Dadri lynching case
After going through news reports about the Dadri lynching episode, I was really depressed and angry ("As meat is turned into a political issue across India, a Muslim ironsmith in Dadri pays the price"). Depressed, because I could not comprehend how people could kill a fellow human being over meat politics. I was angry because I did not know what to do other than rant about it.
As a society, we really need to introspect and think about what is turning us so demonic and inhuman. Also, it is of utmost importance that without any further delay, society takes responsibility for these heinous acts. It would be great if we collectively take the blame, because accusing politicians or religious leaders of instigating grown men to commit murder will not lead us anywhere.
We are not lame ducks, we are rational human beings with cognitive capabilities and are expected to be aware of the consequences of our actions. We are as evil and bloodthirsty as those who instigate us to commit crimes.
While the motives of the instigators are clear for anyone to see, I fail to understand the people who actually commit these atrocities. When we ask whether our society is more secular than our state, we are making a fundamental mistake by separating society and state.
Society plays an important role in determining how secular state institutions are because the state is a product of the morals and principles which society values. I don't know for how long we can keep saying that Indian society is "inherently secular" and that the state is to be blamed for lapses in the secular fabric of our country. – Niyati Sharma
Skewed response
As a Pakistani, I felt sorrow over the lynching of a middle-aged man based on a rumour ("RSS leader Tarun Vijay's response to Dadri murder marks the death of the moral Indian"). His religion is irrelevant to me, but the deed was barbaric. Tarun Vijay should not bring religion into the discussion but focus on the legality and morality of the issue.
Pakistan and Israel are two countries which came into existence because of religion. But all the other countries that have existed for centuries and have numerous ethnicities and religions are expected to have a better record of tolerance, especially from political leaders. – Rukhsana Talpur
***
Ajaz Ashraf has given voice to the anguish of every reader. That a crime so morally abhorrent should be rationalised – if not condoned – shows how surreal our political landscape has become.
Above all, it displays flagrant contempt for the Constitution, which is the only document of "belief" that can be allowed any credibility in a democracy. – Kalpana Swaminathan
***
Political "pimps" and religious fanatics will ruin the country. Most of the people are puppets in their hands. They are playing with human lives. – Tasnim
Open letter
TM Krishna's open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi is stunningly powerful, articulate and resonant ("Modiji, you need to speak your mind on the future of pluralism: Carnatic singer TM Krishna"). When elected leaders fail to fulfil their obligations, it is nothing short of a colossal failure. The prime minister's refusal to speak out against the destructive forces of divisiveness in his own cabinet is tearing the very fabric of democracy and the greater dignity of Indians all over the world. – Sudanshu Palsule
***
I thank Scroll for carrying TM Krishna's open letter, which voices our true feelings. I am glad that millions of ordinary Indians are feeling the pain of the Dadri incident. They are asking the prime minister to rein the hardliners so that our beloved nation is protected. – Rajni Shaleen Chopra
***
TM Krishna's outburst seems to be in reaction to the media's one-sided story. He needs to understand that cows are sacred in this country. Our culture dictates that you respect Indian sentiments to live in the country. If you have a different opinion, please keep it to yourself. – AV Venkatraman
Hypocritical gesture?
People questioning Nayantara Sahgal's decision to return her Sahitya Akademi award and her motives are missing the point ("Is writer Nayantara Sahgal being hypocritical by returning her Sahitya Akademi award?"). The bottom line is that for a Prime Minister who otherwise needs no invitation to talk, his silence on all issues threatening the fabric of India and its Constitution can only be seen as a political need to appease the "parivaar".
Make in India or any other progress cannot be made by a marginalised society that doesn't trust each other. No sane Indian subscribes to the nonsense that is being propagated by political parties who are trying to stay in the public eye.
