you can’t change history but you can learn from it. There’s no point in digging old graves but what we could do is ensure that what the likes of Aurangzeb did would never be repeated in the future.

    The future is in harmony, not in discord.

  13. ashwani says:

    how is reclaiming old temples equiv. to aurangzeb?

    how & why should harmony be affected(whatever ever existed) by reclamation of truth.

    my political party first shuns cowardice(political correctness),is devoted to truth first & foremost and then deals with the requisite firmness with anyone out to trample on this basic principle.

    i hope i am clear.

  14. Indian says:

    @Anupam

    —–5. State has no role in religion other than protecting the right of individual to practice the faith of his choosing. ( Hence the religious policy )——

    My understanding is that you are opposing anti-conversion law. Is that right?

  15. Anupam says:

    @Indian
    Yes, government can not ban conversions. This is what the religious policy says on this.

    “b) All religions have legitimate rights to compete for loyalty and seek to extend their influence. To the extent such activities lead to conversion, the state has an interest in ensuring that no coercion, bribes, or misleading conduct is involved in the process. FTI would ask religious bodies to come up with self-regulatory (and binding) Code of Practice by which all religions will ensure that misleading conduct is eliminated. This Code should have provisions for concerns, if any, from any affected party to be adequately addressed.”

    And no one can stop a person to convert back. Please note the specific reference to conversions. Also, policy explicitly mentions that coercion and bribes can not be used for conversion.

  16. Anupam says:

    @Nanda

    “Though its been few years since I came across FTI and Mr.Sablok, I still find it difficult to get convinced to get associated with FTI or Sanjeev due to huge difference of perception about the sangh groups and FTI’s policies towards religion. ”

    Two things I want to mention – First is a comment by Sanjeev which he has allowed me to reproduce here –

    Here is the comment from Sanjeev on one of the internal discussion at FTI –
    “We can’t even dream of finding sufficient leaders, leave alone winning elections if FTI as a group displays aversion to mainstream Indian views about their country. Whatever it is, one thing is clear, FTI is NOT an anti-RSS platform but pro-India platform. And I take good ideas from all sides, regardless of whether the idea comes from a friend or “enemy”. So let’s never allow an impression to build that FTI is something foreign. It reflects an Indian mind, a liberated Indian mind that is able to think for itself.”

    Second, FTI is a platform for leaders and does not represent the views of one person, refer this post on his blog –
    http://sabhlokcity.com/2010/07/are-ftis-views-synonymous-with-mine/

    And last, if you have not read this book, please find some time to read it -http://books.google.com/books?id=zU9utu7wZpQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

    You may agree with lot of what he says here.

    Anupam

  17. Sid says:

    @ashwani,
    Disclaimer: I never believed that FTI’s goals are any closer to a common Indian than the declared Congress goal of secular, socialist ideals. So I choose to remain absent from this discussion.

    However, few of your points caught my eye. It can be accepted that a lot of temples were broken to build mosques. It is also true that a lot of temples were broken in Goa by Portuguese to make churches. It is also correct if you understand that we are under attack in our own country by the very same people who are like us ethnically, but has a cultural (and political at times) loyalty to some entity other than Bharatiya.

    Yet, we can not go ahead and break those churches and mosques. A great civilization does not destroy, it builds that stand for years, sometimes centuries. That is the signature of it’s greatness. Our great ancestors built lots of temples with marvelous architecture. Their ancestors built extra-ordinary philosophical systems that is a marvel to the world. Temples got destroyed, if Islamic sword did not destroy it, time would have. Yet, concepts and philosophical systems that our ancestors built did not get destroyed. Their survival proves their strength. We can make ourselves great by making great things again. Or we can choose to imitate desert cults that took pleasure in destruction. The choice is really ours. Look at Afghanistan. Hindu Gandhars and Buddhist Shahiyas managed to build an efficient irrigation system that made the region so prosperous, it could afford one of World’s first universities: Taxila. In 13th century, Mongols destroyed the kingdom as well as the irrigation system. The region today has become a desert, not only devoid of water, but also lacking prosperity and intellectual development. No great civilization walked into that region to build again.

    Our Dharma does not need temples to survive which is one reason it survived despite the destruction of multiple temples across India. Temples, in our case a monument of respect to our God, at a later phase it also became one of the center of cultural growth. We need to build them where we find that they can serve their old needs (like in Ayodhya), but that does not require us to destroy mosque or churches. I am in full support of building a temple in Ayodhya, but the destruction of the mosque is just uncalled for and at best a political deception. I believe that we are the inheritors of a great legacy of creation, not destruction.

  18. Anupam says:

    “how is reclaiming old temples equiv. to aurangzeb?”

    1. First you will have to prove that a temple existed there. Ram janm bhoomi case is still pending. Excavations can not be allowed on any place of worship currently in use.

    2.Even if you are able to prove, through some historical source, that a temple stood at that place 200 or 500 years ago. You will have to demolish an existing house of worship to achieve the above.

    Demolition part is what is Equivalent to Aurangzeb? Please keep in mind that the people who are worshiping there now did not demolish your temple in the first place.

    Correcting History is a different thing. No one is stopping you from stating or doing research about existence of a temple at certain point in time. You are free to propagate that idea and pass on the knowledge and your findings. The moment you try to destroy the existing structure without the consent of current owner, it is the violation of the law.

    BJP did try to win the election by promising to build a temple in Ayodhya. They did not, they had 5 years in power.

    I think this discussion is going in the wrong direction. FTI is not about temples and mosques and churches. It is more about your freedom to go to the worship house of your choosing. But more than that, it is about correcting socialist policies which are dragging the population of 1 billion down and pushing them in poverty. It is about equality of opportunity and providing a level playing field to all irrespective of caste or creed. It is about economic empowerment so that more people can get access to internet and write comments on a blog like this instead of thinking about how they are going to make enough to eat tonight.

  19. B Shantanu says:

    Dear All: Thanks a lot for the stream of comments…Am travelling at the moment and have very limited internet connectivity…so am unable to respond..will try and do so at the earliest.

    Pl continue the discussion. Thanks
    Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!
    Shantanu

  20. ashwani says:

    sid,

    i fully agree with your point regarding the intrinsic greatness of sanatan dharm.in fact i will even go further and state that even if we(sanatanis) as a community are obliterated by the mulatas this eternal philosophy will still come to fore in the ensuing period.but here we are trying to thwart the possibility of our obliteration.

    i am sure you must be familiar with the book by sh s.r.goel rgrdng hindu temples.

    with rfrnc to that i cite the case of :-
    1.rudra mahalaya incident in sidhpur and the establishment’s response to it,where murtis that lay exposed were put back.

    2.the cases like ataladevi mosque,rajabhoj temple,qutab complex,adhai din ka jhonpra etc.. which are in no way maosques and should be returned to their actual puprose.these do not require any demolition.

    3.the case of tejo mahalaya and the establishment’s response.

    4.obfuscation of history by the establishment under the garb of political correctness.

    5.the mention of plaques inside these so called mosques proclaiming the greatness of the convertor in following the path of islam,and the continued insistence of the mulatas on their ownership of such places indicates the mindset to which the establishment has always bowed due to the MF(muslim fright) factor(coinage due to sh. surya narayan saxena).

    having said this i see no reason as to why this situation does not need a correction.

    anupam,

    “…“how is reclaiming old temples equiv. to aurangzeb?”

    1. First you will have to prove that a temple existed there. Ram janm bhoomi case is still pending. Excavations can not be allowed on any place of worship currently in use.

    2.Even if you are able to prove, through some historical source, that a temple stood at that place 200 or 500 years ago. You will have to demolish an existing house of worship to achieve the above.”

    like i said in my post no.10 your logic(in fact logic of fti types) is so befuddling to me that it is impossible(at least for me)to search for an answer to my question in your replies.

    as regards your point rgrdng proofs,try reading sh.s.r.goel’s hindu temples,and then post your opinion rgrdng the existence of proofs.

  21. Anupam says:

    @ashwani

    Even if you can provide proof and believe I read a lot on this stuff and do my own research. I have at least 30-40 pictures of Quvutul Islam mosque that convinces me that it was not built of the ruins of 24 Hindu temples as the board outside says but the structure itself was a temple and existed before. All the pillat have a symmetry and them and every pillar has a Hindu god or goddess carved on it at the same spot same size. There is a very interesting book on Qutub Minar, Dilli ki Lat.

    Even with all this, I will agree with Sid when he says –

    “Our Dharma does not need temples to survive which is one reason it survived despite the destruction of multiple temples across India. Temples, in our case a monument of respect to our God, at a later phase it also became one of the center of cultural growth. We need to build them where we find that they can serve their old needs (like in Ayodhya), but that does not require us to destroy mosque or churches. I am in full support of building a temple in Ayodhya, but the destruction of the mosque is just uncalled for and at best a political deception. I believe that we are the inheritors of a great legacy of creation, not destruction”

    @Sid,

    I would like to understand your disclaimer if you have some time to post on that.

  22. ashwani says:

    anupam,
    “…convinces me that it was not built of the ruins of 24 Hindu temples as the board outside says but the structure itself was a temple and existed before…”

    inspite of the accurate info in your possesion you call the reclamation
    as
    “Demolition part is what is Equivalent to Aurangzeb?”

    as regrds our dharm and it’s greatness i have made my views clear.

    my point is regrding not lacking in courage in proclaiming the truth (as even you see it),and reclaiming it rather than parroting the politically correct line of let bygones due to MF factor.

  23. Anupam says:

    @Ashwani

    I think reclamation is just euphemism for demolition and building on top of some thing.

    Since we have digressed, Indian history is very complex as you are already aware but the political and social implication of historical research makes it even harder to find the truth. On one side we blame government for distorting the books and hiding the facts, on the other side we want to reclaim temples and excavate murtis and cause social unrest. Government’s job is to maintain law and order. Until the populace understands that all the structures have a historical value in their current form and have a story to tell without the need of putting a new structure on top of it you can’t really blame the congress for what it did.

    We need some objective independent historical research and that is not possible until there are political groups out there ready to take advantage of different versions of history. Our history is intertwined with religion and religion moves people. I don’t have to cite examples to prove the role of religion in history of the world.

    As people of India do not feel confident enough of freedom of religion they vote on religious lines. In a scenario like this it is very hard to separate religion and government and do any kind of objective research on history.

    Unless you have full freedom and total separation of religion and state all political parties will follow the philosophy of minority appeasement, as minorities feel more threatened when they are not confident of the guarantee of freedom and tend to stick together.

    Then add to that caste which adds another dimension to the Indian political scenario.

    Unless the government in Delhi guarantees full freedom and provides equal opportunity to all, political parties will continue to abuse the insecurities of people for votes.

  24. ashwani says:

    anupam,

    i take it that your last post(23) is your swan song on the subject.

    so be it.

  25. Anupam says:

    @ashwani

    Actually I was not done I was about to get disconnected as my train was reaching a tunnel, so to continue from –
    “Unless the government in Delhi guarantees full freedom and provides equal opportunity to all, political parties will continue to abuse the insecurities of people for votes.”

    A government which guarantees the freedom and liberty of all will not appear magically, people will have to vote for it.

