Why is Project Syndicate continually censoring my comments on Dr. Tharoor's highly tendentious article on some supposed 'Culture War' in India?
COMMENTS
- This comment has not been approved. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.
A Dispatch from India’s Culture War
In 2010, the Communist Chief Minister of Kerala said 'In 20 years India and Kerala will become a Muslim-dominated world. Youngsters are being givenn 2010, the Communist Chief Minister of Kerala said 'In 20 years India and Kerala will become a Muslim-dominated world. Youngsters are being given money and are being lured to convert to Islam - marry Muslim women and then give birth to Muslim children so that they can multiply,” said Achuthanandan last week in Delhi. He was speaking about the radical Islamic outfit Popular Front of India (PFI), activists of which are accused of chopping off the hand of a college lecturer.
'Achuthanandan, a veteran CPI-M leader, alleged the PFI aims to convert Kerala into a Muslim majority state in the next 20 years. "For achieving that goal, the outfit is pumping money to attract youth and give them weapons. They also try to convert youth from other communities and persuade them to marry Muslim girls," Achuthanandan told reporters.'
It is also a fact that Kerala Christian organizations have raised concerns about 'Love Jihad'. The Vigilance Council of the Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council (KCBC) raised an alert for the Catholic community against the practice.
Dr. Tharoor, like Rahul Gandhi, is a Member of Parliament from Kerala. He knows that the most popular Communist leader in Kerala (who did not become CM again in 2016 because of his advanced age) is called 'Fidel Castro of India' by his Party. Why? He is unafraid of being accused of bigotry or lack of political correctness. Furthermore, the CPM is meritocratic, not dynastic. Look at how well Health Minister Shailaja has performed in the recent COVID crisis. She has won international plaudits. The secret of the Communist Party's success in Kerala is to concentrate on real issues not 'culture wars'.
Project Syndicate, judging by who finances it, and who it chooses to publish, may indeed believe there is a 'culture war'. Sadly, it is on the losing side. Culture requires intelligence, not bombast. It requires savoir faire and alethia, not paranoia or stupid lies.
For four years, Project Syndicate has been publishing Shashi Tharoor's articles ignoring the fact that he is out on bail on charges of cruelty and abetment to suicide of his own wife in connection with a corrupt deal which caused him to resign from a Ministerial role.
There is a wikipedia article which spells out the type of corruption that underlay this tragic outcome. Why does Project Syndicate ignore what is common knowledge? Is it because it is not concerned with the Truth or with Virtue in Public Life? No doubt, it thinks of itself as a doughty warrior in a 'culture war'. Yet, it is its own culture of moronic mendacity which the common folk have defeated- by ignoring.
It is sad that Project Syndicate endorses misogynism amounting to gynocide. Yet, is it not also entirely predictable?
The fact is, a female advocate from Tharoor's own backyard- the late Lily Thomas- got the Supreme Court of India to rule that a male fraudulently converting to Islam could not contract an Islamic marriage on that basis. Since women in India have much less power than men, it follows that the same rule should be applied to so called 'conversion' on their part since it means a substantial dilution of their rights and entitlements.
Project Syndicate suppresses comments which show it in a bad light. But this is not why it has failed in its mission. The truth is it relies heavily on 'prophets without honor'- i.e. failed politicians or ideologues. One can only speculate on the senile type of mutual back-scratching which holds this ludicrous enterprise together.Dec 11, 2020
Dec 10, 2020Dr. Tharoor has a problem. When he entered politics in service of the Dynasty, he expected- as did most people- that the Dynasty would continue to be perceived as Brahminical- i.e. ultra Hindu chauvinist. This did not mean that members of the Dynasty could not marry non Hindus- Nehru's younger sister married a Jain, a cousin married a Hungarian Jew, his daughter married a Parsi, and the two grandsons married an Italian and a Sikh respectively. However all had to submit to Hindu forms of marriage and thus the progeny, by highly chauvinist Indian law which accords the Hindu majority higher status, were classed as Hindu Brahmins. In other words, the Nehru gene was accorded super-Brahminical status such that, as Indira Gandhi successfully argued in Court, her sons by a Zorastrians remained Hindu Brahmins. Rahul Gandhi, whose mother is Italian Christian, has now taken to asserting 'janeodhari' Brahmin status- i.e. one ritually more pure than Tharoor's own Hindu identity. Sadly, this was a case of too little too late. The party's ideologues, in attacking the BJP, crossed the line between being anti-Hindutva (ie. opposing anti-casteist ecumenism within the Hindu fold) to being actively anti-Hindu. This would not have mattered. A Party can be atheistic and still win elections. The problem is that Congress has become anti-National. But this means the Dynasty has become anti-Nehru! Often, as in the case of this article, the thing is unconscious. It is a reflex action. The fact is, under Nehru, thousands of Hindu and Sikh women's marriages to Muslims were forcibly dissolved- whether they so wished or not. It was also under Nehru that Muslims who had fled violence were not permitted to return and gain citizenship whereas non-Muslim refugees were welcomed and resettled on property formerly owned by Muslims.
Why did Mahatma Gandhi intervene to prevent Vijaylaxmi Pandit- Nehru's sister- marrying Syed Mahmud? How come a Jain or Parsi was acceptable but not a Muslim?
