Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 01 Dec 2015 00:01

Well I have an OCI "passport". OCI stands for Overseas Citizen of India. The word Overseas is added before Citizen of India, which makes it a particular category of citizens. The only rights we don't have as mentioned earlier are the rights to vote, to buy agricultural land and to be appointed to public office. It is in effect dual nationality, even if it is not called that. A booklet (just like a regular passport but light blue) is issued and that is all you need as identification. They used to stick a visa on the foreign passport (lifelong visa) but I am told that is no longer necessary to carry around when you enter the country.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Dec 2015 00:57

JE Menon wrote:Well I have an OCI "passport". OCI stands for Overseas Citizen of India. The word Overseas is added before Citizen of India, which makes it a particular category of citizens. The only rights we don't have as mentioned earlier are the rights to vote, to buy agricultural land and to be appointed to public office. It is in effect dual nationality, even if it is not called that. A booklet (just like a regular passport but light blue) is issued and that is all you need as identification. They used to stick a visa on the foreign passport (lifelong visa) but I am told that is no longer necessary to carry around when you enter the country.

Yes, JE Menon, My wife and Kids have OCI too, so am aware of what it is. I joke with my kids all the time that they are Indians too, as they have that blue thingie that tells them they are "citizens" of India. How much ever, we may want to believe such, but in the eyes of the law, the matter is clear.

I am a permanent resident in the US and have parity on almost ALL matters with the citizens of the US, but do not enjoy political rights and hence NOT a citizen, no matter what the nomenclature. Political rights and allegiance are the defining characters of citizenship to a nation-state. Furthermore, no such nomenclature would have recognition in International law. If you still insist, after reading these references, then we just have a different read. Thanks.

Reference.

OCI is not to be misconstrued as 'dual citizenship'. OCI does not confer political rights. The registered Overseas Citizens of India shall not be entitled to the rights conferred on a citizen of India under article 16 of the Constitution with regard to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Detailed instructions and procedures on the OCI Scheme are available on the MHA's website: www.mha.nic.in

http://moia.gov.in/services.aspx?id1=35 ... &mainid=23

GoI can even cancel the OCI, something they cannot for "Citizens"

1[7B. Conferment of rights on overseas citizens of India.—
(1) Notwith-standing anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an overseas citizen of India shall be entitled to such rights [other than the rights specified under sub-section (2)] as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
(2) An overseas citizen of India shall not be entitled to the rights conferred on a citizen of India—
(a) under article 16 of the Constitution with regard to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment;
(b) under article 58 of the Constitution for election as President:
(c) under article 66 of the Constitution for election of Vice-President;
(d) under article 124 of the Constitution for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court;
(e) under article 217 of the Constitution for appointment as a Judge of the High Court;
(f) under section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950) in regard to registration as a voter;
(g) under sections 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) with regard to the eligibility for being a member of the House of the People or of the Council of States, as the case may be;
(h) under sections 5, 5A and 6 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) with regard to the eligibility for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or a Legislative Council, as the case may be, of a State;
(i) for appointment to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State except for appointment in such services and posts as the Central Government may by special order in that behalf specify.
(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.]
1[7C. Renunciation of overseas citizenship.—
(1) If any overseas citizen of India of full age and capacity makes in the prescribed manner a declaration renouncing his overseas citizenship of India, the declaration shall be registered by the Central Government, and; upon such registration, that person shall cease to be an overseas citizen of India.
(2) Where a person ceases to be an overseas citizen of India under sub-section (1), every minor child of that person registered as an overseas citizen of India, shall thereupon cease to be an overseas citizen of India.]
1[7D. Cancellation of registration as overseas citizen of India.—The Central Government may, by order, cancel the registration granted under sub-section
(1) of section 7A if it is satisfied that—
(a) the registration as an overseas citizen of India was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact; or
(b) the overseas citizen of India has shown disaffection towards the Constitution of India as by law established; or
(c) the overseas citizen of India has, during any war in which India may be engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in, or associated with, any business or commercial activity that was to his knowledge carried on in such manner as to assist an enemy in that war; or
(d) the overseas citizen of India has, within five years after registration under sub-section (1) of section 7A has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years; or
(e) it is necessary so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general public.]

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/305990/

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 01 Dec 2015 03:43

^^what is in the post above that is different from what I've said?

