He may be the “muslim Martin Luther” but author and activist Tariq Ramadan has been the object of controversy in the post 9-11 climate. In 2004, his visa was revoked by the department of homeland security because of the fear that he would use his
“position of prominence…to endorse or espouse terrorist activity.”
Despite all the suspicion, most evidence pointed to Ramadan being a scholar, not a terrorist. Furthermore, Ramadan is a Swiss citizen, and taught all over Europe, including at Oxford, with no mishaps or accidental bombings. So why the stall on the visa? Obviously, the feds didn’t enjoy Ramadan’s vocal criticism of the war against terrorism.
Recently, however, federal Judge Paul A. Crotty ordered the government to stop stalling on Ramadan’s visa for teaching at the University of Notre Dame. I went to school with Judge Crotty’s daughter and vaguely remember hearing him speak at a conference, but my respect for him doubled with this decision, but he is clearly not immune from the dreaded Legalese Virus.
Allowing the government to wait for ‘possible future discovery of statementsÂ’ would mean that the government could delay final adjudication indefinitely, evading constitutional review by its own failure to render a decision on RamadanÂ’s application. The Court will not allow this…
crikey. basically, the decision also slaps the knuckles of the DHS for assuming that there would be no judicial review of the visa denial. translate, if you will:
While the Executive may exclude an alien for almost any reason, it cannot do so solely because the Executive disagrees with the content of the alienÂ’s speech and therefore wants to prevent the alien from sharing this speech with a willing American audience.
Take that, Patriot Act! And Professor–welcome to Indiana. Enjoy the football.
More about the decision can be read at PEN American Center, an organization which works to preserve the freedom to write and be read all over the world. For the hardy, here is Judge Crotty’s full decision in its technical, DHS-bashing splendor.
EXACTLY!
Vikram, there’s this little thing they have called freedom of speech. What Tariq Ramadan, the Pope, George Bush, or yourself have to say about homosexuality, Brazil’s chance’s in the World Cup, or the price of fresh mackerel at the market is all covered by this little concept. There are very, very limited restrictions in political philosophy and law to the concept of freedom of speech.
You will now turn around and say, well, not every country has freedom of speech. Look at all those (muslim, etc.) countries “over there” that don’t guarantee freedom of speech. To which I say: SO WHAT? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
Vikram, either you believe in freedom or you don’t.
Second, let gays folks defend themselves. They don’t need your conditional, convenient “support.”
Thank you.
Cool… I suppose then you can extend that same only-someone-of-the-faith/orientation restriction logic of self defense to Muslims too… why do so many non-Muslims have to “support” them ? Aren’t they also quite capable of defending themselves ? 🙂
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy of this defense of Ramadan too.
… illegal aliens, anti-Iraq-war civilians, people on welfare etc etc. Why do citizens, non military personnel, working folks etc “support” them?
As usual, the only exception to this is the Hindu. In times of crisis, (s)he has been alone throughout history, with nobody lifting a finger to help or defend. All self-defence has come from within.
M. Nam
How we have suffered! We must be the most persecutionalised and raped race on Earth.
We must begin our self defence.
Let’s start with the Califonia State Education Board, and then start training the youth for next years spelling bee. Then nobody can fuck with Hindus.
Hail
Self DefenceMogambo!Siddhartha & Saurav:
Fascinating how uncomfortable you are discussing the homophobia of a Muslim. To defend homosexuals in this context is to use them as “ragdolls” but if one were to “use” homosexuals to bash Bush, no such protest is lodged.
I understand your cynicism since our support of gays is very convenient. But the reverse is equally true; Ramadan’s homophobia is inconvenient to you. I know how you feel, republican bigotry is inconvenient to me; but to ignore it would make me one of them.
Politics in the real world is about compromise. When we find something we agree on we should seize the moment, not call the other’s position “conditional.” This is a low blow, as I have not read anything from Vikram or Razib indicating their support for homosexuals is nothing but heartfelt and genuine, and the fact that they do not support the rest of you agenda does not make them bigots…but that’s a whole other issue.
Having said that, I agree with SiddharthaÂ’s interpretation of the first amendment as being value neutral. To be fair, we must also concede that Modi posed no terrorist or national security risk to the US either.