  26. ashwani says:

    anupam,

    rgrdng the point of getting a free & fair govt. and it’s election,i hope that you will recall that we are talking w.r.t. fti and it’s policies.i am putting the view that fti does not have the requistes that i have for my desired political party.we have already discussed about why of that.so certainly fti is a no-no for me.

    it is the ideas like:-
    “..guarantees the freedom and liberty of all..”

    that i find too loose in the present context.do you guarantee the freedom for cannibals if they claim it as religious/expression freedom.

    above all my point has been through out about a lack of sincerety on the part of the likes of fti etc.. for standing for truth that i find disconcerting.

    so if you have something to say rgrdng the points i have raised and which lie unanswered we have reasons to continue.your last post is full of

    “..we want to reclaim temples and excavate murtis and cause social unrest…”

    how & why.

    “Unless you have full freedom and total separation of religion and state all political parties will follow the philosophy of minority appeasement, as minorities feel more threatened when they are not confident of the guarantee of freedom and tend to stick together.”

    minorities feeling insecure? are you sure.

    if you can go back to my post6, where i have stated my position you will know as to who is insecure,and it is certainly not islamophobia but is islamo-evaluation.

    thus i will say any party which mouths politically correct statements like congi,bjp-rss,fti lacks in courage to take on the islamic threat,and is of no use for sanatanis.

    we have to explore other solutions.narendra modi is a possible answer.

  27. Anupam says:

    @ashwani
    “that i find too loose in the present context.do you guarantee the freedom for cannibals if they claim it as religious/expression freedom.”

    Refer comment #2 where I say –
    “FTI believes in freedom of all to practice their faith and freedom to choose any vocation to earn their living, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the freedom of others to do the same, at which point it becomes a law and order issue.”

    Key phrase here is “as long as it doesn’t interfere with the freedom of others to do the same”

    When I say that demolishing the structure without the consent of the owner if depriving the owner of his/her freedom how can I support cannibalism.

    You are mixing the law and order with religion again. If government punishes the culprits as soon as they engage in rioting then you don’t have to find a savior for yourself and you will not need to break the law yourself. But what we see today is the result of failure of existing political parties and government to punish the guilty.

  28. ashwani says:

    anupam,

    is the well documented loot to be considered as ownership?

  29. Anupam says:

    @ashwani

    🙂 we are back to the discussion where I am going to say that you can not make a person pay or punish for a robbery his great great great grandfather did. And in this case you can’t even find the great great great grand son.

    We will have to decide ownership as of a point in time, say 1947, otherwise there will be owners from all corners staking the claim on the property in question.

  30. ashwani says:

    anupam,

    “We will have to decide ownership as of a point in time, say 1947, otherwise there will be owners from all corners staking the claim on the property in question.”

    a very conveniently evasive arguement for politically correct.will such people be ever fair in their deeds?

    how many people are currently in the queue or is it the usual red herring?

    did you ever hear of the calling for the claims by the chandrashekhar govt,and the proceedings thereafter?

  31. Kaffir says:

    “that i find too loose in the present context.do you guarantee the freedom for cannibals if they claim it as religious/expression freedom.”

    Refer comment #2 where I say –
    “FTI believes in freedom of all to practice their faith and freedom to choose any vocation to earn their living, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the freedom of others to do the same, at which point it becomes a law and order issue.”

    Key phrase here is “as long as it doesn’t interfere with the freedom of others to do the same”

    =>

    Just to continue with that analogy, a hypothetical question:
    What if the victim of the cannibal belongs to the same religion (as does the cannibal) and subscribes to the view that “cannibalism is OK, including a co-religionist making a meal of him”?

  32. Anupam says:

    @Kaffir,

    Religion does not decide the law of the land. There can not be a different law for each religion.

  33. Anupam says:

    @ashwani

    “a very conveniently evasive arguement for politically correct.will such people be ever fair in their deeds?”

    Fine, even if we do not decide the ownership at a point in time. I don’t think you can prove the ownership in court of law. Your only option is to either buy the property from the current owner/board or convince the owner to help you reclaim the structure.

    If you can not do that then it is taking over by force.

    When was your constitution formed, or you would like to go back to the days of monarchy?

  34. ashwani says:

    anupam,

    fti or any group claiming uprightness should have the courage to face the truth rather than hide behind the veil of “prove in a court of law as per the prevelant law”,which is a dhimmi’s position due to MF factor.

    the courts of law have bared their dhimmi mindset while returning the presidential reference.

    as my point is rgrdng the lack of courage in fti to face uncomfortable truths find some better arguements to defend fti.

    show some pronouncement where fti shows it’s comprehensions of the historical background of the contentious issues ,indicating a truthfull mind.

  35. @Ashwani

    I normally don’t like to butt into someone else’s conversation but I’ve been following this for a while and feel I could contribute to it.

    You’ve said time and again that FTI hasn’t shown “courage” to “face the truth”. Since this whole conversation is about mosques built on temples, let’s get it out of the way first of all. There’s no denying the fact that many mosques or other Islamic monuments were built by destroying temples. From what I understand, there definitely was a temple at Ayodhya, which was destroyed in order to build a mosque. I can’t speak for everyone in FTI but I have no inhibitions in accepting that Islamic rulers, in order to suppress people of other faiths, including Hindus, went on a religious rampage. So there you go, acceptance of truth!

    The question is, what do we do about it? Your contention is that we seek to correct that – restore all the temples that we believe were destroyed by the muslim rulers. The point Anupam is making over and over again is that you can’t change that history through retribution. I think that the best we could do is not to change history but to learn from it and prevent it from happening in the future.

    But if you think we could do that – replace all those monuments with temples etc – please tell us how you propose to put this plan into action. What tangible social benefits do you expect to accrue? And most importantly, how would it better India’s future?

    Again, I can’t speak for all of the FTI members but I am willing to start with an assumption that I am wrong and am prepared to listen to your proposal. If it’s practical, viable and beneficial, by all means I would support it wholeheartedly.

  36. Anupam says:

    “fti or any group claiming uprightness should have the courage to face the truth rather than hide behind the veil of “prove in a court of law as per the prevelant law”,which is a dhimmi’s position due to MF factor.”

    I think FTI is very upright and has the courage to face the truth. if FTI wants to give you the freedom to practice your faith and at the same time has the courage to stop you from trampling over other people’s freedom.

    Now, if you have no interest in economic development of India, you have no intention of getting rid of socialist policies of congress and no intentions of getting rid of rampant corruption and you only goal in life is to show the murtis lying under the masjid daylight. I am afraid you will have to start your own political movement.

  37. Sid says:

    Shantanu,
    Is there a reason all of my responses goes into moderation? Or am I writing too big responses?

  38. Anupam says:

    Yes my recent comment is also waiting moderation. It must be a wrodpress glitch as previous comment went in without getting stuck in the queue.

  39. ashwani says:

    ad,

    1.”But if you think we could do that – replace all those monuments with temples etc – please tell us how you propose to put this plan into action…”

    2.”..What tangible social benefits do you expect to accrue?..”

    3.”..And most importantly, how would it better India’s future?”

    my responses.

    1.(a)for a start the powers that be officially accept the facts regrading these temples.
    (b)muslims are politely requested to vacate these premises.
    (c)if there are problems in step b. sort them out by making a law and courageously implementing it.

    2.the same tangible benefits that the people who braved mulayam’s bullets in 1990 wanted to accrue to them.

    3.the accrual of benefits as in 2. shall immensely increase peoples confidence in leading their lives without fear,and shall lead to a self confident and thus prosperous nation.

    n.b.

    ad in our previous discourse you had dismissed my questions as irrelevant without assigning any reasons.so i expect to get proper responses with reasons for a meaningfull discourse.i hope you agree.

    previously you had hinted at my very limited contacts with muslims.
    you were right.but since you have a range of contacts with muslims i wish that you may share with the forum their responses to my solution presented especially to the point 1b.,and thereby benefit us with their invaluable opinions.

  40. Sid says:

    ashwani,

    1.rudra mahalaya incident in sidhpur and the establishment’s response to it,where murtis that lay exposed were put back.
    2.the cases like ataladevi mosque,rajabhoj temple,qutab complex,adhai din ka jhonpra etc.. which are in no way maosques and should be returned to their actual puprose.these do not require any demolition.

    Yes, I agree. Then who owns those destroyed structures today? Can we pull together some funds, ask for charities and re-construct them? It is our history, our treasure. Why would anyone who does not care would try to revive our cultural treasures?

    3.the case of tejo mahalaya and the establishment’s response.
    I have not understood the case of tejo mahalaya. Both sides appear to have a point. I am not challenging here, but do you have a link that discussed all the relevant issues in detail?

    4.obfuscation of history by the establishment under the garb of political correctness.
    It has happened because we consider ourselves too weak, too in-confident, too gentlemanly, too selfish and too disjointed from our culture to demand a roll-back the policies of a secularist-socialist coalition. If we do not protest, is there any surprise that our culture/Dharma/tradition would be repeatedly stomped over?

    5.the mention of plaques inside these so called mosques proclaiming the greatness of the convertor in following the path of islam,and the continued insistence of the mulatas on their ownership of such places indicates the mindset to which the establishment has always bowed due to the MF(muslim fright) factor(coinage due to sh. surya narayan saxena).
    They would. That is the consequence cultural imperialism is designed to achieve, turning your own against yourself. It would be a battle – long and hard.

  41. Sid says:

    @Anupam (#21),
    Let me clarify the disclaimer.
    Let it be known that this is not an effort to start out a discussion. I would like to be involved in such a discussion when I would have more time.
    I looked at FTI basic policy document (http://freedomteam.in/files/FTI-Basic-Principles-1.0.doc ). Briefly stated, here are FTI’s core values:
    1. Individual freedom is sacred
    2. Equality for all is desired
    3. Minimum state interference is suggested
    4. Lower taxation is desired
    Let me know if my summary is incorrect.

    Let us take a look at item 1, and see the details.
    Look at page 2, item 2.5 Society is subordinate to individual.
    Now here come the questions.
    [A] Society is an organization and it has a purpose. It’s purpose is to allow individuals to come together and achieve something that individual alone can not achieve. To bind together individuals, society defines certain social norms. If one allows individual rights to over-ride the society, then it means he is allowed to over-ride the social norms. If one can over-ride the social norms others can too. Thus the society has to loosen it’s norms and therefore loses it’s structure. How does FTI recognize this threat and hopes to address it? Look at western societies and their nearly-defunct social institutions like Marriage. These social institutions exist because they serve a need.
    [B] Who will maintain individual rights over society? Government? Let us not forget that some individuals form government to achieve the purpose of the governance. In other words, it is a mini-society with an active purpose. If it is to protect individual rights over the rights of the society, who would ensure that the actions of the government does not infringe on the right of the individuals? In other words, can we ignore the risk of an out-of-control bureaucracy seeking to subdue right of every mini-society so that it can protect individual liberty?
    [C] How does the assertion of individual right over rights of society play well with social conditions prevalent in India? We are not one mono-lithic society following same religion or same culture always. We have so many often-conflicting lines of divisions among ourselves. Each of these divisions form a groups (mini-society if you will) with an active purpose. How does FTI propose to resolve a conflict of liberties when liberty of multiple individuals belonging to multiple societies seeking to destroy a society when liberty of some other individuals require the same society to be alive. If someone in my neighborhood plans to perform “Harinam Sankirtan” early in the morning, it is his individual liberty. However, I am a Hindu (therefore belonging to the same group that individual belongs to) and I still want to sleep in the morning peacefully. Whose individual liberties are more sacred? If my neighborhood declares that if people want to sleep, individuals can not perform “sangkirtan”, would this not be an infringement of his individual liberties? Would FTI declare such a ruling unacceptable?