In any case it's OT. The discussion is on whether Indians living outside India can comment or get involved in political activity in India.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 01 Dec 2015 11:25

My question is much more subtle - What avenues are available to the Indian diaspora that have a bond of civilization with India?
It is idiotic to reduce this to a NRI/PIO/Citizen relationship! WU has done its number on us!

That said, three quick points:

Whether OCI or Green Card - there are limited rights, not NO rights. Allegiance is entirely different matter. There are many separatists around the world that hold a countries passport or another, so we need to stop this simplistic view from a outdated Westphalian model of nation-states.
If NGOs and other pressure groups can operate with impunity and impact projects such as Kudankulam in India - I am not agreeing with it - then do not see what this consternation is about regarding more benign NRI/PIO expressing opinions on India. That a non-citizen cannot stand for elections and otherwise participate or be represented is de jure.
My real grouse is against this 'thought policing' from the liberal media - S. Vardarajan can host Rajya Sabha TV, Lord Desai can pontificate on India Media, why the BJP government has increased the FDI limit to 100 per cent in the broadcast distribution platforms like cable TV networks (MSOs and LCOs), DTH, teleport, head end-in-the-sky (HITS), mobile TV and broadcasting content services. Previously this limit was 74%. However, no NRI/PIO should speak their minds on social media on politics?

Laws should govern for actions not react to free speech (which ought to be protected). If a foreign national funds an election campaign, sure that action is criminal, if a foreign national funds an NGO with political agenda - by that action, they are skirting the grey areas and potentially into criminal territory, etc. Once it is said, that a foreign national cannot express a political/economic/social opinion on India - ok, please shut down NYTimes, Economist, Facebook, Twitter, etc. There are plenty of non-Indian origin foreigners that run the show there

What is really there but unsaid is: No Hindu foreign national should mess with Indian Liberals and their WU!

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 01 Dec 2015 11:39

Narendra Modi could make or break Obama's climate legacy

Jairam Ramesh wrote: “India is not an easy country to negotiate with,” Mr. Ramesh said. “We are moralistic, we are argumentative, we are regressive. It has gone back to the old rhetoric, there is no doubt about it.”

This from an Indian national, a leader of the opposition Indian National Congress party, who served as minister of the environment under the previous government, when the current PM and team are negotiating in Paris under difficult circumstances.

All I can say is that the rot is deep. My last on this... as it may be going a bit OT now...

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 01 Dec 2015 11:50

>>If NGOs and other pressure groups can operate with impunity and impact projects such as Kudankulam in India - I am not agreeing with it - then do not see what this consternation is about regarding more benign NRI/PIO expressing opinions on India.

I think the consternation is when we/they misrepresent, i.e. speak as Indians without full disclosure on their citizenship/residential etc status. I personally think that's a problem too, bit like promoting a company (directly or indirectly) without letting the targets know you hold shares or are an employee, etc.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 01 Dec 2015 19:18

You can take an Indian out of India, but you cannot take the Indian-ness out of the Indian. WU wants to take out the Indian-ness out of any Indian, irrespective of where the said Indian lives. The colour of passport does not matter to the proponent of WU. The thing the proponent can do is to promote anyone who aligns with his interests, again irrespective of the colour of the passport. I disagree with JE Menon's opinion. Why should anyone declare his or her allegiances? Shaurya T might be American for all I care, but his opinion on WU are important enough. Because he is as much a tool in the west to counter WU, as many in India are trying to their best of efforts.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 01 Dec 2015 20:44

^^^ I think declaration of allegiances, legal status, etc., depends on the topic at hand. E.g. OCI can be revoked for "disaffection towards the Constitution of India", so I don't know if OCIs can campaign for constitutional amendments. Similarly, on specific issues that are rightly decided by the voters in the affected area, I'm not sure OCI should pose as a citizen. But on civilizational issues, e.g., Princeton-resident Rajiv Malhotra's "Breaking India", it doesn't matter whether he is OCI or Indian citizen.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 01 Dec 2015 21:22

>>I disagree with JE Menon's opinion. Why should anyone declare his or her allegiances?

I have not said anyone should declare his or her allegiance. Just that misrepresentation should be avoided and status declared.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 02 Dec 2015 07:21

Why 70,000 Muslim women petitioned PM Modi

We are on a roll this week I guess.... not sure where sadness ends and where happiness begins!

Indian Muslim women are waking up to their rights,...
but the WU edumacated NDTV reporter has no clue about Sharia, Muslim Personal Law, or Wakf Board in India...
Abolition of Halala (marrying another man before remarriage to an Ex), Triple Talaq & Polygamy are being demanded.

