Previous Next Index Thread
At the outset: MV Kamath, an neo-hindu fundamentalist :) is so entrenched in the fundamentalist camp, it may be a pointless exercise getting him to come down to earth from his romantic world. He is sold out to the idea of dividing the peoples up into the hindu-nonhindu denominations with all social and political interaction being conducted strictly along those lines. Therefore in his scheme of things there ought to be a "leadership" of the muslims which would negotiate on behalf of the muslims with the hindus represented by who-else but the Sanghis. His intellectual naievity (if not dishonesty) leads him to contradictory conclusions about his vision of the muslim's place in India but offers no apology. He's high on his agenda of hindutva-ism refusing to see the upheaval for the worst which will engulf India because of the inherent chaos a "movement" like hindutva nurtures what with the leadership of this movement being in the hands of unaccountable, revolutionary-minded politicians and social extremists. In article <96179.155233DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: >Title : Muslim and the BJP - Security of the Muslims lies > in the hands of Hindus and not 'secularists' >Author : M.V. Kamath >Publication : The Free Press Journal >Date : June 27, 1996 > > >The blame for setting up Muslim leadership against the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >BJP lies squarely in the camp of the Janata Dal and the >Third Front. The Third Front would do anything to prevent >a temple to Shri Ram rising on the Ram Janmabhoomi >site. Such an eventuality can only mean letting the BJP >ride to power which the Third Front is sworn to prevent. >It would rather pitch Muslims against the BJP on the plea >of safe-guarding the nation's secularism when what is at >issue is not secularism but the political future both of >the Third Front and the Congress. Muslims should see >through this dastardly game. The Ram Janmabhoomi issue >would not have arisen had the Muslim community felt grace ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >to be more accommodative towards Hindu sentiment. By now ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And how does he porpose the muslim community should have done that. Elect muslims 'leaders" to negotiate on their behalf ?? >the Muslim community should know how deep and strong are >Hindu feelings in this matter. Had it conceded the right >of the Hindus to build a temple on the Janmabhoomi site >it would have won the undying gratitude of the Hindu >community leading to greater and stronger Hindu Muslim >amity. That opportunity was lost. The Muslim leadership For your information there is no muslim leadership as your cohorts in the sangh-parivaar relish in declaring. If there was a muslim leadership of any sort (and there shouldn't be either for muslims or hindus or ..) that would just have been another issue for you to scare hindus about. Thats the double speak which irritates the hell out of me. Dishonest "intellectuals" like MV Kamath who have found it fashinable to take the moral high stand and have made it their business to lecture muslims about what they should or shouldn't do.