1) excluding ramadan was stupid and small
2) i still stand by his views as the same flavor as some of the stuff spouted by ‘moderate’ american evangelicals
3), as for this: Vikram, either you believe in freedom or you don’t. this sort of absolute & categorical assertion is problematic for me in a world where people make alliances and coalitions that are pragmatic. vikram’s robotic repetition isn’t something i’m going to defend, nor his tendency to engage in cheap debating tricks which make him unlikeable. but, when you exist in a society where compromise and contextual expression of outrage are the norm inconsistencies need to be pointed out. humans obviously don’t act from either pure self-interest or pure principle.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think that you were spoofing yourself. 🙂
badmash,
If you think facts are not on my side, you are welcome to prove me wrong by giving me a couple of instances from history (recent and/or past) where suffering Hindus were given a helping hand by non-Hindus.(Note: Sikhs don’t count. Back then, the distinction between Hindus/Sikhs was blurred)
M. Nam
I agree with Siddhartha on this one. To critique Razib’s response:
Siddhartha is taliking about the application of the 1st ammendment, not legislative politics. The existence of pragmatism does not mean we can’t consistently apply the first ammendment as value neutral. Groups like the ACLU or Amnesty International have a pretty good, though not perfect, track record on this.
This is what Siddhartha is doing. He’s asking Vikram to consider that no matter how despicable Ramadan’s views are, he should get the same protection as someone with whom Vikram agrees. Consistent application of principle is what the bill of rights is all about. Granted we’ve fallen short of this, as various interest groups like to claim rights for themselves while denying them to others; but I think American society has evolved to the point where a purist interpretation of the first amendment is possible.
manju, the issue is clouded because this isn’t strictly an american issue. once within the borders of the united states everyone has the same rights, excluding a few things like voting, etc. (at least ostensibly). but it is up to the gov. to issue visas. fundamentally the issue here is not free speech, but back-room political maneuvering. there are many cases where people are denied the right to enter this country, their justice and injustice depends on your viewpoint, but focusing on ramadan illustrates more than just the first ammendment, it brings to the fore other commitments and considerations.
by analogy, both christians & buddhists are persecuted in china, but conservatives in the bible belt focus on christians and people where i live focus on buddhists. both believe in freedom of religion on principle, but their focus is highlighting their other commitments. both groups speak in the language of absolute rights & principles, but their motivating drive is more personal.
MoorNam — comment was made in jest.
Since you ask though, there are a number of instances where competing Vaisnavite and Saivite sects appealed for help from Muslim allies. I believe our “eminent historian” Romila Thapar has discussed this in some detail – I can track down the reference for you if you like.
i will post on what i’m trying to get at some point on one of my other blogs. i don’t think i’m being totally clear, but i don’t have time to elaborate on thread right now.
badmash: >>competing Vaisnavite and Saivite sects appealed for help from Muslim allies…”eminent historian” Romila Thapar has discussed .. I can track down the reference for you if you like.
cough sputter…Yes, I would like the reference, even though I will take it with a whole lot of salt.
M. Nam
Oh God!
We have been so persecuted and nobody has helped us!
Thank God there are still muscular Hindus with strong muscles who can breathlessly post articles like this in the belly of the Maoist beast of the Sepia Mutiny News Tab to highlight our need to be strong and assertive! hehehe we use guerilla tactics on you, you traitors!
(look how many votes muscular Hindu news gets, you puny homo Hindus!)
Hail
musclesMogambo!The day is near fellow workers of the world when we shall achieve victory. Join me and my comrade Spoorlam on the glorious path of revolution.
No voice but of the proletariat shall be heard, no dissent from the weak shall be tolerated.
Squish the bourgeois who speak of imaginary past. Castrate the balls that are saffron for RED is the true color of balls that work for their daily bread.
Let our mighty roars silence the wimpy who do not see the future where everyone is equal and everyone speaks with the same voice and echoes the same message.
Hold high your Little red Books and shout with me,
Workers of the World Unite!! MAO KI BOLO JAI!!!
Inquilab Zindabad!!!
Shri Yechuri
hehehe!
Your satire is so strong! These commie pinko plotters of Hindu genocide must be peeing their pants with your deadly accurate mockery of them! Their hands must be shaking as they reach forward to click the mouse at your satirical baiting of them and their plot to destroy assertive Hindu nation and our strong and musclar buttocks and thighs!
We have them on the run for sure!
Hail
MogamboYechuri!MoorNam,
You have requested some examples. Here is one of many. Please take the time to read this link summarising Guru Tegh Bahadur’s life, especially the part regarding the Kashmiri Pandits and the Guru’s intervention on their behalf.