Really, nice to see Indian Muslim women ask for parity with her sisters in the sub-continent and Indian Muslim men & other Indian women fell short in the audience and life.
What to codify, what to amend, where to begin, who to take a Ayat to when the WU edumacated have no clue!

Wait for it... yes, those in WU stupor will ask for UCC!

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 03 Dec 2015 15:56

Niocene creed and why it leads to disaster..
From M.K. Gandhi's 'My Experiments with Truth'.

But Mr. Coates was not the man easily to accept defeat. He had great affection for me. He saw, round my neck, the Vaishnava necklace of Tulasi-beads. He thought it to be superstition and was pained by it. 'This superstition does not become you. Come, let me break the necklace.'

'No, you will not. It is a sacred gift from my mother.'

'But do you believe in it?'

'I do not know its mysterious significance. I do not think I should come to harm if I did not wear it. But I cannot, without sufficient reason, give up a necklace that she put round my neck out of love and in the conviction that it would be conducive to my welfare. When, with the passage of time, it wears away and breaks of its own accord. I shall have no desire to get a new one. But this necklace cannot be broken.'

Mr. Coates could not appreciate my argument, as he had no regard for my religion. He was looking forward to delivering me from the abyss of ignorance. He wanted to convince me that, no matter whether there was some truth in other religions, salvation was impossible for me unless I accepted Christianity which represented the truth, and that my sins would not be washed away except by the intercession of Jesus, and that all good works were useless.

Just as he introduced me to several books, he introduced me to several friends whom he regarded as staunch Christians. One of these introductions was to a family which belonged to the Plymouth Brethren, a Christian sect.

Many of the contacts for which Mr. Coates was responsible were good. Most struck me as being God fearing. But during my contact with this family, one of the Plymouth Brethren confronted me with an argument for which I was not prepared:

'You cannot understand the beauty of our religion. From what you say it appears that you must be brooding over your transgressions every moment of your life, always mending them and atoning for them. How can this ceaseless cycle of action bring you redemption? You can never have peace. You admit that we are all sinners. Now look at the perfection of our belief. Our attempts at improvement and atonement are futile. And yet redemption we must have. How can we bear the burden of sin? We can out throw it on Jesus. He is the only sinless Son of God. It is His word that those who believe in Him shall have everlasting life. Therein lies God's infinite mercy. And as we believe in the atonement of Jesus, our own sins do not bind us. Sin we must, It is impossible to live in this world sinless. And therefore Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace. Think what a life of restlessness is yours, and what a promise of peace we have.'

The argument utterly failed to convince me. I humbly replied:

'If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.'

To which the Plymouth Brother rejoined: I assure you, your attempt is fruitless. Think again over what I have said.'

And the brother proved as good as his word. he knowingly committed transgressions, and showed me that he was undisturbed by the thought of them.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Dec 2015 16:06

csaurabh wrote:Niocene creed and why it leads to disaster..
From M.K. Gandhi's 'My Experiments with Truth'.

And the brother proved as good as his word. he knowingly committed transgressions, and showed me that he was undisturbed by the thought of them.

An exact parallel of this exists in the recruitment of criminals into Islam in US prisons

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 10 Dec 2015 21:39

AGupta, you would like this one. It is imperative that this field grow which will allow for the continuation of dharmic thought as our traditions become harder to relate to with each passing generation. The different traditions will make up the different branches of Indian psychology and can be used as stand alone or combined to tailor treatment to patient or study societal phenomena. Also critical to national security. IMO, this is a game changer if it gets adopted.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 10 Dec 2015 22:11

Ganita vs mathematics: Ten myths of Western math

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 12 Dec 2015 22:55

The left in the west, preaches collectivism but practices individualism.
The right in the west, preaches enterprise but practices protectionism.

Western universalism!!

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 12 Dec 2015 23:03

When art becomes inhuman

Obscene language and bizarre ***** have grown like mold over much modern art. Images of Presidents and religious leaders have been defiled. Sadistic rituals like razor-cut bloodlettings have been dressed up as “performance art.” Novel writers and film and theater producers have started selling voyeurism, drugs, homosexuality, and pedophilia to middle-Americans at the mall, instead of leaving these things to patrons of peep shows and trendy art galleries. One of the most heavily Oscar-awarded movies of recent years — American Beauty — combined all four of those degradations in one package.