    Let us move to point 2 (i.e. equality).
    A thorny question. In India’s perspective, can a sharecropper from a village in Tripura use the same sanitation facilities that some doctor in Pune can afford (not that Pune is too good in that aspect)? Who would ensure that, Government? If yes, how is this different from socialism? If no, then does FTI agree that some basic inequalities would always exist? If yes, then how far FTI would like to work to eradicate inequality in Indian society?

    Moving to point 3 (i.e. Minimum governance), I tend to agree largely. A good dose of libertine principle (along with the eradication of that socialist word from constitution) is needed here right now. Yet, I can not help but think that a good amount of state interference is needed for multiple groups. For example, when farmers sell their crop to the suppliers, it is only state interference that can ensure that they get fair prices (or government must ensure price fixing of the suppliers do not happen). I have heard a lot about farmer suicides in Andhra or Orissa. You know the tragic part? When a good crop season happens and farmers make good money, they spend almost all of it in largess (including deplorable stuff like nautanki shows). When next year, he gets ruined because of draft or such, he does not have enough money to run his family for the year. A state intervention is required to force farmers to create some sort of savings/retirement account if we want to stop the farmer suicide.

    Moving to point 4, the lower taxation, I can not agree more.

    And I am not moving to practicing the religions. This merits a separate thread. Let us limit the discussion to these points.

    Hope this clears the air.

  42. ashwani says:

    sid,

    1.in case of rudra mahalaya the murtis surfaced when some repair work desired by mulatas was in progress under the aegis of a.s.i .on seeing the murtis the mulatas immediately asked a.s.i to stop the work and restore the status quo i.e. put the murtis back inside the foundation,
    you can have the exact details from sh. s.r.goel’s book “hindu temples vol-2” available at voiceofdharma.org

    does it not give us a clue to the mindset of the current torch bearers of this peace full tradition whom somepeople are reffering to as “being non-participants in the crimes of their grandfathers”

    2.for tejo mahalaya you can go to stephen-knapp.com or make a google search for all links.

    3.i would be thankfull if you would clarify in detail rgrdng:-

    (a)”..If we do not protest….” how?

    (b)”.. Can we pull together some funds, ask for charities and re-construct them? It is our history, our treasure. Why would anyone who does not care would try to revive our cultural treasures?”

    since any workable suggestion shall be very welcome.

    4.these places are currently in possesion of mulatas,the details are available in sh. goel’s book.

  43. @Ashwani

    Sorry for this delayed response. I have been traveling and have had limited access to the internet.

    To address each of your points:

    1a) I don’t think it is any of the government’s business to get involved in religious affairs. So for any government or political party to accept or reject the claims would be preposterous. That isn’t an evidence of lack of courage though. As I said, I personally believe that many of the mosques were built on temple sites and I am not going to reject that!

    1b) I agree with your second point. If the Hindu organizations could produce sufficient evidence about the existence of temples on those sites, they could by all means go to the Muslims and negotiate the change with them. It has to be strictly between the two communities to sort out such issues in a mature, civilized manner.

    1c) As I said, it’s not the government’s business to interfere with religious affairs. And think about the consequences of what you suggest. As Anupam rightly said in his earlier posts, such a move would alienate the muslims, threaten them and unknowingly contribute to their radicalization. It’s not a desirable situation to be in and I don’t see how it would contribute to harmonizing the communal relations and working towards a larger objective of economic and social development.

    2) Please could you be specific about these benefits?

    3) As for giving people confidence to live their lives without fear, I don’t see how replacing one place of worship with another would make people more confident and fearless. Again, I think you’ve only considered one community here. If a government really does what you propose – forcefully replace mosques with temples – what do you think will happen to the confidence of the 14 million people who follow that faith? Do you think they will feel fearless or even more fearful? Is that a right message to send to a sizable chunk of your fellow countrymen?

    I know many muslims who don’t care whether a temple or a mosque stands at Ayodhya (or nothing at all for that matter) and I also know many muslims who strongly feel that removing the mosque from that site would undermine their religion in favor of the majority one. So if the Hindu organizations want a temple at that site so badly, the onus is on them to allay the fears of the latter group during negotiations of any sort.

    I personally think that both, the temple and the mosque, could co-exist there or nothing at all. The only monument that would do justice to that site now is a memorial to all those who have died in religious violence all over the country.

  44. Sid says:

    ashwani,
    1. Thanks for the info.

    2. I have seen Stephen Knapp’s points already, I am interested to see the point of view of those who disagree with them. Unless you see both sides, it is tought o make up the minds.

    3. a. We need to protest whenever required, however possible. If we do not like something, it is not just enough to vent online. We must invest our time in creating pamphlets (really does not cost a lot of money, produce a write up, print it and xerox as many copies as you want) or ads (if we have that kind of money). Recently, I had to call one of my friends on long distance, asking for money towards a charity. He told me that he was not contesting the goal of the charity but he did not believe that creating pamphlets or stuff that people do to raise awareness ever worked. I told him that I am more cynic than he ever was yet, rest assured, cynicism or frustration never produced effective solution.

    b. This question was directed to anybody who can help. Followers of Shantanu’s blog contain many types of people, some are more experienced in this areas. But then there are issues that require more attention at this moment.

    4. Anybody who does not agree to you or me does not have to be a “mulata”. The obfuscation of history is done by the established historians (and other “intellectuals”) and while some bright exceptions exist, most of these are leftist with strong cultural loyalty towards west. When Indian government would stop sponsoring JNU types with public money, the wanna-be next generation intellectuals would stop the kissing the rear ends of this government sponsored leftist intellectuals. But I do not see anything going to happen these dishonest group of intellectuals any soon.

  45. ashwani says:

    sid,

    the other side is simply pretending ignorance of the issues raised by sh.p.n.oak(turning a blind eye),so i also have not seen any rejoinder.this suits them fine since the issue does not gain entry into public fora and the lies have a field day.

    thnx for your suggestions.

    ad,

    1.the issue under discussion is not a religious issue,it is a contentious issue between two communities.as per my understanding it is one of the most important functions of the state.

    2.in ans. to 1c you say “..such a move would alienate the muslims, threaten them and unknowingly contribute to their radicalization…”
    can you elaborate on the reasons behind this assertion.how & why?

    if by taking away the loot muslims become alienated an radicalized and thus economic progress is hampered,then by rightfully reclaiming lost sanctities what elixir it shall impart to the hindu community,thereby resulting in developement with greater vigour.

    3.”I think you’ve only considered one community here. If a government really does what you propose– forcefully replace mosques with temples – what do you think will happen to the confidence of the 14 million people who follow that faith? Do you think they will feel fearless or even more fearful? Is that a right message to send to a sizable chunk of your fellow countrymen?”.
    if you just change the names and figures are’nt you also worried about one community only.in this context let me bring in your own views:-
    “There’s no denying the fact that many mosques or other Islamic monuments were built by destroying temples. From what I understand, there definitely was a temple at Ayodhya, which was destroyed in order to build a mosque. I can’t speak for everyone in FTI but I have no inhibitions in accepting that Islamic rulers, in order to suppress people of other faiths, including Hindus, went on a religious rampage. So there you go, acceptance of truth!”.
    so you see even as per you it is hindus who are rightfully claiming while muslims are wrongfully hoding on and ferociously want to retain.so who is taking the right side?
    4.you say “I know many muslims who don’t care whether a temple or a mosque stands at Ayodhya (or nothing at all for that matter) and I also know many muslims who strongly feel that removing the mosque from that site would undermine their religion in favor of the majority one.”
    you also said”If a government really does what you propose – forcefully replace mosques with temples – what do you think will happen to the confidence of the 14 million people who follow that faith? Do you think they will feel fearless or even more fearful?”
    so while for many muslims it does’nt matter,still all 14million(i think you meant crore)lose confidence!!
    so really what it implies is that miniscule no of muslims if at all are unbothered of letting go of this loot in their possesion.decide for yourself on such mentality.
    i wonder if you have gone through the rudra mahalaya case in sh.s.r.goel’s “hindu temples vol-2” and you can realize that what i am claiming about the mentality of muslims is true.

  46. Indian says:

    @Anupam

    Can you shed some light on how anti-conversion law is different from your codes you are suggesting?

    And, what is your understanding of anti-conversion law? As you might know that because it has conversion word in it, it is not all about banning conversion, right!

  47. Anupam says:

    @Ashwani, @Indian

    I am traveling but intend to get back to you as soon as I can. To be honest I haven’t done a deep study of proposed anti-conversion law, I have just read about it in media…and we can’t go by what media portrays. So I will go an check it out, if it is same as what FTI proposes, even better.

  48. Anupam says:

    @Sid
    about dislclaimer, I will get back..in a day or two…I am traveling..but this is a good discussion..Thanks

  49. Hi Ashwani

    1) “the issue under discussion is not a religious issue, it is a contentious issue between two communities…”

    irrespective of whether it is a religious issue or an issue between two communities (to me it’s still along communal lines), the state has no role to play in sorting it out except to ensure that it doesn’t cause any law & order problems.the issue must be sorted by the two communities and in case they don’t reach a consensus, as in this case, it needs to be addressed by the courts of law.

    2) to answer the rest of your points:

    the Islamic rulers, in order to assert their religious supremacy, destroyed the temples and replaced them with mosques. The present day Muslims can’t be held responsible for the acts of those who shared their religion a few centuries ago. So to generalize to say that the Muslims ” looted” something off the Hindus would be very wrong!

    Now these mosques/monuments stand as their, and indeed OUR, collective cultural heritage/history. Replacing them BY FORCE would not only mean destroying that cultural heritage, it will also mean asserting the Hindu supremacy in order to undermine the Muslims (exactly what the Islamic rulers did to Hindus centuries ago).

    Doing so would no doubt make the already alienated Muslims of India feel even more disoriented and threatened and push them towards radicalization. This would happen only if you apply force, I must say! Hence, the better idea is to involve them in discussions and negotiations.

    By the way, the British empire took away a lot from India, including many treasures. You wouldn’t demand they be reclaimed by force, would you?

    Anyway, since we are on this topic, I must add my personal opinion on this. I think that the whole temples and mosques controversy is more about chauvinism than about religious beliefs (on both sides). I think that Hinduism (and even Islam to certain extent) is far deeper than such symbolisms. One of the parties will have to show some maturity and move on instead of keeping this dead rubber burning for centuries to come.

    And yes, sorry about the wrong figure. I meant 140 millions. I think that’s more accurate.