Really ? Here is a quote by Guru Tegh Bahadur himself regarding the rationale for his actions (also included in the link I’ve just supplied):
“Hinduism may not be my faith, and I may believe not in the supremacy of Veda or the Brahmins, nor in idol worship or caste or pilgrimages and other rituals, but I would fight for the right of all Hindus to live with honour and practice their faith according to their own rites.”
MoorNam, you are moving beyond self-parody and are now dangerously veering towards making extremely inflammatory and provocate statements on matters which you are possibly grossly misinformed about. I do not believe you are doing this out of malicious intent — although your comments on another recent thread regarding how pregnant women should be refused treatment were shocking to say the least, and it was perhaps fortunate that that thread was shut down before I had the opportunity to comment on it — but it would be better not to engage in rhetoric which could rapidly escalate matters.
It would perhaps be beneficial to step back and consider that your own views on Indian history, and certain communities therein, may not necessarily be as accurate as you may presume. It would also certainly be worthwhile to exercise caution when commenting about Sikhs and Sikhism, especially as there appear to be some obvious gaps in your knowledge in this area. There have been precedents on this discussion forum where related discussions have become very heated and antagonistic indeed, so for the sake of mutual courtesy and generally “keeping the peace” and preventing this thread from becoming too off-topic, it would be better to abstain from taking this particular route.
What is “Inquilab” ??
Revolution.
Thanks Ennis
MoorNam – Thapar references:
A chapter entitled “The Politics of Religious Communities” in her volume Cultural Pasts. Also, the chapter “Imagined Religious Communities”, which is a reworking of an earlier paper.
Jai,
This post is off-topic, but since the thread is about the freedom to write, hey, what the heck.
Thank you! For a few days I was thinking that I had lost my touch.
Malicious is a relative word. If taking anti-biotics is a malicious act to commit genocide of a virus in your body, then yes, I am doing this out of malicious intent.
…how pregnant women who cannot pay should be refused treatment… Details details….
And keep SM politically correct and boring? Come on, Jai. Don’t tell me you have not gained a different perspective on issues by reading my posts for the last year.
Not for me. Despite overwhelming attacks, opposition and ridicule on SM, I’ve maintained my composure throughout.
No. I’ll be thoroughly blunt when discussing every single topic, including Sikhism. So here it goes…
A large group of people on earth start on a journey to the Andromeda galaxy. They start out with conventional fuel to liftoff from earth, but eventually discover different methods of steering and acceleration. There is disagreement on the methods to use, so some astronauts split up from the main crew and branch out on their own spaceship with their method of acceleration. Some say nuclear fusion is the best method. Some say solar sails are better. Some say plasma energy is cheaper. Some have a combination of methods.
Now, there is another large group of people who start on a journey to M3 galaxy. They believe that only their method of accelaration is the best and that M3 is the only destination possible in space. If someone else develops other methods, they try to blast their spaceships.
From the first group of people, a small group of astronauts meets the second group and invents a combined method of acceleration and navigation. But their final destination is still Andromeda galaxy. Within that group, there are people who keep saying that they are not like anybody else, that they are unique and different. Many people from the first group believe that since their destination is the same (Andromeda), they are similiar even though the methods are different.
I hope you get my drift.
Sikhs nowadays claim that they are not Hindus because they don’t believe in Vedas, idols, mantras etc etc. But many Hindus think that since their final destination is still Brahman (same as Hindus/Jains/Buddhist), they are similiar even though their methods are different. The mutual respect between the different paths of Dharma is rooted in this concept.
So if Guru Tegh Bahadur saves Pandits, it’s as though a Hindu/Jain king saved them. Sikhs are insiders, not outsiders. They’re our folks and remain so, until their destination changes ( in which case it will not be Sikhism anymore).
Ok ok, so I gave SpoorLam more ammunition. But hey, it had to be said.
M. Nam
Razib wrote:
both groups speak in the language of absolute rights & principles, but their motivating drive is more personal.
See Amy Chua. Niall Ferguson. Pundit X. Or any extended comment thread on this blog. Universalist talk is frequently used as a cloak for personal, biographical obsessions.
