Monday, 28 April 2014

Why I don't like Muslims

Swami Gulagulaananda said:
"I call a spade a spade"

If you came to this post by reading the title - You are one of the following:
  • You are seething with anger, wondering what nonsense is written in this post. You are getting worked up and aching to fire up some comments calling me an insensitive bigot, communal and what not. You are also readying some choice expletives
  • You have adopted a holier than thou attitude and are ready to give me advice on how we should all live together happily or throw words such as "I did not expect this from you"
  • You secretly don't like Muslims and are here to read what I have got to say
  • You are still unbiased and are simply curious to read what is in this post
Once you have put yourself in one of those groups, continue reading... Let me clarify at the outset that I just wanted you to realise that we all belong to one of those categories. But tell me, is what I have said here wrong in any way? Isn't it my prerogative to dislike someone or a group of people? And telling it openly like this is freedom of expression, is it not? You have no say in this matter. Why is disliking a group of people wrong? And why is saying it out loud wrong? Are you beginning to hate me now?

And no, I don't dislike Muslims. I have some good friends and colleagues who are Muslims, some who I even look up to. But I would like you to read on because I want to take you through this post. As you read, you will encounter several suggestions or opinions, think of them as thought experiments and not bigoted suggestions. Therefore, for the rest of this post, drop all sense of morality and sentiments and read it strictly with an objective mindset. If you are unable to do it, please discontinue reading.

The elections of 2014 have brought out several hues of the Indian fabric. I noticed a pattern in the elections - What initially started as Narendra Modi vs Rahul Gandhi vs Arvind Kejriwal, soon metamorphosed into Modi vs Anti Modi. I started seeing several patterns and trends. When asked why you don't support Modi, their opinion has always been the same - "He is communal". And no, this is not a post that is going to "debunk myths" about Modi. Rather, I am more interested in discussing bias in the minds of people.

I noticed that people dislike others because of their personalities. Some even openly call names. I find it ludicrous to watch Congress spokespersons addressing Narendra Modi as Shri Narendra Modiji immediately following it with calling him the devil incarnate. So if we are allowed to openly dislike people, hate people and openly call them names, why are we not allowed to, for example, dislike an entire community? Remember, to dislike a community is different from differentiating a community. You are still agitated, I understand, but please bear with me.

I was asked to not say "Blacks" or "Chinese" out loud on a visit to the USA. I said, alright, what should I call them? African Americans is the accepted term? No! Don't say anything out loud, you will be considered racist. What? Why can't I say Chinese out loud? My friend even deleted a comment of mine that said something about Chinese because a Chinese guy was in his thread. My comment wasn't even derogatory, it merely mentioned a fact. Why? Why are we scared to say some things out loud? What's with all this political correctness? Remember, these were factual statements, nothing offensive. An example would be - Local trains in Mumbai are overcrowded.

But people refuse to say some things in public, or even accept them. Like IITs and IIMs. If you call an IITian or a person from an IIM incompetent, it feels like a great sin has been committed. Say something against a religion and you might even be killed. Try convincing about the possibility of existence of God to an atheist and you will be called superstitious. Try convincing about the absence of God to a devout person and he will call you a lost soul. And the media knows about this - Very often, I see headlines on Times of India like - "Dalit girl raped". When you read the actual article, the rape has got nothing to do with the girl being Dalit. However, people get outraged because there is a connotation that she got raped because she is Dalit. This is the way we think.

You are constantly judged by highly opinionated people around you. The other day, I wrote a post asking if homosexuality is natural. One guy went berserk over it, called me a bigot and many names. Why? Am I not allowed to question touchy topics? You can call me a bigot if I refuse to admit someone to a college for being gay or refusing to hire someone for being gay. Would you call me a bigot for not talking to a gay person or not wanting my son to be gay? Think very carefully about how you are approaching this. And no, I don't have issues with anyone being gay, but think about it very carefully. If someone doesn't like his/her son to be gay, would you call him bigoted? If someone doesn't want someone's son or daughter to marry a Hindu or Muslim or Christian, does that make him bigoted?

