SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Dear Readers...

Oh gawd, another week, another day... I tell you, this routine is getting to be a pain. Maybe it's because I've never had professional discipline. One started writing quite accidentally -- never had an inborn urge to do what I find myself trapped in. True, I always wanted to shoot off my pen, but on food and movies and books and travel, stuff I delight in. Indeed, my first attempts were just that. Then, one fateful day in 1994, the film industry led a morcha in protest of Sanjay Dutt's incarceration, and like any other disgruntled letter-writer, I dashed off a tirade to The Sunday Observer, which got printed. I was maha kicked, but that was that. Four months later, the usual bag of nuts demanded reservations for Muslims; I had another epiphany; and a column was born. So, your sorry plight is the fault of Rediff's editor (late of SO).

It's strange how politics can suck one in. Or maybe, one got sucked in because one's so lazy... There's so much rubbish happening, and so much more junk reporting on it, that there's no dearth of weekly topics. Unless of course you're in a funk like the one I'm in now... Because of which, I'm going to take an even lazier way out: Today's column will rebut readers' comments from last week:

It's a known fact that newspapers like Navakaal, Saamna and the other Urdu papers are mere mouthpieces for these communal forces and nothing more than that.

That's brilliant of you to deduce. But have you wondered why you can shoot off the names of Navakaal and Saamna, but should refer to only the "other" Urdu papers...? How and why did it become a "known fact"? In any case, Saamna is a party mouthpiece -- which *every* party publishes as a matter of policy. Why would it push another's ideology? Now, you call them "communal forces" -- but that happens to be your, and Justice Srikrishna's, subjective opinion. It isn't the belief of Hindutva voters in this democracy. And incidentally, do you happen to know the names of the mouthpieces of any of the Commie parties? How come? My opinion is that all pinkos are terrorists... So does that make it the gospel truth? Why are *you* so sure that only your type knows the reality?

Me being a Mumbaikar, have experienced the riots...

I, being a Mumbaikar, have experienced the riots, too...

If Muslims kill a couple of havaldars, it doesn't give havaldars the right to go on a cleansing spree or turn a blind eye towards the murders committed by Hindus...

A "couple" of havaldars...? But no matter. Point is, that they went on "a cleansing spree" or turned a blind eye to murdering Hindus, are the questions in debate -- which your kind is not willing to accept as debate. If your base is coloured, the structure will naturally be tainted.

Hindus killed Muslims in retaliation across Bombay. Muslims then reacted (finally) by setting off the blasts in March and fled to Pakistan. So what are the Hindus now waiting for?

You tell me. According to moi, we should be chasing them into Pakistan instead of litigating against those who would have chased them.

I really don't agree with such committees and investigative teams. I believe in one thing: Hit the iron when it's hot and not when it's cold, you heat it up and then bang on it.

First sensible thing said. CM Manohar Joshi said words to this exact effect when turning down most of the findings of the Commission. Why not apply them to the plight of frontline cops?

Ms Bhosle offers one -- 'the erasure of the insult by Babar.' Would she be equally supportive if a horde of Buddhist monks demolished a Hindu temple to erase the insult of the desecration of Buddhist monasteries by Hindus?

Ah! From Lord Macaulay and the entire caucus of JNU party-line historians' suputra, I see... The fundamental of any historical distortion is that if you prove that the victim is not so innocent, it will ultimately become questionable that he was a victim at all. If ever the denial of Muslim fanaticism has to be given up, a second line of defence is ready: Accusing Hinduism of a similar fanaticism...

Koenrad Elst writes: "In the Indian media, you regularly come across the contention that Hindus destroyed Nalanda Buddhist university. This is a plain lie. Under several Hindu dynasties, Nalanda flourished and was the biggest university in the world for centuries; it was destroyed by the Muslim invader Bakhtiar Khilji in 1200... In reality, Buddhism had always been a minority religion in India, confined to nobles and traders. Before its disappearance around 1200 AD, it had been partly reabsorbed by mainstream Hinduism; otherwise it co-existed peacefully with other Hindu sects, often sharing the same temple-complexes. The historical allegations of violent conflicts between mainstream Hinduism and Buddhism can be counted on one hand. It is not Brahminical onslaught but Islam that chased Buddhism from India.