Moornam:
I agree with Jai Singh. Sikhs helping Hindus IS an example of NON-HINDUS helping Hindus. And there are many instances of that help in the historical record. Unfortunately not taught in Indian history books. Your dismissive attitude towards Sikhs’ contributions (whatever they might have done doesn’t even count as per your rationale) is very typical of RSS types in India today. In fact a well-know BJP leader, Sushma Swaraj recently (and stupidly) caused a controversy by saying that Chandu (a Hindu) had nothing to do with Guru Arjan Dev’s martyrdom at the hands of Jehangir, when it is clear that he did play a role (although of course it was mainly Jehangir’s fault; Jai, see Sikhnet for details). Sushma wanted to pin the blame ENTIRELY on the mughal and none on the Hindu. I don’t like Spoorlam’s comments at all, in fact I don’t even read them anymore, but comments like yours can also get out of hand.
Manju, it was inconvenient for me to look at the inept way–and sleazy in its ineptness–that the Kerry campaign used Mary Cheney’s lgbt status in the presidential debates as well (despite that she’s a tool), but that doesn’t change the reality of it or that Kerry’s positions on LGBT politics were more progressive than Bush’s.
It’s a “low blow” to point out how absurd and unfair it is to criticize Vikram for as a way of trying to bully progressives into supporting his position against Ramadan while obscuring his real position? I can understand that Ramadan made a statement that was homophobic and someone should engage that conversation while at the same time not supporting U.S. state interests in promoting ideological exclusion or the rampant hostility towards Muslims. If the person bringing this claim against Ramadan were a Muslim lgbt activist like someone with Al Fatiha, I would be much more inclined to take it seriously.
In any case, what I see is in Vikram and your comments is the new multiculturalism of the sensitive right wing–where select differences are applauded in order to promote other agendas and divide the people being oppressed into those who receive state sanction and those who don’t in select instances 😉 These rightwingers are people who police the use of the word “faggot” or use a comment by a Muslim scholar to justify state repression of free speech and immigrants’ rights, while at the same time supporting economic and in some cases social policies that fundamentally undermine the rights of all kinds of people–including a lot of lgbt people who happen to be poor, or women, or immigrants, or outside the United States, or any number of other things. They attempt to draw a line between the awful “racism” of someone who commits hate crimes but think the death penalty and drug war tactics are worth considering if not wholly endorsable. It’s the worst kind of sophistry, because it hurts a lot of people.
But thanks for trying to educate me about politics in the real world.
Also, I missed it, but who critiqued Razib? It wasn’t me.
Ikram & Razib:
The political opportunism of universalism is duly noted. But let us not deny the ability to transcend the personal, as your ability to see the self interest of various groups is itself a form of transcendence.
If you undermine the possibility of applying principles in an objective manner, are you not at loss to explain how you alone were able to achieve the objectivity necessary to make this observation in the first place?
Ok, I can give a instance of help from non-Hindus.. 🙂
Dalits, most of them (except a few led by Ambedkar) accepted that they are Hindus during the days of partition (or through the period 1900-1950) to bump up the number of Hindus, even though they were treated like dirt by others.. When Brits included “Dalits” as Hindus, a few “casteist” morons were against including them, I think in 1908(??).
Hope that helps..
new multiculturalism of the sensitive right wing–where select differences are applauded
hm. i don’t see protection of homosexual right to be homosexual, or atheist right to be atheist, as ‘multiculturalism.’ it seems a natural extension of the liberal project of being left alone.
as for this: because it hurts a lot of people. this is an important point, i think one problem that crops up on most/many forums is that people speak in both “natural rights” and “utilitarian” modes, but it isn’t always clear to everyone which is on display (there isn’t color-coding to make things clear).
as for ikram’s reference to amy chua, etc., i think it is important to note that acknowledge that everything isn’t self-interest. it just lurks there. it could be argued that jews favored civil rights for blacks out of self-interest as civil rights for all helps jews, but i suspect that many jews also believed in universal civil rights sincerely…ultimatley, we’d have to delve into cognitive psych. to decompose and parse the various issues.
sorry for the multiple comments, but this read wrong:
It’s a “low blow” to point out how absurd and unfair it is to criticize Vikram for as a way of trying to bully progressives into supporting his position against Ramadan while obscuring his real position?
should say
It’s a “low blow” to point out how absurd and unfair it is for Vikram to try to bully progressives into supporting his position against Ramadan while obscuring his real position?
Amitabh,
I must be a poor writer for you to have this impression of me. Why in the wide world would I dismiss Sikh contributions? And why would I even think of not counting them?