I don't see what all the fuss about Modi's refusal to wear a skull cap was about. If someone asked me to wear a skull cap, I would refuse too. I once offered a Muslim friend of mine some prasad, and he refused to accept it. I asked him why and he simply nodded his head. I didn't force him, I didn't think he was being anti-Hindu. He wasn't comfortable with it just like I wouldn't be comfortable accepting Christ into my heart or wearing a skull cap. It's not my tradition, to each his own. If you are comfortable, great. But you should not judge someone else. How can you? Why can't people do what they want to or reject what they don't want to? Isn't it a free country? People can probably understand this in the technical sense, yes, Modi could technically reject the cap - but they linked it to him hating Muslims. Why?

The problem with most of us is our inability to think beyond the first layer. Very often, I see people (many Hindus included) calling RSS a saffron terror organisation. Highly communal, you say. Frankly, my dear friend, I would like to ask you a question. Beyond, perhaps, knowing the full form of the organisation, the "fact" that they are a pro-Hindu Muslim-hating Gandhi-killing group of long-shorts wearing people, what else do you know about the RSS? If you know five salient points about them and you still hate them, you probably have a valid reason to hate them. But it is highly unlikely that you know even one point beyond what I have already mentioned. We are all people with preconceived notions who don't research topics.

Let us pause here for a moment and take a quick detour. Facebook, Google and other companies that provide ads for marketing allow you to choose age groups, gender, location etc. to target advertisements. For example, if you are selling digital watches for men and ship only within India, there is no point in showing that ad to a 60 year old woman in California. How do companies ensure targeting happens? They profile everyone. Profiling is very useful to minimise areas and allow targeting to happen successfully. Now let's get back...

I have observed an equivalent of white guilt developing in India among Hindus. For some reason, people are very hesitant to say certain things against Muslims.  I am willing to bet at least 90% of terror attacks are by Muslims. If you don't agree, pull out all terror attacks in the last 15 years, and read the names of the people. They are invariably Muslims. You might be quick to jump out and say "What about Saffron terror? What about Godhra?" That's part of the 10% that includes white supremacists (irrelevant to India) and other attacks. But you have to admit that most of the terror attacks are by Muslims. Now, if you look at the kinds of people who get recruited for terror attacks, they are always the same kinds - Muslim youth, poor, brain-washed - If I can convince someone that their family will be taken care of very well and they are on a holy mission, they will be willing to go to any length. This is how Pakistani terrorists were recruited apparently. If you are already aware of the kind of people who are susceptible to such brain-washing, why can't we use profiling to narrow down possible recruits? But the very idea of people getting discriminated brings out an outrage among people.

If a strictly vegetarian Brahmin family doesn't want to rent out a house to a non-vegetarian Muslim family, is this discrimination against Muslims or discrimination against non-vegetarians? If this family gave the house out for rent to a non-vegetarian Hindu family, then should the Muslims say that they were discriminated against? If the family gives the house for rent to a vegetarian Hindu family, can the non-vegetarian Hindu family say they were discriminated against? The family is allowed to give their house out for rent to whomsoever they please. If you think this is unfair, you should read this post by Sandeep.

Another interesting point to think about it is, why is it that among so many religions like Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc. the so called issues with "minorities" and so called "secularism issues" is always with Muslims? Several friends of mine on Facebook who are Muslims are sharing photos that are attacking Hinduism, sharing quotes of that moron Zakir Naik - Why? I also see people commenting on various Facebook pages that Shariah law needs to be brought into India and that that is the only solution to all problems.

To summarise, empowered by my freedom of expression, I should be allowed to say whatever it is that I want to say. I don't want to live in an Islamist country like Saudi Arabia where women can't drive and are supposed to wear Burkhas. German chancellor Angela Merkel and UK Prime Minister David Cameron have called their countries Christian. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and others are strongly Muslim countries. I want to call India a Hindu country where every other religion is welcome to stay and live with us. Hindus are very tolerant and India will remain a secular Hindu state with no discrimination against any community. Remember, this kind of diversity is possible in India because of tolerance of Hindus. This is my opinion. Vande Mataram, Jai Hind!