A little incident I remember from the late 1990s nicely illustrates how current art often degrades the viewer. When Chelsea Clinton turned 17, President and Mrs. Clinton decided to celebrate the occasion by squiring her through a weekend whirl of Broadway shows—an endearing coming-of-age present that many parents will identify with. In the course of taking in three of New York City’s top 1990s musicals, Chelsea and her parents were entertained by: same-sex kissing, marijuana use, heterosexual intercourse, shrill blasts of black racism and cultural separatism, the use of sex toys, and masturbation. In addition, they were mooned. This was not an anti-Clinton protest, mind you; all paying customers in the theater were mooned. Whatever happened to raindrops on roses and warm woolen mittens?

“The current philosophy and practice of art thrives on deliberate contempt for the public,” agrees Frederick Hart. “An offended public is a critical necessity for the attainment of credentials…. This is shriveling art, making it less and less meaningful,” he warns. “Once, under the banner of beauty and order, art was a rich and meaningful embellishment of life, embracing—not desecrating—its ideals, its aspirations, and its values. Not so today.”

Hart observes the increasing “artlessness” of modern homes and places, and says “the flaw is not with a public that refuses to nourish the arts. Rather it is with a practice of art that refuses to nourish the public. The public has been bullied intellectually by the proponents of contemporary art.”

Indian answer to modern and post modern art- Samikshavaad

Samikshavad is an Indian movement of Modern Art which is opposed to the tendency of Indian artists following the Western trends of Modern Art. Its basic purpose is to help create such an art in the country which has its roots in Indian soil. "Samiksha" is a Sanskrit word which means criticism of life and society in which they live. It is also against any type of imitation of the past styles or the present styles of art

.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2015 06:45

Sleeping Sikh plane commuter filmed, labelled Bin Laden on YouTube

An elderly Sikh man in the United States was filmed while sleeping on a flight by a co-passenger who posted the video online with a title ‘Would You Feel Safe’ and a description that says “flying with bin laden.”

I post this news as a topic that I want to raise.

On BRF I often find people cheering France for banning hijabs in public. Fine - that is a matter of opinion, but when it comes to custom I would like to point out that on any given day on an Indian street you will find men in jeans and T-shirt and women in tank tops and jeans, men in turbans, men in shorts and vest, women in burqas, Hindu priests or Jains in robes with chest exposed, men in turbans, men in dhotis, lungis, salwar suits, Muslim topi, women in salwar kameez and sarees, - the entire spectrum. None of this people is considered odd and none is banned. Every form of physical appearance and attire is allowed. Nakedness is generally frowned upon but allowed for certain priests/mendicants. Certain types of workmen are practically naked - just a loincloth as they climb a coconut tree right in the middle of a city. Men wear tilaks, women wear bindism people may have ash smeared across the forehead, ash with tilak, ash on cheeks and arms, women with turmeric on their faces, women with sindoor, women with veils, girls on scooters with masks men with bangles, women with bangles you name it you see it.

This is a form of societal liberalism that does not, it appears to me, be present in the west.

Apart from the "lack of freedom" to dress as one likes, there is a degree of stupidity in cracking down on dress code and demanding conformity. It is a form of government sponsored racism. After all a person who wants to commit a crime or terrorist act will make sure that he remains anonymous - so what goes on in the western mind when they rail and rant against dress code.

Muslims may demand the hijab, but do Hindus go about wearing dhotis in the west. the dhoti is after all a perfectly dignified formal dress. How can Indians cheer the imposition of dress codes on Muslims and then protest when we are treated similarly? Is this hypocrisy or dhimmitude?

Dress code is not a problem. ideology is. Islamic dresses are not the problem. The 007 behaviour is the problem no. Not the dress code

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 18 Dec 2015 08:01

^^ I would add a caveat for the burqa- it is obnoxious,irritating and achieves nothing other than totally alienating women from men. There is no reason to have it, period.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 18 Dec 2015 08:23

shiv wrote:Sleeping Sikh plane commuter filmed, labelled Bin Laden on YouTube
An elderly Sikh man in the United States was filmed while sleeping on a flight by a co-passenger who posted the video online with a title ‘Would You Feel Safe’ and a description that says “flying with bin laden.”
I post this news as a topic that I want to raise.