"The Persian word for idol is 'but', from Buddha, because the Buddhists with their Buddha-statues were considered as the idol-worshippers par excellence. The Buddhists drew the wrath of every Muslim 'but-shikan' (idol-breaker), even where they had not offered resistance against the Muslim armies because of their doctrine of non-violence... In India, Buddhism was a much easier target than other sects and traditions, because it was completely centralised around the monasteries. Once the monasteries were destroyed and the monks killed, the Buddhist community had lost its backbone and was helpless before the pressure to convert to Islam."

The two oft-cited cases of Hindu "persecution," involving Pushyamitra Shunga and Shashank, don't withstand criticism. The story (which surfaces over 3 centuries later) about Pushyamitra's offering money for the heads of monks is rendered improbable by historical facts of his allowing and patronising monasteries and Buddhist universities in his domains. The famous historian of Buddhism, Etienne Lamotte, observes: "To judge from the documents, Pushyamitra must be acquitted through lack of proof."

Huen Tsang's account of Shashank's devastating a monastery in Bihar, killing the monks and destroying Buddhist relics is contradicted by other elements in his own report. According to the pilgrim, Shashank threw a stone with the Buddha's footprint into the river, but it was returned through a miracle; then he felled the bodhi tree but a sapling from it was replanted, which grew miraculously overnight. The fact remains, the stone and tree were present in full glory when Huen Tsang reached the site.

A third tale, about the 12th century King Harsha of Kashmir, is apparently true, but has nil to do with religious persecution: He plundered Hindu temples of ALL sects, including Buddhism, in his own kingdom, without desecrating them or their keepers. It's the one genuine case of a ruler plundering not out of religious motives, but for the gold. There's no known case of a Muslim marauder who merely stole from temples without explicitly desecrating them, much less of a Muslim ruler who plundered the sanctuaries of his own religion...

If a mother has two sons, and the elder one who is bigger in size bullies the younger one, she will always favour the younger one even if she knows that the younger one is wrong. That's because she wants to safeguard the younger one from the older son.

Since you're so into sayings, have you heard the one that goes: Spare the rod and spoil the child...? Secondly, how have Hindus bullied Muslims? Did we invade Arabia? Have we prevented today's Mosies from attending secular schools or seeking employment? Most of them prefer to remain backward through their insistence on following Quranic ways. If asking for a Uniform Civil Code -- that which every minority member follows in truly secular countries like US or France -- to be exercised is "bullying", then yes, I'll continue doing so. Nevertheless, I'm glad you admit the baby's done wrong and the mommy's indulged in favouritism.

I discovered that when people have a fanatic love for "their own", they harm their communities more than they help. Bhosle's love for her "own" (which is very selective) is a typical example of the literature I often read.

No, I'm not Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to see the world as one big family. I'm a very normal person who shies from such soulful and pious connotations of humanity that are right up your alley. Dr Martin Luther King also harmed his community, right? So has Nelson Mandela, I suppose? Do I have a "fanatic love" for "my own"? Well, one of them, certainly! Perhaps, if you weren't so in love with your own righteousness, you could've seen that politics has zero to do with personal feelings. But then, a person who can't appreciate singular passion in literature, what can he possibly see...

The Commission is pointing its fingers towards Thackeray for this. It was not any Muslim organisation that spearhead the riot, but ISI controlled it through Dawood and his hit men.

Wake up, buddy. Either you believe in the Srikrishna report or you don't. If you do, then the ISI had nothing to do with the riots: Justice Srikrishna has rejected Olga Tellis's testimony alleging it. If you don't, then Thackeray is innocent.

Tailpiece:

Unconventional wisdom ponders: Is justice anti-Hindu? I really can't say. But I do wonder, what would one call Mr J B D'Souza's seeing a "silver lining" to even the Bombay blasts which killed scores of Hindus...? Can terrorism be justified because it "served to silence the Shiv Sena"...? Oh yes, bias does lie in the eyes of the biased...

How Readers reacted to Varsha Bhosle's recent columns

Varsha Bhosle