Please re-read: I don’t count Sanatanis saving other Sanatanis as outside help. That there are some Sanatanis who consider themselves outsiders due to various reasons is not my problem.
M. Nam
It’s not always–it’s this particular usage of it. I chose “applauded” for a reason–by honing on particular groups to support in particular circumstances, multicultural conservatives are able to support rightwing economic policies, militarism, etc., racial profiling, etc., while at the same time presenting themselves as tolerant–it’s basically a marketing strategy. So when you need to garner support for your invasion of Iraq, you whip out the women’s rights and human rights arguments. When you need to garner support for your business-friendly immigration proposals, you whip out the “hard working immigrants” stuff. When you want to oppose it, you whip out the “immigrants will destroy our social values” stuff–which is done more frequently in Europe, but it happens in the U.S. too.
It’s all very convenient.
s,
yes, you are right. though you can point to similar behavior all across the political spectrum.
don’t want to get embroiled in any controversy, but according to an article on the swaraj statements, i read it as she said chandu was not the main culprit but a pawn of jehangir, not that he had nothing to do with it. and same article said some sikh groups and leaders criticized her and other sikh groups and leaders agreed with her.
P. Selvan,
I think the problem is with the definition of Hindu. It’s an artifical term that Colonialists foisted on us and we adopted it without thinking about the long-term implications. Due to events of the last few centuries, the word has become synonymous with weak, sniveling, cowardly attitude. Who in their right mind would like to be associated with an identity with such bad baggage?
M. Nam
Nice… a weak and vague “someone should engage that conversation”. Once again, this strange free pass given to Ramadan for his exclusionist view towards a group, while criticizing “ideological exclusion” and “hostility” by others. Pot & Kettle ? And yet again the idea that only a Muslim lgbt has the authority and sanction to criticize Ramadan. So all jurors in a court should have had identical criminal records to the defendant they convict ? Or that you should be a conservative Christian evangelical to criticize Pat Robertson ? Or a Republican from Texas to critique George Bush ?
Who in their right mind would like to be associated with an identity with such bad baggage?
you obviously 🙂
Aaah! You got me!
M.Nam
One aspect of an ideologue (and we are all susceptible to this) is that he questions his opponents motives rather than addressing their argument. Marxism, for example, had an internal circular reasoning that insulated itself from criticism. In their world view, liberals advocated free markets not for the reasons they stated, but rather because it was a political arraignment that happened to be convenient to their particular class, the rising bourgeoisie. In other words, liberalism was a false system of thought used by the ruling class in order to justify their rule in the eyes of the ruled.
But what if we are being genuine? Are free markets or militarism really incompatible with gay rights? Or can 2 reasonable people who both support gay rights have different opinions on economic matters?
I used to work for Amnesty International. One of our key concerns was to be “non political” in our defense of human rights, to try to apply these principle equally to all regimes, no matter what the ideology of the regime in question may be.
Saurav, I understand you believe my politics “fundamentally undermine the rights of all kinds of people–including a lot of lgbt people who happen to be poor, or women, or immigrants, or outside the United States, or any number of other things.” I believe yours do the same. This is simply a matter of genuine debate. No one is trying to hide anything.
It’s funny that you call me an “ideologue” for questioning whether someone was arguing in bad faith by invoking homophobia as a defense of state exclusion on ideological grounds of a Muslim scholar, while you do the same thing to me by calling me an ideologue. Exactly what ideology am I espousing?
My comments were not exclusively directed at you. They were directed at a broad trend in thought among a particular class of people. If you happen to feel that this applies to you, then bully for you. If not, then don’t take them personally. My point was more one of social analysis–that there is a trend these days to embrace multiculturalism and difference at a superficial level while at the same time not attempting to remediate the underlying power structures. There are any number of books that offer the analysis that I’m talking about: Twilight of Equality, Taxi, etc., if you want a more in depth take on what I’m referring to.
My point was that this indirectly harms people who ARE LGBT (LGBT and poor, LGBT and women, LGBT and Black, LGBT and immigrants, etc.), not LGBT rights. In fact the whole point is that LGBT “rights” and women’s “rights” and Black people’s “rights” are selectively used and promoted in order to undermine other peoples. So Black people become very important to this type of conservative in talking about why we need to restrict immigration. Women become very important in talking about why we need to invade Afghanistan or Iraq. Immigrants become very important in attacking workers’ rights. Obviously, there are conservative LGBT groups that participate in this–usually, you can find a segment of a minority group that’s willing to align themselves with the powerful in order to gain something for themselves and their identity group at the cost of others, including many members of their identity group. Again, they’re not identity-group traitors–they just have shallow and destructive politics that ultimately harm a lot of people.