The answer to this question has to do with Gandhi and Nehru- but also Indira and Rajiv's Hindu chauvinist view that, in the words of Paul Hacker, Hindu 'inclusivism' would atomize any separate religious identity.
Speaking of 'love-jihad', it is interesting that 'India Today' reports- 'Tharoor has to seek the court's permission to travel abroad as he is out on bail in the murder case of his wife, Sunanda Pushkar.
'Pushkar was found dead in a suite of a luxury hotel in the city on the night of January 17, 2014. Tharoor was later charged under various sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC) including for abetment to suicide and cruelty.'
I am sure we all wish Dr. Tharoor well in this particular legal matter.
Pushkar was found dead in a suite of a luxury hotel in the city on the night of January 17, 2014. Tharoor was later charged under various sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC) including for abetment to suicide and cruelty.
'The lawmaker was granted bail on a condition that he has to seek prior permission of the court before travelling abroad.'
Many familiar with the details of the charges against Dr. Tharoor would feel that Indian Law is unjustly assuming that women have a subordinate position within marriage. Yet, this is the same assumption behind the 'love jihad' laws as well as the 'anti dowry' laws.
Dr. Tharoor, as an opposition M.P, is, of course, welcome to attack the ruling party in any matter that he likes. However, he is doing so, in this instance, in a manner which damages his own credibility and that of the party he represents. Why? It was Congress which created the 'pro-woman' legislation under which Dr. Tharoor himself is being prosecuted. Either he must distance himself from his own Party or he must explain why it is okay for him to be held accountable in a case involving his Hindu wife whereas no such accountability would arise if he belonged to the Islamic Faith.
There is nothing in this comment which is ad hominem. It may be 'partisan', but not more so than the article itself.
Dr. Tharoor has a problem. When he entered politics in service of the Dynasty, he expected- as did most people- that the Dynasty would continue to be perceived as Brahminical- i.e. ultra Hindu chauvinist. This did not mean that members of the Dynasty could not marry non Hindus- Nehru's younger sister married a Jain, a cousin married a Hungarian Jew, his daughter married a Parsi, and the two grandsons married an Italian and a Sikh respectively. However all had to submit to Hindu forms of marriage and thus the progeny, by highly chauvinist Indian law which accords the Hindu majority higher status, were classed as Hindu Brahmins. In other words, the Nehru gene was accorded super-Brahminical status such that, as Indira Gandhi successfully argued in Court, her sons by a Zorastrians remained Hindu Brahmins. Rahul Gandhi, whose mother is Italian Christian, has now taken to asserting 'janeodhari' Brahmin status- i.e. one ritually more pure than Tharoor's own Hindu identity. Sadly, this was a case of too little too late. The party's ideologues, in attacking the BJP, crossed the line between being anti-Hindutva (ie. opposing anti-casteist ecumenism within the Hindu fold) to being actively anti-Hindu. This would not have mattered. A Party can be atheistic and still win elections. The problem is that Congress has become anti-National. But this means the Dynasty has become anti-Nehru! Often, as in the case of this article, the thing is unconscious. It is a reflex action. The fact is, under Nehru, thousandsThe fact is, under Nehru, thousands of Hindu and Sikh women's marriages to Muslims were forcibly dissolved- whether they so wished or not. It was also under Nehru that Muslims who had fled violence were not permitted to return and gain citizenship whereas non-Muslim refugees were welcomed and resettled on property formerly owned by Muslims.
Why did Mahatma Gandhi intervene to prevent Vijaylaxmi Pandit- Nehru's sister- marrying Syed Mahmud? How come a Jain or Parsi was acceptable but not a Muslim?
The answer to this question has to do with Gandhi and Nehru- but also Indira and Rajiv's Hindu chauvinist view that, in the words of Paul Hacker, Hindu 'inclusivism' would atomize any separate religious identity.
Speaking of 'love-jihad', it is interesting that 'India Today' reports- 'Tharoor has to seek the court's permission to travel abroad as he is out on bail in the murder case of his wife, Sunanda Pushkar.
'Pushkar was found dead in a suite of a luxury hotel in the city on the night of January 17, 2014. Tharoor was later charged under various sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC) including for abetment to suicide and cruelty.'
I am sure we all wish Dr. Tharoor well in this particular legal matter.non-Muslim refugees were welcomed and resettled on property formerly owned by Muslims.
Why did Mahatma Gandhi intervene to prevent Vijaylaxmi Pandit- Nehru's sister- marrying Syed Mahmud? How come a Jain or Parsi was acceptable but not a Muslim?
The answer to this question has to do with Gandhi and Nehru- but also Indira and Rajiv's Hindu chauvinist view that, in the words of Paul Hacker, Hindu 'inclusivism' would atomize any separate religious identity.
Speaking of 'love-jihad', it is interesting that 'India Today' reports- 'Tharoor has to seek the court's permission to travel abroad as he is out on bail in the murder case of his wife, Sunanda Pushkar.
'Pushkar was found dead in a suite of a luxury hotel in the city on the night of January 17, 2014. Tharoor was later charged under various sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC) including for abetment to suicide and cruelty.'
No comments:
Post a Comment