Do you believe in secularism?
A lot of people think saying that you are secular is fashionable. If you believe in secularism, you should believe in the following:
  • India should have uniform civil code - same set of laws apply to every citizen, no matter what religion, caste or whatever other differentiating factor you can find. One rule for all
  • Say no to reservations and quotas. You are cheating the bright minds by giving seats and jobs to less deserving people simply because they belong to some caste or religion
  • We need to control population to prevent loss of resources and prevent demographic seige. This needs to be enforced by the government.
  • And spread this openly. It is not okay to believe in something and being quiet about it. True secularism is only when you truly believe everyone is equal and ensure that everyone thinks that way.
Do you think I took freedom of expression too far?
Freedom of Expression - Here's my post that is directly against this one and says you should not say whatever you want to and exercise restraint.

Think I am a bigoted idiot?
Read this story - In my opinion, everyone can easily live together happily if everyone minds their own business. Here's a very inspiring story - A true story about how unity in diversity


Comments from Facebook

Ashok Tripathi:
Hmm.. You will get more brickbats then bouquets for this..

Raveesh Mayya:
Good post Baliga.. I too feel disgusted to think that saying "I'm a Hindu" has been equated to saying "I'm communal"..

Nikhil Baliga:
That's precisely my grouse. Somehow I am made to feel like it is wrong to be Hindu. And I am screwed if I am a Hindu Brahmin boy

Ashok Tripathi:
Screwed royally Hindu Brhamin Boy - you are ancestors are single handedly responsible for all the catastrophes in planet s history from extinction of Dinos to ************************** 

Prashanth Raghu:
Although I do not agree with all the points, I like the fact that you say what's in your mind. Not many people do that. Amazing frank free flow of thoughts.

Prashanth Harshangi:
Baliga- do you like the concept in school where every student had to wear uniform?

Soujanya S Purohit:
Good one!!

Sharath AS:
Just when you were giving an example of Dalit girl being raped!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152090554608061&set=p.10152090554608061&type=1

Manohar Kanyady:
People or Govt need to be really matured to act upon it to solve the so called communal tag

Gurudatha Pai: 
Dawkins asks a similar question in some interview about "The God Delusion"!

Dolly Singh:
Nice post nik.. In my opinion there s nothing bad in speaking loud your thoughts. And no one should judge. But it is something like you are calling a blind person blind. It might be offending to them. So if any bitter truth is not helping any one then better to avoid speaking it.

Karan Sharma:
Nikhil Baliga: fair post man. Just a couple of points. 
1) Sorry to hear that you have friends who listen to Zakir Naik. In spite of the moron he is, he serves a very important role. He is the sole Muslim rationalist preacher (if such a thing exists) who doesnt want to kill/murder rest of the world..
2) You mentioned profiling. I'm with you on the fact that nothing wrong in calling a spade a spade. Because thats what it is. The problem lies with what you do with that profiling and the connotations that go with religious and racial profiling. You cannot deny the historical baggage that we all carry.. Whites are sorry they f*cked browns and blacks. Hindus are sorry they f*cked Muslims(and other minorities). Men are sorry they f*cked (not literaly) women historically. Brahmins are sorry they f*cked dalits. 
So basically we live in a world of apologists and not being one lands you in trouble.

Karthik Rangarajan:
"Free speech is not speech you agree with, uttered by someone you admire. It's speech that you find stupid, selfish, dangerous, uninformed or threatening, spoken and sponsored by someone you despise, fear or ridicule. Free speech is unpopular, contentious and sometimes ugly. It reflects a tolerance for differences. If everyone agreed on all things, we wouldn't need it."

(Source here)

First of all, very well written article, my friend. When I looked at the title, I knew it would be an interesting take on things. I expected some hyperbole, and a few flawed arguments. I'm happy that there was very little hyperbole, and almost no flaws in your method of arguing.

So if we are allowed to openly dislike people, hate people and openly call them names, why are we not allowed to, for example, dislike an entire community?

There is a pretty big difference between you or me disliking people/community, and people in power doing so. However, I see your argument, and I agree with the point you're making. As long as your dislike is personal, doesn't affect a third-party negatively, and you do not force others to think your way, you are entitled to have your views.

What? Why can't I say Chinese out loud? My friend even deleted a comment of mine that said something about Chinese because a Chinese guy was in his thread.

This is hyper sensitiveness and bullshittery. I call my Chinese friends Chinese to their face. I call my black friends black, or in more professional settings, African Americans. I call friends from the south hillbillies. As long as there is no malice in what you're saying, and you're saying it with the best of intentions, it really doesn't matter. However, do note that "blackies", "chinkies", etc. are derogatory terms.