On BRF I often find people cheering France for banning hijabs in public. Fine - that is a matter of opinion, but when it comes to custom I would like to point out that on any given day on an Indian street you will find men in jeans and T-shirt and women in tank tops and jeans, men in turbans, men in shorts and vest, women in burqas, Hindu priests or Jains in robes with chest exposed, men in turbans, men in dhotis, lungis, salwar suits, Muslim topi, women in salwar kameez and sarees, - the entire spectrum. None of this people is considered odd and none is banned. Every form of physical appearance and attire is allowed. Nakedness is generally frowned upon but allowed for certain priests/mendicants. Certain types of workmen are practically naked - just a loincloth as they climb a coconut tree right in the middle of a city. Men wear tilaks, women wear bindism people may have ash smeared across the forehead, ash with tilak, ash on cheeks and arms, women with turmeric on their faces, women with sindoor, women with veils, girls on scooters with masks men with bangles, women with bangles you name it you see it.

This is a form of societal liberalism that does not, it appears to me, be present in the west.

Apart from the "lack of freedom" to dress as one likes, there is a degree of stupidity in cracking down on dress code and demanding conformity. It is a form of government sponsored racism. After all a person who wants to commit a crime or terrorist act will make sure that he remains anonymous - so what goes on in the western mind when they rail and rant against dress code.

Muslims may demand the hijab, but do Hindus go about wearing dhotis in the west. the dhoti is after all a perfectly dignified formal dress. How can Indians cheer the imposition of dress codes on Muslims and then protest when we are treated similarly? Is this hypocrisy or dhimmitude?

Dress code is not a problem. ideology is. Islamic dresses are not the problem. The 007 behaviour is the problem no. Not the dress code

True. But, what is wrong with what the west is doing? It is not liberal, true. But, is it a 'wrong' thing? From western point of view, they are doing the right thing by banning foreign cultural items. They don't want foreign culture to act as an insulation. Of course, the same thing would apply to any non-western cultural item(including dhoti). West is protecting western culture in west. Whats wrong with it?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2015 08:29

johneeG wrote:
True. But, what is wrong with what the west is doing? It is not liberal, true. But, is it a 'wrong' thing? From western point of view, they are doing the right thing by banning foreign cultural items. They don't want foreign culture to act as an insulation. Of course, the same thing would apply to any non-western cultural item(including dhoti). West is protecting western culture in west. Whats wrong with it?

It is easier to support someone else's stand than to take a stand of one's own.Is there an Indian view on this or do we accept what the west does as good? That is what is required of us as part of Western Universalism.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2015 08:38

csaurabh wrote:^^ I would add a caveat for the burqa- it is obnoxious,irritating and achieves nothing other than totally alienating women from men. There is no reason to have it, period.

As a viewpoint I can have no disagreement. But similar arguments are used to separate Sikhs from the rest.

As an aside and as a deliberately provocative statement, one needs to look at burqas and niqabs in liberal parts of India to see how freely body contours are shown by hormone filled young ladies from within the burqa. It seemingly removes the disadvantages (presumably felt by competing females) of not so noticeable facial beauty. Of course a "liberal society" includes tailors who do the cutting and shaping and wearers who wear the stuff. I suspect that at least some of these women would have their heads chopped off in pious nations

Once again I say this with reference to the curious Indian college requirement that girls must not wear jeans. But a single denim layer is thicker and less revealing of underlying inner wear or body parts than 2 layers of standard material used for a salwar kameez.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 18 Dec 2015 08:44

johneeG wrote:West is protecting western culture in west. Whats wrong with it?

What is that? It is a very broad brush characterization if you ask me.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 18 Dec 2015 08:46

Shiv ji: You know that tailoring was brought to India by Babur, don't you? In baburnama, he laments that there are no tailors in the God (allah - pbuh) forsaken land of indoostan.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 18 Dec 2015 08:50

shiv wrote:
johneeG wrote:
True. But, what is wrong with what the west is doing? It is not liberal, true. But, is it a 'wrong' thing? From western point of view, they are doing the right thing by banning foreign cultural items. They don't want foreign culture to act as an insulation. Of course, the same thing would apply to any non-western cultural item(including dhoti). West is protecting western culture in west. Whats wrong with it?
It is easier to support someone else's stand than to take a stand of one's own.Is there an Indian view on this or do we accept what the west does as good? That is what is required of us as part of Western Universalism.

India should protect Indian culture in India just as west is protecting western culture in west.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2015 08:52

vayu tuvan wrote:Shiv ji: You know that tailoring was brought to India by Babur, don't you? In baburnama, he laments that there are no tailors in the God (allah - pbuh) forsaken land of indoostan.