  50. Sid says:

    Ashish (#49),
    Now these mosques/monuments stand as their, and indeed OUR, collective cultural heritage/history.
    Would you mind showing us how they form the cultural heritage? They may be muslim cultural heritage, but definitely not OUR cultural heritage (just like our cultural heritage was never accepted as Muslim heritage). At best they serve as the proof of the history of atrocities brought to a group of people who were too divided among themselves to protect themselves. That is also one of the reasons I do not want mosques to be destroyed, they must serve as a reminder of what was done to us before and why. If there is no such reminder we continue to commit the blunders our ancestors did.

    I think that Hinduism (and even Islam to certain extent) is far deeper than such symbolisms.
    Ooopsss, but Hinduism was all about that dude on a giant snake watching Maneka, no? Suddenly, the deeper symbolism in Hinduism is coming handy, I guess. Kick Hinduism and bow to symbolic Hinduism when it suits – great policies of secular clan, is not it? After all, who cares what Hinduism stands for, secular clan never needed it. Use it or abuse it whenever the return is maximum. What if few practising Hindus are offended, they are un-educated stupid biogotic un-civlized nazis after all, are they not?

  51. ashwani says:

    ad,

    your last post indicates for me a repetition of ideas from your side rgrdng the points under discussion.thus this post is just for summarising my impression of this discourse.we were mainly discussing the following ideas.
    1.desired role of political parties w.r.t. the contentious issues between different communities in the country.
    your views on this issue:-
    (a)let the courts decide the issue within the ambit of prevalent law.
    my take on your views:-
    this is the usual line taken by political parties taking into account the balance of power(nuisance creation potential/MF factor) between the communities concerned as the prevelant law is in favour of the community wielding the greater nuisance value.thus my point rgrdng the desire for a party to courageously to stand up for truth.

    2.historicity of the issues under disscussion.
    this is the point on which both agree rgrdng the facts of the issues(a big surprise if viewed in the back ground of differences but welcome any way).although your extended view of this as “collective cultural heritage”is a big no from my side.but leave it at that.
    3.role/culpability of and effects on the present generation of muslims w.r.t. the issues under consideration.
    your views:-

    (a)”The present day Muslims can’t be held responsible for the acts of those who shared their religion a few centuries ago. So to generalize to say that the Muslims ” looted” something off the Hindus would be very wrong!”
    my view:-
    to say that any body implies that the present gen perpetrated those acts is to say what?but certainly we know about the mindset of the present gen,which is not any different than the ones which pepetrated the acts under disc.
    i have pointed out rgrdng the mindset of the present day muslims with reference to the case of rudra mahalaya(and many other can be cited).also if you remember our previous disc. where i asked you rgrdng the ethnic cleansing in pakistan & kashmir,which question you refused to deal).so they are not what you want to portray them as.both these points you just did not even deal with.
    (b)”Doing so(reclaiming temples) would no doubt make the already alienated Muslims of India feel even more disoriented and threatened and push them towards radicalization. “.
    my view:-
    i asked you the basis of this and similar assertions previously.but you have not provided any.

    thus for me this dialogue stands terminated,till something new.
    bye

  52. Indian says:

    @Ashwani @Sid @Anupam

    No need to go far away in to the history! Be aware! History repeats everyday in every form!

    There is huge debate going on construction of mosque over the site of World Trade Center in U.S. Their agenda is still in action, destroy the pride of someone else culture or symbol and construct mosque and islamic monument over it. Shameless!

    And if you try to go in to their debate why they want to built mosque. They talk of peace after taking away lives and peace of many families! These are good people of Islam! Not a single thought for victims and feelings for their families.

    Also every today is history by tomorrow. We carelessly turn blind eyes to what is repeating. We go far way to decide who destroyed what and who constructed what and advices people its history. Shooting at Taj and Oberoi hotel is not history, right! Or is it history too now!

  53. @Ashwani

    Thanks for summing up the discussion.

    I am sorry that you don’t accept FTI’s position on the role of political parties/governments. I don’t agree with your argument that FTI has taken this position because of the muslim community’s nuisance value. Rest assured, FTI wouldn’t indulge in any sort of appeasement, either majority appeasement or minority appeasement.

    My personal opinion, and I hope the opinion of the FTI, is that giving such sweeping powers to the government would be very irresponsible and risky and would defy the purpose of the judicial system, however imperfect it is. So settlement of disputes, not just religious for that matter, is in the ambit of the courts of law, not in the government’s.

    The second point I must stress is that FTI would a) ensure religious freedom and b) protect ALL religions from aggressions – something no political party could claim in India! So if you are worried about growing Islamic radicalization, or if you are worried about Hindu ethnic cleansing etc., again rest assured, FTI wouldn’t tolerate even a remote chance of any such prospect. My personal view on the Kashmir situation is that the government must LISTEN to the Kashmiri concerns and that includes the concerns of the displaced Kashmiri pandits. They MUST be relocated to their rightful homes at the earliest and those who wouldn’t let that happen must be dealt with severely. Now I can’t speak for all the FTI members but I am sure most of them will broadly agree with this position.

    Now why do I think implementing your proposal would push the muslims towards radicalization? Well I think I have given sufficient reasons above but I will add a few examples to it. You may have noticed the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, which were carried out as a “revenge” of the Ayodhya demolition and the subsequent riots. The 2006 Mumbai blasts took place to avenge the Gujarat riots. The jihadi recruiters still use footage of the babri mosque demolition and Gujarat riots, among others, to enlist Muslim youths into jihad. The list is endless.

    Please bear in mind that I am not saying that we should appease the muslims lest they join jihad. That’s not the point. So if special laws for Muslims are unfair, then they must be withdrawn. They must not be allowed to claim concessions etc. for their pilgrimages. Unfair and unjust practices such as fatwas should be banned. Religious schools such as madrassas should be closed down… (I must say that the last two opinions are strictly mine and FTI may not agree with them! But again, we will have serious discussions over such policies.)

    So you’ll see that FTI is not about minority appeasement. Far from it.

    To sum up:

    1) FTI will not tolerate any aggression against any religion. At the same time, FTI will not favour one religion over another for the sake of votes.

    2) FTI will fight for accountable freedom for all religious denominations.

    3) FTI will not interfere in judicial matters because we believe that the courts, and not governments, are best placed to do that.

    I can assure you that no political party could claim any of the above. I hope this has gone some way in addressing your reservations against FTI.

  54. @Sid

    On the first point, I think you’ve summed up very well the definition of ‘cultural heritage’. We’ve inherited all these monuments as a legacy and legacy need not always be good. I come from Maharashtra and although we count Shivaji as a great Maratha warrior, we’ve also had a Peshwa king who killed his own nephew to keep his power another womaniser Peshwa who practically lost the Maratha empire to the British. Both of them are part of Maharashtra’s history and heritage. So yes, all these mosques and monuments reflect the barbaric aggressions committed by the then Islamic rulers and we must remember them in order NOT TO repeat them! But at the same time, we must also appreciate and welcome some of the great legacies that the Islamic culture has left on India – on our food, our music, our art, our language and so on. We must accept both the good and the bad because it is our history after all.

    As for your second point, I chose my words very carefully. I said Hinduism is deep, not enlightened! I am sure you’ll agree that a ‘blue-coloured, three-eyed, naked guy with a snake wrapped around his neck’ is not a creation of Muslim/Christian conspiracy to defame Hinduism!

    But let’s not digress. This thread is not about me or my religious opinions. This is about FTI and your concerns about FTI. Let’s stick with that please.

  55. Sid says:

    @Ashish,
    I did not say that it was not part of our history, it was. But it was not part of our heritage. Heritages are the artefacts of pride, they are not supposed to symbolise insult. I would not show Qutab Minar as part of India’s heritage, but I would show Ajanta (a Buddhist cave) and Illora (a Hindu temple) as India’s heritage.

    As for your second point, I chose my words very carefully. I said Hinduism is deep, not enlightened! I am sure you’ll agree that a ‘blue-coloured, three-eyed, naked guy with a snake wrapped around his neck’ is not a creation of Muslim/Christian conspiracy to defame Hinduism!
    In a suitable thread, I would like to know what part of blue-coloured, three-eyed, naked guy with a snake wrapped around his neck looks so ill-enlightened to you. What is so bad in a naked God (or Goddess for that matter) and what is so wrong with a snake? Or how is blue skin any worse than a white skin? If anything, your “carefully chosen” words not only expose your “deep” knowledge of the very religion you are trying to criticise but also shows us the western lenses with which you have viewed our traditions and concepts.

    I am not concerned with FTI, FTI would do what it thinks best, I merely answered Anupam on why I do not think FTI’s core principles are not robust enough to face the challenge we call India.

  56. @Sid (#41)

    Thanks for your questions. Well thought out and painstaking. Let me provide brief comment.

    You said: “I looked at FTI basic policy document (http://freedomteam.in/files/FTI-Basic-Principles-1.0.doc ). Briefly stated, here are FTI’s core values:
    1. Individual freedom is sacred
    2. Equality for all is desired
    3. Minimum state interference is suggested
    4. Lower taxation is desired
    Let me know if my summary is incorrect.”

    I’m afraid some of this is too wide a generalisation and therefore incorrect. There is nothing ‘sacred’ about individual freedom. Freedom is SUBJECT to accountability. There is no license to kill/harm.

    Equality is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve, and not desirable from the perspective of society. Equal opportunity (within reason) is what classical liberalism stands for. That is quite a different thing.

    Minimal state interference: this is too simplistic, as is the summary view that lower taxation is desired (that could mean zero tax, which is NOT what liberalism stands for). But both these are relatively better summaries than the first two points.

    I simply don’t have time to debate one-on-one. I’m therefore writing the book, The Discovery of Freedom (http://discovery.sabhlokcity.com/) which, if you go thorough it, will clarify all your questions, and many others. I’d appreciate your questions re: interpretations made in that book, which I’ll then be able to clarify in subsequent drafts before it is finally published.

    Regards
    Sanjeev
    (subscribe to my new blog http://sabhlokcity.com – many of your questions will get resolved there, as well)

  57. Sid says:

    Sanjeev,
    Thanks for your response. I will take a look at your new book whenever I get some time.

    I did not realise what is so painstaking about my comment. Did I over-analyze? Where are the falacies in those questions?
    I also could not figure out what is so overly generalised in my assumptions about the core values of FTI. As a former liberal, I came to understand that most of the core principles of liberalism lies in a sweeping generalisation of certain scenarios. Forgive me, but that is like Marxist world view where great Marxist intellectuals argued that every conflict in world history can be interpreted as class struggle. If you notice, my questions stand on the gaps generated by such liberal generalisations and the Godel-style paradoxes when applied in Indian situations.
    I am interested to see where these questions lead us and what it can contribute to my own understanding.

  58. Bhuvan says:

    To all the fans of ‘my identity and my religion’:

    This whole discussion on ‘religion and my identity’ is farce and merely satisfies the individual egos and their viewpoints. You discuss and highlight what you know random ‘facts’ from the ‘history’ which is itself is distorted like your muddleheaded views which sounds like one of the zillions views floating on this monster called internet. If you really want to make a difference to this nation then pick up the gauntlet and fight the black forces until your last drop of blood but do not overshadow the genuine attempts to reform this great nation with artificial and man made things like religion hollow viewpoints.

  59. @Sid

    ‘Heritage’ simply means something that you’ve inherited from your ancestors. And we’ve inherited the Islamic legacy in India, which has good sides and bad as with all other legacies. So you can’t accept them selectively.