If you call an IITian or a person from an IIM incompetent, it feels like a great sin has been committed.

More bullshittery.

Would you call me a bigot for not talking to a gay person or not wanting my son to be gay?

Yes for the first one, no for the second. You are, at the end of the day, making the person feel unwelcome or unwanted. Bigotry has nothing to do with power. You're judging a person because he is different from you, and that, my friend, is the very definition of bigotry.

But why do I saw no for the second one? Because not wanting your son to be gay is perfectly natural. You want your son to meet the expectations you have of him. Now, if you force him to be gay by sending him to a "correctional" school, then you're not just bigoted, but you're cruel and insensitive.

If a strictly vegetarian Brahmin family doesn't want to rent out a house to a non-vegetarian Muslim family, is this discrimination against Muslims or discrimination against non-vegetarians? If this family gave the house out for rent to a non-vegetarian Hindu family, then should the Muslims say that they were discriminated against? If the family gives the house for rent to a vegetarian Hindu family, can the non-vegetarian Hindu family say they were discriminated against? 

Since this is their house, they are free to rent it out to whoever they feel can best maintain their house. The argument for discrimination doesn't even come in here. Unlike in the US, private housing in India does not have to follow equal opportunity laws. (although I am unsure if this is the case in the US either)

Here's one qualm I have with the methodology of argument - you're saying since you have the freedom of expression, you're allowed to state them. However, if your only defense to stating your arguments IS your freedom of expression, then you're argument is on its last crutches. (I do see that you aren't saying that - just a minor comment)

I want to call India a Hindu country where every other religion is welcome to stay and live with us. Hindus are very tolerant and India will remain a secular Hindu state with no discrimination against any community. Remember, this kind of diversity is possible in India because of tolerance of Hindus.

This argument I have many problems with. It might be another part of your thought experiment, but a country cannot be identified by a religion. I have a problem with US Government identifying the country as a Christian state, the Indian government identifying it as a Hindu state, etc. There must always be a separation of religion and state. It is vital for a government to function rationally.

Why do I believe so strongly about this?

You're asking people to think rationally about one thing there is very little rationality about: religion (and/or race). Arguments about these are always going to be heated, mindless, and overdrawn because people believe so passionately that what they think must be the absolute truth. I appreciate your thought experiment and attempts to bring rationality as well as have an open conversation - but religion is not at all rational. Not when we're saying age old texts translated uncounted number of times should be made into laws, that our women must be judged according to it, etc.

But Freedom of Expression! I can say whatever I want!

You can, sure. My government cannot. They absolutely cannot say "we tolerate other religions here because we're Hindus, and we're tolerant." That's giving a pedestal to one religion, and saying the other religions exist in the state because we're so nice and tolerant, and not because they have equal right to stay there since they're citizens with the same, exact rights.

On the other hand, I do agree about the uniform civil code. Secularism isn't about treating one religion better than another, apologizing for what our ancestors might have done oppressing other castes and/or religions, or handling everything with baby gloves. Its about treating all people equally, like they are all citizens of the country, without discrimination, with the same, exact laws. THAT is what is being called as communalism now by the left-leaning parties, and that is utter bullshit. It is high time the country developed a uniform civil code, with merit based reservations versus caste based ones.

Sorry, this was almost as long as a blog post. I rarely participate in these debates for this very reason - most people don't have the patience to read what I have to say, or get bored half way through. :)

Well written article, all the way around. You've done a great job at being unbiased in spite of your strong beliefs in a certain direction.



10 comments:

rameshddrr said...

I must say .. I came to you post thinking .. What is happening with Nikhil nowadays !!! Then I read the whole post ...

But, you have raised all the right points about internal bigotry being accepted as a norm while the same thing done against religion is scorned upon and called a communal. You are missing a point here .. Let me try to be clear.

1. There are neo-nazi people in US. They support Hitler and his actions in open in US. They are extremely racist .. They are allowed to speak without arrests or affecting their freedom. That is freedom of speech you can't get in ..... (wink wink)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism

2. When you were asked not to use those words when you were in US was not because you will be arrested or thrown into jail. That was only because Indians in US are extremely sensitive and touchy. Read above link for the degree of freedom in west.