The reference to the Sikh riots that happened more than 30 years ago is unfair. A person's ideology and outlook changes over the years. The fact that Sahgal did not return the award then should not be an excuse to running her down on an issue that is valid today. – Subhor Khanna
***
Rajdeep Sardesai has rightly said that Nayantara Sahgal is being hypocritical. But then he starts bashing the central government for not containing its ministers and lawmakers. If someone from the so-called "right-wing" had been so hypocritical, then the "neutral" media would not have been so sympathetic to that person.
How can the silence of the Prime Minister be called a real failure but not the state government's failure to cope with the bad law and order situation? – Vandan Das
***
Forget about the outrage. Nayantara Sahgal's decision to return the Sahitya Akademi award is motivated by a crass objective, which is to get into the news, because no publicity is bad publicity. There's probably another book coming and she doesn't want people to ask, "Nayantara who?" – Satish Kalra
Going the Pakistan way?
There are striking similarities between the series of incidents in Pakistan in the 1980s and the ones that took place in India recently ("Cow protection laws are hurtling India down the path of Pakistan's blasphemy edicts"). This is unsettling, especially because Pakistan is now the poster boy for failed states.
Defiant stand
Cheers to the young woman and the professor for standing up for what is right ("As Kerala professor faces probe for supporting beef fest, similar events spread across state"). We need to have the right to eat what we desire. Enough of diktats. Let's respect the Constitution. We were a vibrant country with many hues and lived happily with respect for all. It is indeed very sad how people are threatened for speaking up. – Aruna Mody
Moderate Modi?
To Narendra Modi's credit, he has never pretended to be a liberal ("Whatever created the impression that Narendra Modi was a moderate?"). The RSS ideology is rooted in his DNA and Hindutva is his only philosophy – it can't be any other way for someone who has been a pracharak all his life.
Modi's complete silence on various fundamentalist utterances and communal incidents is not born out of cynicism, but out of puzzlement, as he cannot even begin to comprehend what the brouhaha is all about. – rmenon05 on email
Speaking for everyone
Your article pretty much echoes my sentiments ("Joseph Dias claims to be offended on behalf of Mumbai’s Christians ‒ but he doesn't speak for me"). I would like to tell Bro. Joe Dias that Catholics are more mature and educated than you think. They can form their own opinions about matters concerning their faith. If you have a problem with the content of the play, then stay away from it. But you are not important enough to dump your opinion on others. – Allwyn Christy Rodrigues
***
Every religion and community will have its fringe elements. One can and should ignore these elements, provided our enforcers of law and order can effectively deal with them.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. As a result, the administration and government mechanisms find it more expedient to impose bans rather than uphold rights. – Gopal Nair
***
Lindsay Pereira deserves to be appreciated and applauded for a bold and eloquent defence of dissent and debate by self-appointed defenders of the faith. The author's commendable stand needs to be emulated by members of other faiths. – Shanti Menon
Missing in action
I wholeheartedly agree with Rajeev Chandrasekhar ("Protecting the right to privacy: Why Aadhar needs to get Parliament sanction first"). But where was he when the issue was being discussed during the UPA government's tenure? It is a small saving grace that he has woken up from his deep slumber and has decided to speak up now. – Kishore Tejaswi
Class barriers
The urban middle class treat their domestic helps shoddily and with contempt ("'Talvar': Why the Times of India wants you to take your domestic worker to the movies"). The relationship between servants and employers suffer because of the education gap and the blatant display of wealth.
Servants bear a grudge against employers who treat them inhumanly. How the film can bridge this gap is very difficult to understand. It only widens the gap. – Vishal Jindal
Past and present
Valson Thampu should have better things to do than writing ridiculous articles that call for cultural isolation and retrogression into exactly the sort of past he believes we should not be striving so hard to glorify ("We believe our past was greater than the West's because we’ve lost to it in the present").