    “What is so bad in a naked God (or Goddess for that matter) and what is so wrong with a snake?”

    Nothing except that such a creature doesn’t exist. Even the most ardent of Hindu believers accept that all these gods and goddesses are a creation of fiction! And there’s nothing “western” about it. I questioned the existence of an elephant-headed god much before I knew what “western” meant!

    In fact, the portray eastern cultures and religions as something special and exotic is very “western”; to say that they are equally deluded is not.

    But anyway, as with all our arguments, this too is going off like a ‘kati patang’. So I might as well stop here. I joined this discussion to field any questions on FTI’s policies. Will step in again when I think I will have something to add to any FTI-related answer.

  60. ashwani says:

    ad,

    you have taken up on the how part of this leads to that,but have missed out on why.even for the how part why this logic manifests in muslims only and not in the other party?

  61. ashwani says:

    ad,

    rgrdng fti and it’s policies most of what you say is your own views and not of fti.so it’s pointless.as rgrds the courage in fti it has to be seen in the present rather than a promised land in the future. that’s why i pointed to the non existence of any doc. from them detailing their views on the past that is responsible for the present.for a start fti might start with by presenting a paper detailing their views on the past and present of the kashmir problem,thereby givng some hint of their courage/truthfullness.

  62. @Ashwani

    Although technically they are my own views, most of whatever I have said is merely a reflection of FTI’s position on this subject (except for my insistence on banning fatwas and madrassas, which I understand most of the FTI members don’t agree with!). In fact, the reason I joined FTI is because FTI’s views are very much in line with my views!

    Having said that, I will leave my views for FTI to reject as an organization. If it does, then I will grant you that these are only my views and not FTI’s.

    If you are asking for FTI’s formal, official position on a specific issue of Kashmir, I am sure many of the FTI members are following this thread and they will make a note of your demand. But non-existence of a declared position on Kashmir isn’t necessarily an evidence of lack of courage or truthfulness on FTI’s part and I would request you not to see it in that light.

    @ Anupam, Sanjeev, Bhuvan – would you like to add to this please?

  63. Sid says:

    ‘Heritage’ simply means something that you’ve inherited from your ancestors. – We are talking about cultural heritage and, no, muslim history as well as muslim culture was never part of my cultural heritage. It never was and it never will be. You may go ahead and make them part of your cultural heritage, but then you are uncomfortable with your old heritage of naked Gods/Goddess anyway, so muslim heritage of breaking temples, using temples for creating steps to mosque and abusing Hindu heritage would definitely appeal to you.

    And we’ve inherited the Islamic legacy in India, which has good sides and bad as with all other legacies. So you can’t accept them selectively.
    I am wondering about the good sides. Such as?

    Nothing except that such a creature doesn’t exist. Even the most ardent of Hindu believers accept that all these gods and goddesses are a creation of fiction!
    I see. Who are these ardent believers? If they accept what they believe does not exist, then can we call them believers at all? If anything these statements expose the your capacity of choosing “words carefully”.

    And there’s nothing “western” about it. I questioned the existence of an elephant-headed god much before I knew what “western” meant!
    Which means that you have not learnt anything on the very concepts you are trying to criticize. Most of it is rich symbolism and whether you accept it or not, millions attach certain qualities with those symbols and their worshiping of those symbols is a way of paying respect to those qualities. Symbols do matter and matter a lot. Dharma does not depend on the existence of such symbols but they are part of Dharma, one can not accept one part of it and reject parts of it. You tried to criticize Dharma by assuming that such symbols are true and this is exactly the same way westerners choose to view Hinduism.

    But anyway, as with all our arguments, this too is going off like a ‘kati patang’.
    Self-congratulation is a great way of proving the strength of your argument. Such strength was repeatedly demonstrated by you in this forum.
    So I might as well stop here.
    Really, whom are you kidding?

  64. Anupam says:

    @Ashwani

    Kashmir is a delicate issue and this is not the proper thread to discuss that. FTI does not have an official policy on this yet but it doesn’t mean that Kashmir has not been discussed. You are ware of what has been discussed on this blog on other thread and what Shantanu has published and he is a memeber of FTI as well.

    My personal view – This is a type of problem where trying to solve it is going to make it worse. So we can continue talking to Pakistan or we can continue ignoring them. But what we need to do is concentrate on economic development of J&K( and Laddakh ) and work on rehabiliating Pandits. In due course LOC will become de facto border. Any attempt to declare LOC as border or trying to reach any other kind of arrangement is going to make matters worse.

    As I said this is not the right thread to discuss this so let’s keep this dicusssion separate for now.

  65. ashwani says:

    anupam,

    fti may keep all of it’s mind under wraps,for all i care but since my point has been about the lack of courage in fti to face contentious issues truthfully,i wonder how many people it can sway by vaccuous politically safe rhetoric.it is upto them.

  66. Sid says:

    @Ashwani,
    ....,i wonder how many people it can sway by vaccuous politically safe rhetoric.it is upto them.
    You have just hit the nail on it’s head.

  67. Indian says:

    @Sid @Ashwani

    Please read my comment #52.

  68. B Shantanu says:

    @Ashwani: Re. “…i wonder how many people it can sway by vaccuous politically safe rhetoric.it is upto them…”, I am tempted to respond right away but will wait until I get back from my travels later this week…

    Thanks to all for raising these important points and questions…I am sure we will learn something in the process of responding…More, hopefully soon.

  69. @Sid

    1) I am not uncomfortable with the Hindu heritage either. I celebrate the Ganesha festivals and Diwali festivals and so on with all gusto – I just don’t take the stories behind those festivals at face value! Equally, I celebrate Christmas (decorate the Christmas tree, go to Christmas parties etc.) but don’t take the virgin birth story at face value. So you’ve probably got a very wrong image of me in your mind. I am very accepting of all that I’ve inherited from India and I wouldn’t take a world in exchange of what we have. And I am committed to protecting this heritage from all aggressions from any religious denominations that seeks to undermine it.

    2) I have already elaborated on all the great Islamic legacies that have left their impression on our culture – on our food, our music, our art, our language and so on. Urdu happens to be one of my favourite languages and it is a hybrid of Hindi and Arabic.

    The rest of the points don’t merit a discussion on this forum. If anyone could guide me to an appropriate thread, I would love to engage with you on existence or otherwise of these creatures on that thread.

  70. ashwani says:

    indian,

    i’m in total resonance with your views rgrdng islam and it’s methods.here the point is rgrdng fti.

  71. Anupam says:

    @ashwani

    “fti may keep all of it’s mind under wraps,for all i care but since my point has been about the lack of courage in fti to face contentious issues truthfully,i wonder how many people it can sway by vaccuous politically safe rhetoric.it is upto them.”

    I have time and again said that what you are asking for is not courage. What you are saying is equivalent to saying that FTI lacks the courage to plunder, courage Aurngazeb and others like him had…my friend that is not courage.

    I think, not succumbing to minority appeasement and to talk against reservations shows some of the FTIs courage as well.

  72. ashwani says:

    anupam,

    taking the side of truth against looters is not aurangzeb.i have asked you umpteen times to prove your point but am yet to see your logic.for the last time i refer you to the book sh.s.r.goel’s “hindu temples vol-2″and see for yourself the mindset of current crop of muslims and then decide as to where is aurangzeb,hiding under fti’s bedsheet of political safety or truthfull side of hindus.
    now the field is yours to continue with your unsubstantiated claims if you so wish or discuss with reason.

  73. Sid says:

    @Ashish,
    Great. So you do not have the courage of taking your atheism to it’s social consequences and you must sing “secular” (let us not forget most pure version of it) music whenever required, do not you?

    And I am committed to protecting this heritage from all aggressions from any religious denominations that seeks to undermine it.
    So what have you done about that?

  74. Sid says:

    @indian (#67),
    mostly agree. But that is not the subject of this thread.

  75. ashwani says:

    sid,

    “So what have you done about that?”

    i’m floored.

  76. @Sid

    “So what have you done about that?”

    Quite a lot of things so far but to keep it relevant to this discussion, I’ve joined the FTI. We’ve discussed this at length so far but it’s worth reiterating the FTI policies once again:

    1) FTI advocates accountable freedom for all religions/ways of life/belief systems and it is committed to vigorously defend that.

    2) FTI will neither appease nor oppose any particular community or communities. This is the ONLY political movement in India that will play an unbiased role.

    3) And I have and will personally fight against any communal agendas, either within the FTI or without, that seek to threaten any religion/way of life/belief system.

    As for your first point, I will keep it short since it’s a personal question but will still answer it because I think it’s relevant in a way to FTI. My opinions on religion are strictly my personal opinions and although I think the world would be a much better place without religions, I wouldn’t enforce this opinion on others. So there’s no “taking atheism to its social consequences” for me. Having said that, I will keep talking/writing about my religious opinions and if someone agrees with me, well and good; if no one does, that’s fine too!

    I don’t see what’s “not-so-courageous” about this position! Saying what I have to say in face of very personal attacks (sometimes even very abusive) is ‘courageous’ for me!

  77. Sid says:

    Quite a lot of things so far but to keep it relevant to this discussion, I’ve joined the FTI. We’ve discussed this at length so far but it’s worth reiterating the FTI policies once again:
    OK. Understood. So what has FTI done about it?

  78. @Sid

    “OK. Understood. So what has FTI done about it?”

    These are very early days for FTI. But in the very brief existence, FTI has managed to attract many people to its ideology, conducted many outreach events, initiated many discussions… You may want to learn more about Adharshila, a project with great potential under development http://adharshila.freedomteam.in/

    I agree that we haven’t seen much action on the ground yet but you’ll have to give a bit of time to drive a major change across the second most populated country in the world!

    It will be slow but we will get there eventually.

  79. Sid says:

    These are very early days for FTI. But in the very brief existence FTI has managed to attract many people to its ideology, conducted many outreach events, initiated many discussions…
    So back to my original question: what have you done about it?

  80. @Sid

    “So back to my original question: what have you done about it?”

    Well, nothing much – if that’s what you want to hear!

    Changing India is a monumental task and FTI doesn’t have a magic wand. I think FTI has only taken a first step in the right direction – that of assembling passionate people determined to making a difference.

    These people will take the stage sooner than later and I am hopeful that I will see a very different, much better, India within my lifetime.

    I would request you to be patient, and if possible, support FTI in whichever way you can. I am sure your question would be answered within years instead of decades!

  81. Sid says:

    @Ashish,
    Your above posts clarifies your “commitment” to protecting Indian cultures and heritage. I have no more questions for you.

  82. Anupam says:

    @ashwani,
    “taking the side of truth against looters is not aurangzeb.i have asked you umpteen times to prove your point but am yet to see your logic.for the last time i refer you to the book sh.s.r.goel’s “hindu temples vol-2″and see for yourself the mindset of current crop of muslims and then decide as to where is aurangzeb,hiding under fti’s bedsheet of political safety or truthfull side of hindus.
    now the field is yours to continue with your unsubstantiated claims if you so wish or discuss with reason.”

    refer my comments #36 and #51. I am unable to see your logic. How will reclaiming mosques good for India. I think accepting and finding the truth is good enough and having the courage and accepting the true history is good enough. I fail to see how your proposal make India a developed country. If you can explain that, I will accept your position.