3. About homosexuality. It has been shown in a few studies that it is genetically linked. You cannot question if it is natural. Monkeys and all other animals hump anything they get hold off when ho*ny. Nothing unnatural about bisexuality, homosexuality.

3. Controlling population is wrong. You will surprised to find that the world population is no longer growing at the rates as thought. Burden on the globe is to exponential increase in the life expectancy and reduced mortality. See this to understand the problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz_kn45qIvI

4. When you want to call India a Hindu country you are taking all the wrong examples.

Almost all the western countries including US (read civilized and developed) keep religion away from state. They are not called Christian. The UK PM was heavily criticized for that statement. All the public figures came out in public against it and said that it is 'non-religious'

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27177265

5. As a true believer in freedom of speech, you can say what you want !! But, as great minds always say .. Truth is not a consensus...

Nikhil Baliga said...

Ramesh, I agree with you on several counts. For example, one and two is what I am also saying - We are being hypocritical by tip-toeing around some things and openly talking about others. Real freedom of expression is where I can say what I want. My issue is with over-sensitive touchy Indians only.

I didn't say homosexuality is natural or unnatural - I was merely questioning it. If there are answers proving either, I would like to know purely as an academic pursuit.

Controlling population and Hindu country is something that I would like to talk about later - I don't want to comment right now on them

Anand Mishra said...

Your point about freedom of speech is valid but there are many points that are very negative... You ask is it wrong for not wanting your son to be gay? No. But it is definitely wrong to force him not be gay, its his right too. You say is it wrong to not rent our house to Muslims. No its your right. But so is jumping into a well. Have you gone to Tamil nadu? A hotel manager did not allow my friends to get a room at his place because they were "Hindi". Was it his right ? Yes. Was it wrong? You answer that...
Emergency was imposed in India. Was it lawful? Yes. Was it right?
AFSPA has been imposed in northeast and JK. Is it the "prerogative" of the govt.? Yes. Is it right?

Are all the actions which are my rights correct?
Should you displace millions of people, by passing a contract, who have no idea about rights, laws etc from their native place without any compensation simply because no official ever came to him to register his ownership?

My dear friend, legality always follows morality. Think about it.

chrnth said...

I don't like some Muslims.
Not because of their religion. I don't like some Christians and some Hindus either.
I don't like people when I don't like the way they lead their lives.

Since the article is about not-liking-Muslims I will talk about that.

Kids drop out of school, start working to support their large families, get married early contributing to the already large family. And then its a re-run for their kids.
I have seen this happen a lot around me, maybe not nation-wide story.
As a community they have entered this vicious cycle where they have more mouths to feed than hands that can earn.

They don't go to normal schools and colleges like others, just try to remember how many of them you had in your class in school.. I had 2 in my class of 40 strong. Both of them did not continue their education after school.
I think most of them go to Urdu medium schools or Madrasas. I don't know what education they possibly receive there.
It leaves them unprepared to face the world.

It has put them in a desperate state and there are people/groups that want to misuse this. Its easier to brain-wash a man who is already desparate.
The man is already looking for someone to blame and the blame is easily manipulated on to the other communities.
Isn't that the beginning of a terrorist?

Every community has a part of itself that's facing this scene. Somehow, its worse among the Muslims.

What we need is not secularism. You cannot enforce secularism. It must come from within.
"You take the slum out of men instead of taking the men out of the slum. The men will then take themselves out of the slum."

We need a "uniform civil code" in a much deeper sense. We need reservation at school and pre-college levels.
We need to provide the same opportunities to everyone. We need to encourage change at a community-level.

Tolerance needs to be taught through practice at a very young age. A vision of the world needs to be provided.
While history/traditions/customs are all important, being practical needs to be emphasized.

Practicality dictates that there is no space in this world for intolerance and hate.

Practicality gives you the freedom of speech by default. Practicality gives you the right to hold your opinions and let others hold theirs.

Practicality will control the size of a family.

Practicality will allow you to call a Chinese man a Chinese man.

It is the fact that some people lead impractical lives that makes me not like them. Not that they belong to a particular religion.