In essence, you missed the basic point I was making, which I’ve now elucidated above in greater detail. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have asked this:
Ramadan was denied Visa because of his views of certain sensitive issues. Isnt it like Narendra Modi denied visa due to his action (or inaction) or Musharraf who continues to kill innocent Baloch people using US weapons … Oh wait Musharraf was given a Visa .. yeah because “he is our SOB” (To paraphrase the “greatest American president” Reagan).
All the discussion about merit and de-merit of VISA denial so far has been based upon assumtion that US is a moral power, that US policy is based on somekind of morally superior position (as opposed to those savages). This assumption is the main problem. This assumption is what caused some liberals to support the illegal war in Iraq.
“Rajniti me bhavana ko koi sthan nahin hai” – The charactor that plays political leader in movie Rang De Basanti (In politics emotions have no place) State department understand this 🙂
I’m not doing the same to you. I don’t think you’re arguing from bad faith. And I said, “we are all susceptible to this”–ie, raising doubts about the motives of our opponents rather than addressing the argument itself. The ideologue does not like to deal with facts inconvenient to his philosophy. For you, it could mean the existence of Muslim bigotry as a root cause of terrorism. For me, it could mean pointing out that some critics of Israel do not care about democracy in order to avoid the issue of IsraelÂ’s undemocratic system. Get it? In each case we were able to find an excuse to be selectively outraged.
Well you addressed the comment to me and said:
The phenomena you describe cuts across the political spectrum. Only an ideologue would think it happens just on one side, as the ideologue recognizes only convenient facts. But at least on this thread, I saw no inconsistencies or “hidden agendas” in the various positions of myself, vikram, or razib; which is why I called siddhartha’s positioning of vikram’s support for gay rights as “conditional,” a low blow.
But if you believe our failure to embrace progressive policies itself constitutes homophobia…well I can see how thatÂ’s a very convenient premise for you.
MoorNam,
Technically correct, but as a courtesy to other SM commenters and especially to the owners of this blog (Abhi, Ennis, Anna etc), it is a good idea not to digress too far from whatever the thread is meant to focus on. Taking undue advantage of the people who own this blog is disrespectful and inconsiderate. Which is why I am going to attempt to keep this post as brief as possible, probably unsuccessfully.
There is a difference between making controversial statements because one really has a genuine point to make, and doing so purely out of mischief or in order to get “attention” by using this blog (and the subsequent reactions from other people) as a “timepass”. Of course, it’s not my job to moderate SM – there are other people here who have that responsibility – but I’m sure you’re aware of the definition of the term “internet troll”. Your motivations for participating here are your own business, of course.
Interesting. So who are the “viruses” here on SM, from your point of view: Hindus who do not agree with your interpretation of Hinduism ? Sikhs ? Non-Hindus in general ?
Irrelevant. It’s a sociopathic and possibly psychopathic attitude. Lack of empathy is incompatible with genuine spirituality, MoorNam. So is arrogance. Both of these apply not only to the pregnant women scenario but also to one’s conduct and attitude towards other people in general, including others on this discussion forum. Perhaps something you should consider.
I have no interest in being politically-correct, only “correct”. In terms of my perspective on other issues, in the vast majority of cases, no I have not gained a different viewpoint via reading your posts. It has, however, been extremely enlightening with regards to understanding your mindset and character.
I fail to understand how you can correlate (indeed, justify/rationalise/excuse) being unnecessarily “blunt” with any simultaneous claims of true spiritual awareness or religious knowledge on your part. A theoretical, academic understanding of such matters is all well and good, but it is pointless if one’s own conduct towards other people is insensitive and arrogant. I’m assuming you know what the word “paakhandi” means.