    Anupam

  83. ashwani says:

    anupam,

    have you gone through the link that i gave.

    #36 is yours #51 is mine.

    #36 is your point rgrdng eco.dev.

    do you think i’m not bothered about corruption dev. etc.?these factors are my priority no.2 not 1.

    pls. see my post #6 point 3.

    my basic thrust at the moment is about existential threat.thus the link that i gave is relevant to my point.it is w.r.t. that point that my arguemental logic stems from and it is there that i find all the present pol. parties including aspiring fti wanting.

    so i would apprct that you go through that link so that we can start from there.the basic reason i am directing you to that link is because it lays bare the mindset of the current muslims,whose concerns you have represented in so many ways in a condescending light.thus for us to discuss the state of affairs rgrdng the mindset of current muslims has to be clear.

  84. Anupam says:

    @ashwani

    I am sorry, I meant #71 not #51. I will go through the link.

  85. Anupam says:

    @ashwnai,

    by the way, I think your number 2 priority should be number 1 and you should let the security forces and law take care of the threat. I will go thorough the link.

  86. ashwani says:

    anupam,

    “..you should let the security forces and law take care of the threat.”

    security forces need to operate under the command of a correct mindset,unlike the current mindset(frieghtened by muslims) in command.hence the requirement for ensuring the presence of the correct mindset in the command.

  87. Indian says:

    @Ashwani

    Very true! frightened mindset!

  88. Sid says:

    @ashwani (#86)
    I would disagree with frightened mindset. I would say it is the bloody greed of the vote bank.

  89. Indian says:

    which will end up in appeasement and abusing the tolerant. Not enough guts to face the truth!

  90. ashwani says:

    sid,
    would fright + greed be ok.?

    i would stick with fright since the adjectives used for muslims are:-

    sensitivities/sensitive areas,alienated etc..
    it is only recently that people like modi have picked the gauntlet.

  91. Anupam says:

    Sid, agree with #88. It is the vote bank politics, and they are frightened of loosing votes. Slightly digressing, Can Hindus become vote bank?

  92. Sid says:

    Anupam,
    No, Hindus can not become vote bank. Reasons:
    1. We are not a minority here. Look at any other country where Hindus are a minority. Every where Hindus are a vote bank, they overwhelmingly choose one party for survival (including Sindh in Pakistan). It is the way minority feels.
    2. We are too divided in India and the ego of the individual clans would make it hard for any leader to emerge as a choice of all.
    3. The threat perception is too low in India. There are states (like Kerala, WB, Meghalaya, Assam) where threat perception from Islam (and Evangelism) is rising day by day. But most “secular”s in most states have no idea how our internal division is adding fuel to the fire of terrorism. Then there is a Pakistani Ghazi unit in the media, India and Indians have lost media war long back.
    The cloak of tolerance and what you guys identify as pseudo-secularism (I do not buy it, the seed of appeasement is hidden inside “pure” secularism) exists to provide a cover for incompetence and a lack of political will. Vote bank is not an intended consequence of democracy, yet there is no turning back. We either need to educate people about the threats or we meekly submit ourselves to a great Islamic republic.

  93. B Shantanu says:

    All: Wow! This has attracted far more responses than I ever imagined. Thanks to everyone…will try and respond…more importantly, will ask FTI members to join in the discussion.

  94. Indian says:

    @Anupam

    Very interesting episode of vote bank politics going on in Gujarat; on can Hindu becomes vote bank?, yes it can! see Gujarat! Modi has most of Hindus votes plus some muslims votes.

    But there is a glitch! Congress is desperate to rule Gujarat,by dividing Hindu votes. Making the case of most minority votes + divided Hindu votes = win for congress. How?

    By dividing Hindu votes in Gujarat by bringing up fake encounter case of muslim individual to show bad of loving leader of Hindu. Their message is; this is your leader! how disgusting!

    There are more than 1000 fake encounter case in all over India but they will pick what will benefit them election in mind.

    N.Modi too is busy now bringing up past encounter case of Abdul Latif by Congress govt in Gujarat. Locking his horns with congress? either he will break his horns or will make opponent eat the dust! Lets see what future holds for Hindu vote bank of Gujarat!

    This is my observation!

  95. Indian says:

    I wanted to mentioned; I agree with @Sid points for other parts of India. Hindu vote bank is hard to achieve! One I liked is Ego! and too many clans.

    I have tried to show Gujarat able to do it.

  96. Sid says:

    @Indian,
    I would trace the success in Gujrat to good governance rather than Hindu vote bank. If Modi started any scheme for Hindus only, that would be a scheme to consolidate Hindu vote bank. Anyone in Gujrat know that they have someone who is more interested to deliver to the voters than his family (Modi does not have one) or his clan.
    Modi is not the only politician who has depended on good governance to cut through vote banks. Nitish Kumar would be another politician who is trying to do so with probably less sincerity. When he got power, he got power because vote banks of Lalu Yadav or Paswan are broken by the years of resentment, bad decisions, internal feud and plain arrogance of the leader. He successfully retained this with good governance, but of late his administration is plagued with the complaints of nepotism. Some people are also skeptical of his policies of liberal licensing of liquor shops in rural areas to raise funds for urban development. Bihar state election would be very interesting to observe, at least for those who believe good governance can cut through vote banks and politics of appeasement, be it in western India or eastern India.

  97. Gopalkrishnan Raman says:

    For the kind attention of FTI Team

    “India of the ages is not dead nor has she spoken her last creative word; she lives and has still something to do for herself and the human peoples. And that which must seek now to awake is not an anglicised oriental people, docile pupil of the West and doomed to repeat the cycle of the occident’s success and failure, but still the ancient immemorable Shakti recovering her deepest self, lifting her head higher towards the supreme source of light and strength and turning to discover the complete meaning and a vaster form of her Dharma.”

    Sri Aurobindo

  98. Anupam says:

    @Gopalkrishnan Raman

    Thanks for the nice quote. I am unable to get your point though. Do you think that FTI somehow doesn’t agree with this.

  99. Sid says:

    Anupam,
    Now that you are back, can we start where we left i.e. comment #41?

  100. Anupam says:

    Thanks Sid. I do plan to reply to #41.

  101. Anupam says:

    @Sid
    regarding #41, Sanjeev has replied to it and I don’t have enough to add here.

    I can just reiterate that Freedom of individual is subject to accountability. And policy talks about equal opportunity which is not an easy task in itself, forget about the equality. No equality, anywhere in the world.

    So you are looking for something which gives more importance to society then individual?

  102. Sid says:

    @Anupam (#101),
    So, this means there is no-one in FTI who is going to look at the questions and answer it point-wise? I may not agree to the policies that you have written but I believed that you (i.e. FTI members) had enough understanding of your own policies to engage in a detailed discussion.

    As I stated, I did not agree to FTI’s policies. Your policies are more well thought out than those tired old policies of cult of Gandhi-das or confused musings of poster-boys of communalism or “let-us-hate-america-and-every-problem-will-be resolved” opportunists who call themselves lefty. However, I have a sympathetic view of the efforts of FTI because unlike many forums where people join to vent and not take a concrete step, you are trying to do something. The problem is that if you can not explain your policies to those who are not hostile but has obvious reasons of disagreement, how do you expect yourself to explain your objective to the unwashed millions who are not fortunate enough to have your education, your background and your sophistication in thinking?

  103. Anupam says:

    @Sid

    Valid points. I thought Sanjeev addressed most of it..but I will get back to you.

    “The problem is that if you can not explain your policies to those who are not hostile but has obvious reasons of disagreement, how do you expect yourself to explain your objective to the unwashed millions who are not fortunate enough to have your education, your background and your sophistication in thinking?”

    Totally agree.

  104. B Shantanu says:

    @Sid (#41 amd 102): Thanks a lot for raising some very thought-provoking questions…The issues/points that you have raise are something that we have not debated a lot (internally within FTI).

    So what I am sharing below are strictly my views – these may or may not be shared by other FTI members…(also I am writing this in somewhat rushed circumstances, so there may be typos but I hope no flaw in logic!)

    Re. “If one allows individual rights to over-ride the society, then it means he is allowed to over-ride the social norms. If one can over-ride the social norms others can too. Thus the society has to loosen it’s norms and therefore loses it’s structure.”

    Agreed. Hence there will possibly be a need to keep in mind societal values, norms and the basic character…Things/acts that are likely to damage this fundamental character/ethos may need to be viewed (and treated) differently from other, usual transgressions. As a simple example, can we allow an individual in India to make a work of art comprising a dead, stuffed cow and put it up in a public exhibition? I don’t think so.

    Re. “In other words, can we ignore the risk of an out-of-control bureaucracy seeking to subdue right of every mini-society so that it can protect individual liberty?”
    Very valid point..so we’ll need systems and safeguards in place that help prevent perversions in terms of one individual’s right taking precedence over the collective…As I write this, I realise I need to clarify/refine my own thinking on this (this point is referred to in Sh Ajit Doval’s article that I published in my weekend reading list earlier today)

    Re. “How does FTI propose to resolve a conflict of liberties when liberty of multiple individuals belonging to multiple societies seeking to destroy a society when liberty of some other individuals require the same society to be alive.”

    I think this will be one of the biggest challenges we face as we get deeper into the implications (and practical matters) of some of our fundamental policies.

    Your example (re. “Harinam Sankirtan”) is actually a good illustration of why individual freedom *cannot* be sacred. Enjoyment of one’s own “freedoms” cannot be at the expense of infringing on other’s freedoms (e.g. to enjoy a peaceful morning)

    As for “Equality”, FTI’s stance is very clear…The focus is on providing “equality of opportunity” – not in trying to make everyone equal.

    Re. govt intervention in case of crops and the related matter of farmer’s suicides, I will tend to lean more on the side of govt ensuring no price-fixing and ensuring tha no cartels are born. Re. farmer’s suicides, I believe education/ awareness, rather than force may work better…We do need to have a basic farm insurance policy in place – that I am in no doubt about.

    Thanks again for provoking us (at least me!) to think.

    P.S. Re. the “unwashed millions”, yes Sid…we recognise the magnitude of the challenge…which is why we need help, support, encouragement and ideas…This is going to be a long one…but giving up is really not an option.

  105. B Shantanu says:

    @ Sid: I wrote in my comment above that Things/acts that are likely to damage this fundamental character/ethos may need to be viewed differently…”

    I realise that we have now (potentially) opened another can of worms here (figuratively, of course) in the sense that who defines (and decides on) what are these fundamental values, character, ethos etc? More food for thought I guess.

    Comments welcome.

  106. Akalpita says:

    @sid 41, 102

    Let me answer your questions point by point, sid.

