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

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.

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.

Shantanu,

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

Anupam

@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.

“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.

@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

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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

“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”?

@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?

@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.

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

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

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

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

‘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?

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.

@Sid @Ashwani

Please read my comment #52.

@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.

@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.

@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?

sid,

“So what have you done about that?”

i’m floored.

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?

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?

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

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.

@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.

@Ashwani

Very true! frightened mindset!

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

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

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.

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

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

@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?

@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.

@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.

@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.