He should recognise that the Indianness he so wishes we would all go back to is built on a foundation of oppression much worse than slavery in the US. In some regards, we were, are and probably always will be much "greater" than the West. – Pratik Gupte
Working mothers
The suggestions offered by Ellina Samantroy are valid and must be publicly debated ("India’s women need crèches and community centres (not quotas) to join the workforce"). She says it is unfair that the burden of childcare is currently borne by women, and single-handedly in most cases.
However, I would like to point out that many educated urban women are unable to work because they have internalised this expectation. They get paid lower wages or are denied flexible work hours because they are not confident enough to ask for more.
The state and civil society organisations must invest in facilities to counsel women so that they are able to overcome psychological barriers in joining the workforce.
The opening of creches and daycare facilities can also be taken up by employers and community-based organisations. Encouragement by the state through favourable policies might also be a step in the right direction. – Mukta Naik
Realistic expectations
Angikaar Choudhury makes some valid points, but I feel his criticism misses the mark in a few places ("With its second season, the ISL needs to prove that it’s all about Indian football and nothing else"). The crux of his argument, which is that the league needs to improve Indian football rather throw "over-the-hill superstars" into the limelight is right. But his analysis to come to this conclusion is incomplete at best.
It's too early to decide if the Indian Super League has been a failure or is harming Indian football rather than helping it. The ISL was started to help Indian football and improve its standards. But the plan is not merely to achieve this by importing star international footballers of the years gone by and get Indian footballers to learn a trick or two from them. The aim is also to cultivate a certain love for the game among the Indian masses.
In a country dominated by cricket, this will indeed take time and cannot be simply achieved in two or three seasons. Therefore, it's too much to expect the ISL to revolutionise Indian football in a single season. The ISL is changing people's attitudes to football but it cannot perform miracles. – N David
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
After going through news reports about the Dadri lynching episode, I was really depressed and angry ("As meat is turned into a political issue across India, a Muslim ironsmith in Dadri pays the price"). Depressed, because I could not comprehend how people could kill a fellow human being over meat politics. I was angry because I did not know what to do other than rant about it.
As a society, we really need to introspect and think about what is turning us so demonic and inhuman. Also, it is of utmost importance that without any further delay, society takes responsibility for these heinous acts. It would be great if we collectively take the blame, because accusing politicians or religious leaders of instigating grown men to commit murder will not lead us anywhere.
We are not lame ducks, we are rational human beings with cognitive capabilities and are expected to be aware of the consequences of our actions. We are as evil and bloodthirsty as those who instigate us to commit crimes.
While the motives of the instigators are clear for anyone to see, I fail to understand the people who actually commit these atrocities. When we ask whether our society is more secular than our state, we are making a fundamental mistake by separating society and state.
Society plays an important role in determining how secular state institutions are because the state is a product of the morals and principles which society values. I don't know for how long we can keep saying that Indian society is "inherently secular" and that the state is to be blamed for lapses in the secular fabric of our country. – Niyati Sharma
Skewed response
As a Pakistani, I felt sorrow over the lynching of a middle-aged man based on a rumour ("RSS leader Tarun Vijay's response to Dadri murder marks the death of the moral Indian"). His religion is irrelevant to me, but the deed was barbaric. Tarun Vijay should not bring religion into the discussion but focus on the legality and morality of the issue.
Pakistan and Israel are two countries which came into existence because of religion. But all the other countries that have existed for centuries and have numerous ethnicities and religions are expected to have a better record of tolerance, especially from political leaders. – Rukhsana Talpur
***
Ajaz Ashraf has given voice to the anguish of every reader. That a crime so morally abhorrent should be rationalised – if not condoned – shows how surreal our political landscape has become.