If that hero of Indian seculars was alive today he would be chopping off tailors heads for making pindliyon ka gooda appear from under covers, slips, silly points, deep mid-wickets etc

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2015 08:53

johneeG wrote:
India should protect Indian culture in India just as west is protecting western culture in west.

What, in your view, is the opinion of Indian culture on the burqa?

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 18 Dec 2015 08:57

shiv wrote:
csaurabh wrote:^^ I would add a caveat for the burqa- it is obnoxious,irritating and achieves nothing other than totally alienating women from men. There is no reason to have it, period.
As a viewpoint I can have no disagreement. But similar arguments are used to separate Sikhs from the rest.

As an aside and as a deliberately provocative statement,

Interesting point

. If I paraphrase what you are saying, it would be like so:

Even those Indians who are sufficiently de-colonized from the west, still "take inspiration" from the decisions of the west that they agree upon in some way. There is an element of "cargo cult" behavior that still haunts even a sufficiently liberated Indian mind.

Subconsciously: I hate the attempt by Islam to create schism in my society by making women wear bedoin anti-rape clothing. It is not designed for the bedoin purposes, but it is used as a tool to divide by Islamic beliefs encoded in their book.

Despite having a clear reason to oppose it on my own ground, I see west agreeing with it (for their own reasons) and jump up and down at the emotional "high" I recieve because somewhere deep in the corner of my brain I still want some validation from the west.

That... is a problem

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 18 Dec 2015 09:01

shiv wrote:
johneeG wrote:
India should protect Indian culture in India just as west is protecting western culture in west.
What, in your view, is the opinion of Indian culture on the burqa?

That depends on whether Burqa is considered part of Indian culture or not. There are some groups which believe that Indian culture is a mixed culture(mixture of various groups). There are others who don't agree with that view. So, its a whole different debate about 'what is an Indian culture?'

I think west is not doing anything wrong. They are doing the right thing. India is doing the wrong thing. We are doing it so wrong that we(as in collective we) don't even know what is right or wrong anymore. We are not even able to collectively agree on the definition of Indian culture.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2015 09:11

LokeshC wrote:
Interesting point . If I paraphrase what you are saying, it would be like so:

Even those Indians who are sufficiently de-colonized from the west, still "take inspiration" from the decisions of the west that they agree upon in some way. There is an element of "cargo cult" behavior that still haunts even a sufficiently liberated Indian mind.

Subconsciously: I hate the attempt by Islam to create schism in my society by making women wear bedoin anti-rape clothing. I see west agreeing with it (for their own reasons) and jump up and down at the emotional "high" I recieve because somewhere deep in the corner of my brain I still want some validation from the west.

That... is a problem

Sorry for quoting the whole post but it is well put.

However there is yet another subtext - another wheel within a wheel that I want to try and bring up. Let me try and illustrate it with images:

What differences do you (or anyone else) perceive in the following 2 images

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 18 Dec 2015 09:14

Ah

Got it.

Sexual expression in bedoin clothing. Here is an equal in the west:
Transition from Long Skirted God Fearing woman to Short Skirts post (WW2), to Mini Skirts (post Punk Rock Vietnam War era).

And now mini-skirts are "freedom of expression".

I hope I got it right

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2015 09:22

johneeG wrote: That depends on whether Burqa is considered part of Indian culture or not. There are some groups which believe that Indian culture is a mixed culture(mixture of various groups). There are others who don't agree with that view. So, its a whole different debate about 'what is an Indian culture?'

What do YOU think? The question was what is YOUR viewpoint on the issue.

johneeG wrote: I think west is not doing anything wrong. They are doing the right thing. India is doing the wrong thing. We are doing it so wrong that we(as in collective we) don't even know what is right or wrong anymore. We are not even able to collectively agree on the definition of Indian culture.

I accept this as your viewpoint

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 18 Dec 2015 09:25

There is difference between hijab ( head scarf ) and niqab ( full face covering ). A simple head scarf is not too unattractive if done well and can even be sexy. Also, what's with the obsession with black? Colourless society is a dead society.

But the fundamental problem is that of freedom. Just as the West pretends to ( or really does ) give you all 'freedoms' by removing all restrictions, Islam is the exact opposite- it exercise total control of thought and action based on a 'book' and enforced by mullas and religious police.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 18 Dec 2015 09:30

The west fight with their book has made the book secular (i.e. top down law minus God on top). The west still follows the book, absolute freedom is an illusion.