Question now is: Can this be achieved overnight? Answer is: No.
The laws of the country have been set with great intentions but sadly there are people who want misuse the loopholes instead of the following the rules.
We need these laws to be enforced and rules to be followed. We need a sense of self-improvement in every single person that can ONLY come through a proper education.

Lokesh Acharya said...

ನನ್ನ ಬಾಲ್ಯವು ಕಳೆಯುವ ಹೊತ್ತಿಗೇ ಇಂಥದ್ದೊಂದು ಗೊಂದಲ ಶುರುವಾಗಿತ್ತು ಸರ್ - "ಅನ್ಯಧರ್ಮದ ಬಗೆಗೆ, ಅನ್ಯಧರ್ಮೀಯರ ಬಗೆಗೆ ನಮ್ಮ ನಿಲುವು ಹೇಗಿರಬೇಕು?" ಅಂತ…

ಆ ಮುಂಚೆ ಈ ಸೆಕ್ಯುಲರಿಸಂ, ಕಮ್ಯೂನಲಿಸಂ ಪದಗಳ ಅರ್ಥವೂ ಗೊತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ …
ಪ್ರತೀ ಶುಕ್ರವಾರ ಊರ ಹೊರಗೆ ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದಲ್ಲೇ ಇದ್ದ ದರ್ಗಾ ಮತ್ತು ಹನುಮನ ಗುಡಿ - ಎರಡಕ್ಕೂ ಹೋಗಿ ಕೈಮುಗಿಯುವಷ್ಟು ಮುಗ್ಧತೆ.! ವರ್ಷಕ್ಕೊಮ್ಮೆಯಾದರೂ ಚರ್ಚಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಮೇಣದಬತ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹಚ್ಚಿಬರುವ ರೂಢಿ - ಚಿಕ್ಕಂದಿನಲ್ಲಿ…

ಆದರೆ, ಮುಂದೆ ಕ್ರಮೇಣ ವಾಸ್ತವದ ಅರಿವಾಯ್ತು…
ನಾವು ಬೇರೆ, ಅವರು ಬೇರೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಭೋದೆಯಾಯ್ತು!

ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ, ಟಿವಿ'ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಓದಿ/ನೋಡಿದ ಭಯೋತ್ಪಾದನೆಯ ಕೃತ್ಯಗಳು (ಅಂತಹ ಇನ್ನಷ್ಟು ಸಂಗತಿಗಳು) ಅವರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಒಂದು ಬಗೆಯ ತಿರಸ್ಕಾರವನ್ನೂ, ಆ ಸಮುದಾಯದ ಬಗೆಗೆ ತೀಕ್ಷ್ಣವಾದ ರೋಷವನ್ನೂ ಮೂಡಿಸಿದವು.
ಬಸ್ಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಯಾಣಿಸುವಾಗ, ಪರಿಚಯವಾದ ಅರ್ಧಗಂಟೆಗೇ "ಕ್ರೈಸ್ತಮತಕ್ಕೆ ಸೇರು, ಒಳ್ಳೆಯದಾಗುತ್ತೆ" ಅಂತ ಶುರು ಮಾಡಿದ ಆ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಆ ಮತದ ಬಗೆಗೇ ಅದೆಷ್ಟು ಜುಗುಪ್ಸೆ ಮೂಡಿಸಿದ್ದನೋ ಅಂದು.

ಲೇಖನದ ಮೊದಲಲ್ಲೇ 'ವಸ್ತುನಿಷ್ಠವಾಗಿ ಓದಿ' ಅಂತ ಸೂಚಿಸಿದ್ದೀರಿ. ಆದರೂ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಭಾವನಾತ್ಮಕವಾಗಿಯೇ ಓದಿಟಬಿಟ್ಟೆ, ಕ್ಷಮಿಸಿ.

ನಿಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲ ಮಾತುಗಳನ್ನೇ ನನ್ನ ಮನಸ್ಸೂ ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತದೆಯಾದರೂ ಯಾವುದೋ ತಿಳಿಯದ ಭಾವ ಹಾಗೆ ಗಟ್ಟಿಯಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಲು ಬಿಡದು.