Above all, it displays flagrant contempt for the Constitution, which is the only document of "belief" that can be allowed any credibility in a democracy. – Kalpana Swaminathan
***
Political "pimps" and religious fanatics will ruin the country. Most of the people are puppets in their hands. They are playing with human lives. – Tasnim
Open letter
TM Krishna's open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi is stunningly powerful, articulate and resonant ("Modiji, you need to speak your mind on the future of pluralism: Carnatic singer TM Krishna"). When elected leaders fail to fulfil their obligations, it is nothing short of a colossal failure. The prime minister's refusal to speak out against the destructive forces of divisiveness in his own cabinet is tearing the very fabric of democracy and the greater dignity of Indians all over the world. – Sudanshu Palsule
***
I thank Scroll for carrying TM Krishna's open letter, which voices our true feelings. I am glad that millions of ordinary Indians are feeling the pain of the Dadri incident. They are asking the prime minister to rein the hardliners so that our beloved nation is protected. – Rajni Shaleen Chopra
***
TM Krishna's outburst seems to be in reaction to the media's one-sided story. He needs to understand that cows are sacred in this country. Our culture dictates that you respect Indian sentiments to live in the country. If you have a different opinion, please keep it to yourself. – AV Venkatraman
Hypocritical gesture?
People questioning Nayantara Sahgal's decision to return her Sahitya Akademi award and her motives are missing the point ("Is writer Nayantara Sahgal being hypocritical by returning her Sahitya Akademi award?"). The bottom line is that for a Prime Minister who otherwise needs no invitation to talk, his silence on all issues threatening the fabric of India and its Constitution can only be seen as a political need to appease the "parivaar".
Make in India or any other progress cannot be made by a marginalised society that doesn't trust each other. No sane Indian subscribes to the nonsense that is being propagated by political parties who are trying to stay in the public eye.
The reference to the Sikh riots that happened more than 30 years ago is unfair. A person's ideology and outlook changes over the years. The fact that Sahgal did not return the award then should not be an excuse to running her down on an issue that is valid today. – Subhor Khanna
***
Rajdeep Sardesai has rightly said that Nayantara Sahgal is being hypocritical. But then he starts bashing the central government for not containing its ministers and lawmakers. If someone from the so-called "right-wing" had been so hypocritical, then the "neutral" media would not have been so sympathetic to that person.
How can the silence of the Prime Minister be called a real failure but not the state government's failure to cope with the bad law and order situation? – Vandan Das
***
Forget about the outrage. Nayantara Sahgal's decision to return the Sahitya Akademi award is motivated by a crass objective, which is to get into the news, because no publicity is bad publicity. There's probably another book coming and she doesn't want people to ask, "Nayantara who?" – Satish Kalra
Going the Pakistan way?
There are striking similarities between the series of incidents in Pakistan in the 1980s and the ones that took place in India recently ("Cow protection laws are hurtling India down the path of Pakistan's blasphemy edicts"). This is unsettling, especially because Pakistan is now the poster boy for failed states.
However, a number of factors have been unaccounted for while pinpointing these similarities. It's a gross generalisation on the writer's part to term India's current "social milieu"as vitiated. In 1980s Pakistan, his article would have amounted to blasphemy and he would have been tried for dissent. In stark contrast, the right to dissent in India well and truly exists.
The cases and incidents mentioned in the article are too heavily focused on central India, which is largely backward in terms of holistic development and urbanisation. This region cannot be considered representative of the country. Also, politicians are prone to using society's insecurities for their benefit.
Autocracy is always kept in check in the presence of dissent. And in India, dissent based on merit is not only present, but is flourishing. – Arun Venkatraman
Defiant stand
Cheers to the young woman and the professor for standing up for what is right ("As Kerala professor faces probe for supporting beef fest, similar events spread across state"). We need to have the right to eat what we desire. Enough of diktats. Let's respect the Constitution. We were a vibrant country with many hues and lived happily with respect for all. It is indeed very sad how people are threatened for speaking up. – Aruna Mody
Moderate Modi?
To Narendra Modi's credit, he has never pretended to be a liberal ("Whatever created the impression that Narendra Modi was a moderate?"). The RSS ideology is rooted in his DNA and Hindutva is his only philosophy – it can't be any other way for someone who has been a pracharak all his life.