    First, I congratulate you for your comment @17. I read it and I thought, you have expressed very well what I would have thought to say.
    You have a very good understanding of most of the issues and it is a pleasure to discuss with you, because it clears many processes in once own mind and some times adds to the knowledge also.
    I did not take part in the discussion because I thought you and Anupam are doing very well in answering the questions.
    Then, @102 you said
    “So, this means there is no-one in FTI who is going to look at the questions and answer it point-wise? I may not agree to the policies that you have written but I believed that you (i.e. FTI members) had enough understanding of your own policies to engage in a detailed discussion.”
    Please see your own opening statement @41. I repeat it: “Let me clarify the disclaimer.
    Let it be known that this is not an effort to start out a discussion. I would like to be involved in such a discussion when I would have more time.”
    I presumed that right now, you do not have time for the discussion, and hence, we are not supposed to discuss but rather just read your points.
    But, I am wrong. You do not have time for a discussion but, you are very curious to get answers to each of your questions, point by point.
    So, let me attempt to do the same. This is a disclaimer. FTI is going to formulate the policies after it has enough members on board (minimum 500, aiming to have 1500). This clearly means that FTI is a social organization, which believes in social norms and collective thinking. It is not one member of FTI who is going to formulate the policies and then others join after agreeing to follow them.
    (1) I suppose, this answers your statement, “I may not agree to the policies that you have written but I believed that you (i.e. FTI members) had enough understanding of your own policies to engage in a detailed discussion.” Each one of us can entre in to a detailed discussion if it is going to benefit in formulating the policies and hence is in the interest of the nation. We are serious about our future plan of actions and hence and have time for these discussions.
    So, the views expressed will be my personal views and not FTI policies.
    (2) “As I stated, I did not agree to FTI’s policies. Your policies are more well thought out than those tired old policies of cult of Gandhi-das or confused musings of poster-boys of communalism or “let-us-hate-america-and-every-problem-will-be resolved” opportunists who call themselves lefty. However, I have a sympathetic view of the efforts of FTI because unlike many forums where people join to vent and not take a concrete step, you are trying to do something”.
    I take it as a complement for FTI and whole heartedly thank you for that.
    (3) “The problem is that if you can not explain your policies to those who are not hostile but has obvious reasons of disagreement, how do you expect yourself to explain your objective to the unwashed millions who are not fortunate enough to have your education, your background and your sophistication in thinking”?
    I do not think it is a lack of expression on our part that we are not explaining our policies. It is just that right now they are individual views and not the policies. However, since one day, as it always happens, from these individual views are the policies going to evolve, and who knows, you may be one amongst those who formulate these policies (as I can see you are quite capable of doing so and hence welcome to join FTI if you agree to its basics)
    Now let us come to the points you want to be answered:

    “Let me clarify the disclaimer.
    Let it be known that this is not an effort to start out a discussion. I would like to be involved in such a discussion when I would have more time”.
    I disagree. The moment you are expecting us to answer your questions point by point, you are expecting us to entre in to a discussion. And, since no discussion is possible unless there are two sides discussing the issues, hence, you are obliged to entre in to the discussion and hence must have time for it. As it is, I can see, you are sparing a lot of time for this discussion, and hence I can perceive you are quite serious about it. It is precisely for this reason that we are also keen to make things clear to you.

    “I looked at FTI basic policy document (http://freedomteam.in/files/FTI-Basic-Principles-1.0.doc ). Briefly stated, here are FTI’s core values:
    1. Individual freedom is sacred
    2. Equality for all is desired
    3. Minimum state interference is suggested
    4. Lower taxation is desired
    Let me know if my summary is incorrect.”
    The summary s is correct.
    “Let us take a look at item 1, and the details.
    Look at page 2, item 2.5 Society is subordinate to individual”.
    Now here come the questions.
    “[A] Society is an organization and it has a purpose”.
    Agreed
    “It’s purpose is to allow individuals to come together and achieve something that individual alone can not achieve”.
    Agreed
    “To bind together individuals, society defines certain social norms”.
    Since the society is constituted by individuals, the social norms are defined by collective decision of the individuals. Society has no existence by itself.
    Let me explain this more clearly. When we say “department of atomic energy has taken a decision to apply of nuclear energy for peaceful uses”. who has taken this decision? Has it been taken by the department? No, the department is not a person and hence can not take decisions. The decision is either taken by the head of the department individually or collectively in association with his colleagues.
    Similarly, when we say society defines certain norms, it means that these norms are collectively agreed upon by the individual constituents of the society.
    “If one allows individual rights to over-ride the society, then it means he is allowed to over-ride the social norms.”
    As stated before, social norms are agreed upon by the constituents of the society. Obviously, as the members of society change, these norms will have to be reinforced by the new constituents. They either agree to the old norms or form their new set of norms.
    If we agree that social norms are defined by the constituents of the society and not imposed upon them because they existed in the society formed by the earlier constituents, then the question of over-riding the social norms will not arise. How ever, there is a definite probability that some individual will neither agree upon nor follow the norms defined by the majority. This is not something new or unheard of. This happens in two cases. (1) When visionaries are born and commoners do not understand the implications of what they are saying. In such a case, after a period of time, people start realizing the truth in what the master is saying and start following him. The new set of rules or so to say, social norms are thus born. (2) Some one is not able to appreciate the value of the social norms formed by a collective decision of the constituents. Then, what you say does happen, time and again. “If one over-rides the social norms, others too follow the suit. In such a case, the society looses it’s norms and therefore loses it’s structure.”
    How does FTI recognize this threat and hopes to address it?
    I suppose, this question will not arise when FTI is ruling, because members of FTI are supposed to be visionaries. If they are not, anarchy will follow (not worse than what is already there). Then, the society has to wait to see the light of the day until new visionaries are born. I do not think this is any new phenomenon.
    “Look at western societies and their nearly-defunct social institutions like Marriage. These social institutions exist because they serve a need.”
    Perfect. I suppose, I have answered your question. If not, please feel free to get it clarified.

    “[B] Who will maintain individual rights over society? Government?”

    Social norms are normally unwritten rules, unless something causes a major disharmony in the society, in which case a law takes birth. Hence, normally the individual constituents, who form or accept the social norms, follow these. It is only when a norm is converted in to law that government agencies come in to picture to ascertain that the law is followed/implemented.
    “Let us not forget that some individuals form government to achieve the purpose of the governance. In other words, it is a mini-society with an active purpose.”
    Government is formed by the chosen representatives of the society. Hence, if it is actually so, it is representing the views of majority of the constituents of the society, at least in an ideal situation.
    “If it is to protect individual rights over the rights of the society, who would ensure that the actions of the government does not infringe on the right of the individuals? In other words, can we ignore the risk of an out-of-control bureaucracy seeking to subdue right of every mini-society so that it can protect individual liberty?”
    I think, these questions become redundant once we understand that the society is formed by its constituents and social norms are the norms formulated/accepted by these constituents, and not those imposed by the precursors of the constituent members. Once an individual has been a part of this process, the question of infringing its right does not come.
    Which also means that social norms are continuously evolving since there is a continuous induction of individuals. It is only in such a case that the society is progressive. (If we have to follow the norms of our precursors, we will not be discussing this issue on internet. There would have been other methodologies including discussing mentally without writing or communicating verbally, as our fore fathers might have done). We have witnessed the maximum evolution of these social norms in our lifetime as no other society might have experienced so far, thanks to the revolution caused by IT, the satellite communication, and other major inventions which are taking us to new heights phenomenally.

    “[C] How does the assertion of individual right over rights of society play well with social conditions prevalent in India? We are not one mono-lithic society following same religion or same culture always. We have so many often-conflicting lines of divisions among ourselves. Each of these divisions form a groups (mini-society if you will) with an active purpose.”
    Again, this is not something new to us. Normally, such different societies either by free will or because of “social obligations” do not interact/interfere in each other’s activities. Again, that is by choice of the individual constituents. If some one does not follow the norms, he/she faces the good or bad consequences.
    “ How does FTI propose to resolve a conflict of liberties when liberty of multiple individuals belonging to multiple societies seeking to destroy a society when liberty of some other individuals require the same society to be alive. If someone in my neighborhood plans to perform “Harinam Sankirtan” early in the morning, it is his individual liberty. However, I am a Hindu (therefore belonging to the same group that individual belongs to) and I still want to sleep in the morning peacefully. Whose individual liberties are more sacred? If my neighborhood declares that if people want to sleep, individuals can not perform “sangkirtan”, would this not be an infringement of his individual liberties? Would FTI declare such a ruling unacceptable?”
    I believe that my liberty ends where your liberty starts. Please read the FTI basics document carefully. It does not advocate freedom without responsibility. It is a freedom with accountability.
    “Let us move to point 2 (i.e. equality).
    A thorny question. In India’s perspective, can a sharecropper from a village in Tripura use the same sanitati, on facilities that some doctor in Pune can afford (not that Pune is too good in that aspect)? Who would ensure that, Government? If yes, how is this different from socialism? If no, then does FTI agree that some basic inequalities would always exist? If yes, then how far FTI would like to work to eradicate inequality in Indian society?”
    When I talk of equality, it is amongst equals. If I am a science graduate, can I insist to be head of a financial institution because of equality? When we talk of equality, it is giving equal opportunity to prove that you are equitable and hence should get similar opportunity. We can not equate non equals. If one is good in drawing, we do not insist that he/she should rather sing with one who is good in singing. We would rather say that an equal opportunity to excel in music should exist to all those who have a talent in music. Again, the question of “who will pay for the training” will come in to picture. We will have to formulate policies on such issues. But, that will be when the FTI team is formed. I can see many options which can be taken depending upon merits of the situation.

    “Moving to point 3 (i.e. Minimum governance), I tend to agree largely. A good dose of libertine principle (along with the eradication of that socialist word from constitution) is needed here right now. Yet, I can not help but think that a good amount of state interference is needed for multiple groups. For example, when farmers sell their crop to the suppliers, it is only state interference that can ensure that they get fair prices (or government must ensure price fixing of the suppliers do not happen). I have heard a lot about farmer suicides in Andhra or Orissa. You know the tragic part? When a good crop season happens and farmers make good money, they spend almost all of it in largess (including deplorable stuff like nautanki shows). When next year, he gets ruined because of draft or such, he does not have enough money to run his family for the year. A state intervention is required to force farmers to create some sort of savings/retirement account if we want to stop the farmer suicide.”
    Wrong. A state intervention is not going to help. If one makes a mistake, and suffers, others learn by his experience or parish. It is the state intervention which makes people disabled. State intervention is needed when some natural disasters like floods, earthquakes or tsunamis occur. Or, in educating the people to take a right path. No compulsory intervention will help in the long run.
    “Moving to point 4, the lower taxation, I can not agree more.”
    Fine
    “And I am not moving to practicing the religions. This merits a separate thread. Let us limit the discussion to these points.”
    Fine.
    So, Sid, your major concern I suppose is about the changing norms in the society and equality amongst unequal.
    I suppose I have answered your questions point by point. Now, let us discuss this further until we come to a logical end.
    With warm regards
    Akalpita

  107. Ashish says:

    @Sid (#41 & 102):
    Dear Sid,
    The debate between you and Anupam and was going on well but with comment #41 & 102, you have addressed it to FTI at large and hence this response:
    Let me just start with a few bullet points first:
    a) In case you find some of my responses as abrasive & personal, my apologies in advance and they are not intended to hurt you personally or anyone else on this thread.
    b) These are my personal views & response and not the official response from FTI as a Trust.
    c) FTI is not a political party, it is registered as “not-for-profit” trust – a platform for inviting Leaders as members, willing to contest elections, as and when the opportunity presents itself.
    d) FTI trust is guided by an agreed set of basic principles and rules. There are no firm Policies arrived at just yet and they would remain “work in progress” until FTI reaches a minimum strength of 500 Leaders, and they all agree to these policies in principle.