I’m not going to comment on your views on Sikhism as it is very obvious indeed what your analogy describes – not to mention the irony of describing Guru Tegh Bahadur (or any other Sikh Guru) as being the same as a “Hindu king” when the Gurus themselves explicitly defined themselves as not being Hindu, including Guru Tegh Bahadur as per the quote in my previous post. However, this is not the thread to debate such issues – in any case, there have already been several precedents for that argument on SM – and I would not waste my time, for example, arguing the point with someone from the RSS (or a very orthodox Muslim) and therefore do not see why it would be worthwhile similarly attempting to explain matters to you. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
Well, yes and no. The rest of us can do our best to correct your misinformed ideas, but only up to a certain point, and only if any intervention on our part is going to have a constructive impact on you. Beyond that, the fact that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance on the matter and are distorting the facts to suit your own agenda and worldview means that it is “your” problem, but facing the internal and external consequences of this distortion is your own responsibility, for better or for worse.
You are indeed beginning to test my patience, but you should not view any of the above as being driven by anger or maliciousness in general on my part. I did not have any hesitation in defending you against what I perceived as Siddhartha’s unnecessary bluntness and aggression towards you on another recent thread, as you may recall.
These things, however, do need to be said, and I think it is about time someone here said them to you. Unless you actually enjoy eliciting negative reactions from other people just for the sake of it, and indeed you enjoy sabotaging your own credibility and efforts to convincingly get your point across, along with triggering constant ridicule on a global scale by SpoorLam and others on this discussion forum. Which, again, is your own responsibility – we reap what we sow – but, again, this is possibly something you should think about, for your own sake and your own self-respect at least.
Jai,
I believe you asked Siddhartha to calm down and go take a walk to get some fresh air…
M. Nam
Amitabh,
Thanks for mentioning the parallel debate on Sikhnet — I’ve just flicked through it, very interesting (albeit sad) reading. Also good to see Karan Deep Sagri back there — he’s a great guy, I chatted to him on Sikhnet many times when I used to participate there, as you may recall.
For the record, I think that the fact that MoorNam does not understand (or recognise) the concept that Sikhism regards the entire human race as “insiders” (regardless of the person’s religious affiliation) may be the basic problem, or one of the root causes anyway. There is no “us and them” viewpoint in Sikhism, as you and I both know. Anyway, off-topic, but I’m sure you know what I mean.
Thanks also for seconding my original post, by the way.
MoorNam,
Interesting that that was the only part of my post you responded to.
Anyway, my altercation with Siddhartha is irrelevant to this debate. I defended you there because I thought you happened to be right and, in my view, he was wrong, in terms of his tone towards you anyway. But I would have done the same if the roles had been reversed and you had spoken to him in that manner.
Please do not attempt to divert attention from the core focus of our discussion, especially by dragging unrelated third-parties into it. I have no ill-will towards Siddhartha — in fact, I have a great deal of respect for him and usually agree with most of what he says, he’s a decent guy — so let’s stick to the topic.
Classic Indian debating tactic by the way. Unfortunately (for you, perhaps), not one that will work when directed at me 😉
Jai,
I have a great deal of respect for most posters on SM (including you and Sid), otherwise I would not be here.
M. Nam
Moornam: Shouldnt we let Sikhs decide whether they are part Hindus or not instead of deciding it for the Sikhs?
Of course!! I was not trying to say that they are Hindus. I was trying to say that they are a branch of Sanatana Dharma, and the end goals are the same (Brahman via re-birth) but the methods are different. Is any of this wrong? Haven’t the writings of Sikh gurus attested to this?
By the same token, shouldn’t the various branches of Sanatana Dharma get to decide whether they are Hindus or not? Shouldn’t Kayasths, Brahmins, Kammas etc be allowed to declare themselves as non-Hindu and get to start their own temples, schools, hospitals without any interference from the Government? When the Ramakrishna order wanted to declare itself as non-Hindu, the courts struck it down. When Rajasthani Brahmins tried to declare themselves non-Hindu, they were struck down as well. Shouldn’t they be given the same rights to identify themselves as the Sikhs have?
M. Nam
In addition to Moornam’s point above, I just want to add that the question is larger than whether Sikhs get to decide whether they’re hindus or not. Most Sikhs are proud and protective of their Sikh identity and do not wish to be part of Hinduism. That’s fine. But hindus tend not to draw much distinction between any of the sanatani traditions. This is a defining characteristic of hinduism and one equally deserving of recognition.
Moreover, reverence of gurus is intrinsic to hindu culture. Hindus include the sikh gurus in this. They also include the Buddha. They regard the Jain temples as their own. If any of these particular traditions wants a separate identity, that’s up to them. But nobody has the right to tell hindus who they can or cannot include in their realm of “religion” and what their attitude should be.