Modi's complete silence on various fundamentalist utterances and communal incidents is not born out of cynicism, but out of puzzlement, as he cannot even begin to comprehend what the brouhaha is all about. – rmenon05 on email
Speaking for everyone
Your article pretty much echoes my sentiments ("Joseph Dias claims to be offended on behalf of Mumbai’s Christians ‒ but he doesn't speak for me"). I would like to tell Bro. Joe Dias that Catholics are more mature and educated than you think. They can form their own opinions about matters concerning their faith. If you have a problem with the content of the play, then stay away from it. But you are not important enough to dump your opinion on others. – Allwyn Christy Rodrigues
***
Every religion and community will have its fringe elements. One can and should ignore these elements, provided our enforcers of law and order can effectively deal with them.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. As a result, the administration and government mechanisms find it more expedient to impose bans rather than uphold rights. – Gopal Nair
***
Lindsay Pereira deserves to be appreciated and applauded for a bold and eloquent defence of dissent and debate by self-appointed defenders of the faith. The author's commendable stand needs to be emulated by members of other faiths. – Shanti Menon
Missing in action
I wholeheartedly agree with Rajeev Chandrasekhar ("Protecting the right to privacy: Why Aadhar needs to get Parliament sanction first"). But where was he when the issue was being discussed during the UPA government's tenure? It is a small saving grace that he has woken up from his deep slumber and has decided to speak up now. – Kishore Tejaswi
Class barriers
The urban middle class treat their domestic helps shoddily and with contempt ("'Talvar': Why the Times of India wants you to take your domestic worker to the movies"). The relationship between servants and employers suffer because of the education gap and the blatant display of wealth.
Servants bear a grudge against employers who treat them inhumanly. How the film can bridge this gap is very difficult to understand. It only widens the gap. – Vishal Jindal
Past and present
Valson Thampu should have better things to do than writing ridiculous articles that call for cultural isolation and retrogression into exactly the sort of past he believes we should not be striving so hard to glorify ("We believe our past was greater than the West's because we’ve lost to it in the present").
He should recognise that the Indianness he so wishes we would all go back to is built on a foundation of oppression much worse than slavery in the US. In some regards, we were, are and probably always will be much "greater" than the West. – Pratik Gupte
Working mothers
The suggestions offered by Ellina Samantroy are valid and must be publicly debated ("India’s women need crèches and community centres (not quotas) to join the workforce"). She says it is unfair that the burden of childcare is currently borne by women, and single-handedly in most cases.
However, I would like to point out that many educated urban women are unable to work because they have internalised this expectation. They get paid lower wages or are denied flexible work hours because they are not confident enough to ask for more.
The state and civil society organisations must invest in facilities to counsel women so that they are able to overcome psychological barriers in joining the workforce.
The opening of creches and daycare facilities can also be taken up by employers and community-based organisations. Encouragement by the state through favourable policies might also be a step in the right direction. – Mukta Naik
Realistic expectations
Angikaar Choudhury makes some valid points, but I feel his criticism misses the mark in a few places ("With its second season, the ISL needs to prove that it’s all about Indian football and nothing else"). The crux of his argument, which is that the league needs to improve Indian football rather throw "over-the-hill superstars" into the limelight is right. But his analysis to come to this conclusion is incomplete at best.
It's too early to decide if the Indian Super League has been a failure or is harming Indian football rather than helping it. The ISL was started to help Indian football and improve its standards. But the plan is not merely to achieve this by importing star international footballers of the years gone by and get Indian footballers to learn a trick or two from them. The aim is also to cultivate a certain love for the game among the Indian masses.
In a country dominated by cricket, this will indeed take time and cannot be simply achieved in two or three seasons. Therefore, it's too much to expect the ISL to revolutionise Indian football in a single season. The ISL is changing people's attitudes to football but it cannot perform miracles. – N David