    Now the response, first to your below comments:
    – # 73: So what have you done about that?
    – # 77: OK. Understood. So what has FTI done about it?
    – # 79: So back to my original question: what have you done about it?
    – # 41: Let it be known that this is not an effort to start out a discussion. I would like to be involved in such a discussion when I would have more time.
    You do not have the time to engage in a discussion but you have all the time to ask repeated questions, to shoot down FTI Basic Principles, point by point, without even getting to understand the document, in word and spirit. Then you also have the time to drop reminders, pushing for a response from FTI Members, as below:
    – #99: Anupam, Now that you are back, can we start where we left i.e. comment #41?
    – #102: So, this means there is no-one in FTI who is going to look at the questions and answer it point-wise? I may not agree to the policies that you have written but I believed that you (i.e. FTI members) had enough understanding of your own policies to engage in a detailed discussion.

    Thanks to AD and Anupam, for they have been patiently responding and clarifying to all your points. Also thanks to Sanjeev, Shantanu and Akalpita, who have spent considerable amount of time responding to your Comment # 41 & 102.

    I appreciate the concerns and questions that you have raised here to seek a clarification and appreciate the time you have taken to write and share your critical views on FTI Basic Principles. Akalpita has already replied in great detail, point by point. However, my detailed and more specific response to the points under your comment # 41 would roll out in the form of individual blog-posts in due course of time on my Blog – http://ashishjauhari.blogspot.com/ – so I could use it as a reference point, easy to dig in and point to, thus avoiding repeated writings & explanations in response to similar questions time and again.

    I do not quite agree with your understanding and the summary points of Core-Values and basic principles document of FTI. I would sincerely request you to please spend some more time on FTI website, read through the rich and high quality content populated there, to get a better understanding of terms like “Individual Liberty” and “Equality of opportunity”.

    Your sweeping comment & justification on farmers committing suicide is far from the actual ground situation. Here again, I would request you to please do some more reading & research on this subject before making such comments. You may also like to check out an interesting blog-post on Nero’s Guests – http://ashishjauhari.blogspot.com/2010/06/neros-guests-age-of-inequality-review.html

    As for your below comment # 102 about – unwashed millions:

    #102: how do you expect yourself to explain your objective to the unwashed millions who are not fortunate enough to have your education, your background and your sophistication in thinking?

    Let me state with my very limited interaction with the Unwashed Millions – they are simple people, uncomplicated & uncluttered, straight-forward – it would be a lot easier explaining them the concepts of “Individual Liberty” and “Equality of Opportunity”. On the contrary, it is the other breed of Educated, Argumentative, Selfish and Politically Apathetic Indians that FTI may find it really hard to win over & connect with.

    #102: Your policies are more well thought out than those tired old policies of cult of Gandhi-das or confused musings of poster-boys of communalism or “let-us-hate-america-and-every-problem-will-be resolved” opportunists who call themselves lefty. However, I have a sympathetic view of the efforts of FTI because unlike many forums where people join to vent and not take a concrete step, you are trying to do something.
    Thanks for the complement AND if you are serious, want to make a difference, please do consider joining FTI as a Member or a Freedom Partner and contribute to the cause.

    Regards / Ashish.

  108. Sid says:

    @Shantanu,
    Thanks for the response. I would post a response ASAP.

    Akalpita, Ashish,
    I noted your responses. I would give a response as soon as time permits me. Just an FYI. My own statement:
    Let it be known that this is not an effort to start out a discussion. I would like to be involved in such a discussion when I would have more time.
    I started to write a small response to Anupam and then realized that I need to put points in details or the sentences can be mis-interpreted. So I expanded it in a series of questions and then forgot to edit out that statement. Sorry about that. But when I posted the questions, I expected the answers, so that is definitely a discussion. I hope that settles the inconsistency.
    My original plan was not to get into a discussion about FTI but somehow got sucked into it. But, I believe that the questions I asked are important and I would like to follow up with response.

  109. Sid says:

    @Akalpita (#106),
    It is not one member of FTI who is going to formulate the policies and then others join after agreeing to follow them. – If I
    am a part of any organization, I must understand what it does. So, if you are part of FTI, I can not see any issue in asking you clarification of the policies (or principles).
    Since the society is constituted by individuals ... Society has no existence by itself.
    Actually it does. Collective decisions of the individuals are sometimes different from the decisions of a single individual. Some decisions
    only make sense when they are taken by society.

    Let me explain this more clearly ... “department of atomic energy has taken a decision to apply of nuclear energy for peaceful uses”.
    who has taken this decision?
    – You are mixing up. Department is not a society, it is an administrative unit with a specific
    mandate and a specific method of action. Regardless of how the department head feels or the clerks think, the department can not be diverted from that mandate. Your example does not stand.
    Obviously, as the members of society change, these norms will have to be reinforced by the new constituents. They either agree
    to the old norms or form their new set of norms.
    Then
    ... social norms are continuously evolving since there is a continuous induction of individuals. It is only in such a case that the society is progressive. – How would you define a progressive society? A society becomes “progressive” because of it’s norms, is not it? You are missing the point. I am not contesting the evolution of norms, I am questioning the en-masse disapproval of them in the name of the “individual rights”. Stick to the point.
    How ever, ... individual will neither agree upon nor follow the norms defined by the majority ... – But such cases are not
    encouraged by the most members of the society.

    This happens in two cases. (1) When visionaries are born ... after a period of time, people start realizing the truth in what the master is saying and start following him.
    At times, it makes sense to most of the members of the society that some norms have become useless. Those whom you are calling visionaries
    are not only intellectuals but also talented in mass communication. There would be many who would disagree to the norms that makes no sense
    at a particular time, but only those who can convince the masses succeed. In a sense, their struggle and their subsequent victory
    establishes the value of the new norms they help define. It helps a society to promote visionaries, but then only people who succeed in
    their struggle with social orthodoxy are the known as visionaries to the later generation. How would society identify a visionary and give
    him his rights? Society can not do that, great leaders would earn their rights anyway. That is the character of the successful social movements.

    (2) Some one is not able to appreciate the value of the social norms formed by a collective decision of the constituents. – It
    is undeniable that not all individuals in the society have the same appreciation of the norms. But, those who do not, are not well
    appreciated by the society either.

    I suppose, this question will not arise when FTI is ruling, because members of FTI are supposed to be visionaries – So
    all are visionaries? If vision is so readily available, dear, would it be so valuable?

    If they are not, anarchy will follow (not worse than what is already there). Then, the society has to wait to see the light of the
    day until new visionaries are born. I do not think this is any new phenomenon.
    – Anarchy will follow if all norms are allowed to be
    destroyed and then no new norms takes place. That is the meaning of the anarchy. When a society lacks the intellectuals/communicators per
    excellence, it would do better to follow the existing norms so that it can save itself. Also, are you trying to say that we are in anarchy?

    Social norms are normally unwritten rules, unless something causes a major disharmony in the society, in which case a law takes
    birth. Hence, normally the individual constituents, who form or accept the social norms, follow these. It is only when a norm is converted
    in to law that government agencies come in to picture to ascertain that the law is followed/implemented.
    – No, most laws are
    somewhat codification of the accepted social norms of that age. The English common law in the late medival period, for example, contained
    rules such as death to any Christian who converted to Islam. Such rules have gone out of fashion because today it hurt the social
    sensibilities of the people who accept constitution founded on the basis of same English Common law. So, if law to rule out
    all norms is allowed (which is codification of individualism anyway), then it means that the enforcer of the law would consider
    themselves not bound by any such norms and therefore an out-of-control bureaucracy gets formed.

    Government is formed by the chosen representatives of the society. Hence, if it is actually so, it is representing the views of
    majority of the constituents of the society, at least in an ideal situation.
    – So care to tell us, what happens in a
    not-so-ideal situation? Do you have a practical example of such an ideal situation?

    I think, these questions become redundant once we understand that the society is formed by its constituents and social norms are the norms formulated/accepted by these constituents, and not those imposed by the precursors of the constituent members. Once an individual has been a part of this process, the question of infringing its right does not come. – There is a major fallacy in that claim. When individuals form a society they define the norms. When individuals join an existing society, they accept the existing norms. Existing norms can be replaced only when they no longer makes sense and it is felt by most members of the society. The point is not about replacing the norms, the point here is to show that there exists a need for the norms and no matter how fashionable it is, in the name of individual rights, we just can not allow all norms to be flouted without any reason.

    (If we have to follow the norms of our precursors, we will not be discussing this issue on internet. There would have been other methodologies including discussing mentally without writing or communicating verbally, as our fore fathers might have done). We have witnessed the maximum evolution of these social norms in our lifetime as no other society might have experienced so far, thanks to the revolution caused by IT, the satellite communication, and other major inventions which are taking us to new heights phenomenally. - Ooopss, what is the new height? Technology is still a tool, internet creates mass communication easier and more affordable. Regardless of the quality of an idea, technology & internet can magnify the impact of it. But these tools can not generate a new idea. Their impact on quality of life is undenaiable. But impact on social interaction or progress? Doubtful.

    Again, this is not something new to us. Normally, such different societies either by free will or because of “social obligations” do not interact/interfere in each other’s activities. Again, that is by choice of the individual constituents. I see. So what is the guarantee that they will not interfere with each other? Who determines a good rule book for them?
    If some one does not follow the norms, he/she faces the good or bad consequences. – Suddenly, norms are required, eh? How about individual liberty and allowing them to hurt any norm of the society they choose? Is not that my point you are disagreeing with?
    I believe that my liberty ends where your liberty starts. Please read the FTI basics document carefully. It does not advocate freedom without responsibility. It is a freedom with accountability. – Thanks for the advise, I usually read carefully. Did the document explain what does it mean by accountability? What is the “reasonable” limit of individual freedom exactly? I have quoted the exact sentence. Would you mind showing me the place in the document where it limits the individual liberty?

    When I talk of equality, it is amongst equals. – I see. What do you mean by equals. When some are equals, equality already exists, why would you want to enforce equality there?
    If I am a science graduate, can I insist to be head of a financial institution because of equality? ... We will have to formulate policies on such issues. But, that will be when the FTI team is formed. I can see many options which can be taken depending upon merits of the situation. – Equal opportunity can not be contested, but I thought FTI talked about “equal treatment” which is arguably different from equal opportunity.

    Wrong. A state intervention is not going to help. If one makes a mistake, and suffers, others learn by his experience or parish. It is the state intervention which makes people disabled. State intervention is needed when some natural disasters like floods, earthquakes or tsunamis occur. Or, in educating the people to take a right path. No compulsory intervention will help in the long run. – So who will educate them? According to you, government should not take the burden. Farmers are not up to the job, those who exploit situation does not want it changed. So, if government can not intervene, who would? Second, care to show us how state intervention makes people disabled? Third, If one makes a mistake, and suffers, others learn by his experience or parish – By that logic no social service organization should exist. If farmers were educated enough to make or understand that comment, they would not commit suicide, would they? It is quiet interesting to see how the future of India thinks about those who makes eating bread/rice possible for billion Indians.