Relative freedom is definitely better in the west than in Barbaria like countrys. But the book, in one form or the other, is still a big player. Infact, I believe that it wont take long for a "secular" looking western society to become uber Christian again. Two things need to happen: 1) Economy needs to dry up. 2) Immigration from barbarian places need to increase. And you will see God installed on top almost as fast as he was removed from that position.

Already happening in Unkil btw.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2015 09:37

LokeshC wrote:Ah Got it.

Sexual expression in bedoin clothing. Here is an equal in the west:
Transition from Long Skirted God Fearing woman to Short Skirts post (WW2), to Mini Skirts (post Punk Rock Vietnam War era).

And now mini-skirts are "freedom of expression".

I hope I got it right

Yes you got what I was alluding to but what i wanted to say was that within a given Islamic society liberalism (insofar as liberalism and sexual freedom can exist in Islamic society) can appear in varying ways and degrees. The sexually attractive Islamic dress is an indicator of the broader environment.

In India, specifically in Bangalore I have observed over the last two decades that there was initially a "clamping down" of conservatism - about 20 years ago when the terrorism was taking off and every terrorist was a Muslim. Shapeless/formless burqas were the norm. That was also a time when December 6th (Babur's Shia Mosque demolition day) used to provoke reactions from groups like Popular Front of India and SIMI. Gradually as terrorism was wiped out from many areas - it became apparent to Indian Muslims that their five times a day minaret call and dress code was not under attack inside India. It was specifically terrorists and terror sympathisers under attack. Over the years there has been a "loosening" of Islamic dress code (and a tightening of dresses

). While those women who don't wear burqas are not even noticed, those who do - especially the younger ones - show a lot more body-shape revealing fashion rather than a tent. There is in other words, sexual expression from within Islamic tradition/repression.

All this happened in India when the west was free from Islamic terrorism. After 9-11 when it became that Muslims were associated with terror attacks in the west Muslims in the west reacted exactly teh same way as Indian Muslims I saw in Bangalore. There was a clamping down and imposition of tradition and more women started appearing covered up and more men grew beards.

But, as I see it, in the west these dress changes are under attack. In India they were never attacked. Dress code was not attacked. And even as terrorism was choked and terror sympathizers arrested - symbols like clothing were simply not touched and that seems to have resulted in a degree of fashionable sexual expression in dress code which can never exist when the mullahs are watching closely as is happening in western nations. Of course I cannot speak for all of India - or all of the west.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 18 Dec 2015 09:37

shiv wrote:
johneeG wrote: That depends on whether Burqa is considered part of Indian culture or not. There are some groups which believe that Indian culture is a mixed culture(mixture of various groups). There are others who don't agree with that view. So, its a whole different debate about 'what is an Indian culture?'
What do YOU think? The question was what is YOUR viewpoint on the issue.
johneeG wrote: I think west is not doing anything wrong. They are doing the right thing. India is doing the wrong thing. We are doing it so wrong that we(as in collective we) don't even know what is right or wrong anymore. We are not even able to collectively agree on the definition of Indian culture.
I accept this as your viewpoint

I think Burqa or Hijab is a middle-eastern culture and I don't mind it being practiced in middle-east. I support cultural exchange but it should be a two-way street.

France has played a master stroke by banning burqas. They are making a clear distinction between culture and theology. The idea is that they are not necessarily opposed to Islamic theology but they are opposed to foreign cultural colonialism. Very masterfully done. The main idea being that muslims and all other religious groups will have to imbibe western culture in west. I don't see anything wrong with that message.

There are other groups which focus only on theological criticisms without going into cultural issues. Those groups could even support 'multi-culturalism'.

Religion is divided into 3 parts:
- culture (dress & co)
- theology(rituals & stories)
- philosophy (main ideas): West uses Western universalism as its guiding philosophy to deconstruct other religions.

----
LokeshC saar,
agree totally.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Dec 2015 09:41

There is no eternal dharmic verdict on the burqa. It is very context-sensitive. What is the current context in India?

I may be wrong, but I think the reality is that there are Muslim families that would confine the women of the family to the home, if the women did not wear the burqa; and that it is much more feasible to do this type of segregation in India than it is to do it in the West.

It is all well and fine to talk about the rights of individuals, and secularism and all that - but that is all theory. How practically do you actually deconfine women?

What is it that we want? We want Muslim women, even from such families, to be out and about in the world. Why? Because the only hope of change is exposing people to the wider culture.

Therefore, in India, in this era, one should not ban the burqa like it is being banned in the West. This does not mean that there is some eternal principle "burqa must always be allowed". There can be constant, gentle but firm social pressure against the burqa.

E.g., if the Indian Union Muslim League wants to require its women candidates to wear the burqa, the general society should speak out its disapproval; the alienness of the custom should be pointed out; its anti-woman nature should be pointed out; its irrationality should be pointed out. India is far from uniform; there will be areas where the burqa has not been used much - its introduction or proliferation should be opposed. It is psecularism not to do all these things. On the other hand, no individual should be harassed or taunted.

---
To put it another way, there are far more important freedoms for women than freedom from a dress code. These are - the ability to travel or commute without male escorts; the ability to seek health care on their own (i.e., visit a doctor or hospital); the ability to get a proper education; the ability to participate in the workforce; and so on. If not making a fuss about the dress code makes it easier for women to practically accomplish these freedoms, then that is what we do. If opposing a dress code tooth and nail makes it easier for women to enjoy these freedoms, then that is what we do.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 18 Dec 2015 09:48

One thing regarding Burqa though:

Wearing Burqa as an expression is a very "loaded" way of expressing things. I dont know if the writers of the book designed it that way, but it is an amazing tool for cultural expansion.

For example: If someone wears Burqa after converting, she will be looked at strangely in a culture that has no experience with Islam. That will make her feel different from the "others". Thus it automatically sows the seeds of "otherness" without Islam having to write anything else in the book about Kaffirs.

Now if he or she does not feel any alienation from the society, he or she can then chose to either loosen up (like what shiv saar has mentioned above) or tighten up. Now come the Mullahs. In this situation the mullahs would enter and make them tighten up their "expression" and make it to the point where even the most liberal and accepting society would give the hardenend Islamic a strange look or a "confused stare", which then is promptly used by the victimization narrative of Islam.

It is truly an amazing psychological war machine, impressive at so many levels.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2015 09:54

A_Gupta wrote:the reality is that there are Muslim families that would confine the women of the family to the home, if the women did not wear the burqa; and that it is much more feasible to do this type of segregation in India than it is to do it in the West.

Let me launch into some iffy pseudo-math stuff here.

I think the percentage of confined women and percentage of women who go out from their homes to a workplace and then take of the burqa (this is common in Bangalore) varies inversely with the degree of Islamophobia that is felt by the Muslim population.

If you look at the Indian situation I find a curious thing happening. Never before have Indians been so open and voluble about what they find objectionable as far as Islam and Muslims are concerned. Yet, the truth is that Muslim behaviour, dress code and ability to use their loudspeakers, keep their abattoirs and run their businesses has not been touched - in fact education and intermingling has been encouraged in India despite the openness and crushing of needless psudosecularism. There is something unique going on in India. I cannot predict the outcome but the rise of people like Tarek Fateh, Tufail Latif and Maryam Nawazie supporting things in India are an interesting indicator of something different. None of these people are rebels in the Salman Rushdie mould, but are all equally intellectual.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Dec 2015 09:57

LokeshC wrote: Now if he or she does not feel any alienation from the society, he or she can then chose to either loosen up (like what shiv saar has mentioned above) or tighten up. Now come the Mullahs. In this situation the mullahs would enter and make them tighten up their "expression" and make it to the point where even the most liberal and accepting society would give the hardenend Islamic a strange look or a "confused stare", which then is promptly used by the victimization narrative of Islam.

It is truly an amazing psychological war machine, impressive at so many levels.

Lokesh even the Sikh dress code or Hindu dress codes (mainly ash/tilak/sindoor/mangal sutra etc) encourage "otherness". In my view the otherness is not the issue. The issue is how killing and violence is used by Islam to impose everything, from dress code to otherness. The west too has a propensity to use violent coercive means to ensure uniformity" of one's on groups and ensuring "otherness" from other groups. The west and Islam are similar in that sense.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 18 Dec 2015 11:45

shiv wrote: It is easier to support someone else's stand than to take a stand of one's own.Is there an Indian view on this or do we accept what the west does as good? That is what is required of us as part of Western Universalism.

Are you saying if Indians in the west en masse start wearing dhotis, there will be eventual call to ban dhoti's in the west because it does not confirm to the west.