ಬಹುಶಃ - ನನಗೆ ಪರಿಚಯವಿರುವ (ಒಳ್ಳೆಯವರೇ ಆದ) ಅನ್ಯಧರ್ಮೀಯ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರು ಏನೆಂದುಕೊಳ್ತಾರೋ ಅನ್ನೋ ಭಯವಿರಬಹುದು…
ಅಥವಾ ಹಾಗೆ ಹೇಳುವ ನೈತಿಕ ಹಕ್ಕು ನಿಜಕ್ಕೂ ನನಗಿದೆಯೇ (ಇಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ!) ಎಂಬ ಭಾವನೆಯಿದ್ದಿರಬಹುದು.

ಮುಖ್ಯ, ಲೇಖನದ ಮೊದಲಲ್ಲಿ ನೀವು ಹೇಳಿರುವ ನಾಲ್ಕು ಗುಂಪುಗಳ ಪೈಕಿ ನಾನು ೨ಕ್ಕೆ ಸೇರುತ್ತೇನೋ ಅಥವಾ ೩ಕ್ಕೆ ಸೇರುತ್ತೇನೋ ನನಗೇ ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ತಿಳಿಯುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. :(
ಏಕೆಂದರೆ, ಒಂದೊಂದು ಆಯಾಮದಿಂದ ನೋಡಿದಾಗಲೂ ಒಂದೊಂದು ರೀತಿ ಅನಿಸುತ್ತಿದೆ ನನಗೆ.

ಇನ್ನು, "ನಾನು ಇಂಥವರನ್ನು ಇಷ್ಟಪಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ" ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವ ಹಕ್ಕು ನಿಮಗೆ ಇದ್ದೇ ಇದೆ.ನಿಮಗಷ್ಟೇ ಅಲ್ಲ, ಹಾಗೆ ಹೇಳುವ ಸ್ಥೈರ್ಯವುಳ್ಳ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಇದೆ :)

Nikhil Baliga said...

Anand, your points are all completely valid and I don't disagree with a single point. I've already included all the responses in the post, however, including saying it's ok to be gay or that this post is not discussing morality. There are also other links that you can probably follow through to see what kind of "extra bonus material" is provided...

Madhusudan said...

The title is so curious , that I could not wait to read what is written , I have read some blogs of yours, but I couldn't close this without commenting!

People especially in India have become so lazy that , they don't research . they are ready to argue thinking that they are supreme , their religion is supreme. Most of them would not know what their religion tells or what's the basis or history of their religion . some people know their religion but they would not know what other religion s preach or tell. They just want to defend or argue that they are the best . I found this nature in most of the Muslims . because they are Muslims they think that they belong to Pakistan and celebrate their victory. I feel that they are such a foolish people . I feel like taking them and throwing them out of the border of India . you have born here its your mother country you should have respect for the country first.

I am not telling its only muslims are ignorant or less aware . all people of all religion makes the same mistake , they DONT know what is their religion . if somebody asks a Muslim to become a terrorist by telling that you are serving god then he should be in a position to tell that no where in the religion its mentioned that becoming a terrorist would mean serving god. I DONT know if ia am deviating from the topic of your blog . all i am telling is innocence , ignorance and selfishness is what is the problem .

Coming to the topic of minority , again Muslims and dalits they are spoiling the system byvtqking advantage of the system .I do agree with that . if you want to give reservation give it to the poor talented person exempt them from the fee . why the hell you are giving it to community .

I know few Muslims who respect their religion and also respect others . I know whose thinking is very good . but what I spoke is of the majority.

Our education system or the elderly people at home should teach each one what is morality , what is good what is bad .

I appreciate your comments and content .I agree to the facts that you have mentioned for which could connect and relate to the facts I know . telling facts is right to speech . expressing our rection to the facts is also right to speech . but there are good and bad people in all communities . I just DONT like people who dont think and who does not care about the morality .

rameshddrr said...

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study

Article summarizing the paper and effect. There is a strong possibility of homosexuality of being genetic. This topic is no longer a topic of 'morality' or opinion. More studies are underway and there are many papers available from google scholar.

There is a saying which goes like .. "If you haven't offended someone, you haven't done it right " ..

Stance against BJP is not without logic. (I speak as you have raised that point in your blog)
- They are clearly against homosexuality
- They are heavily using Hindutva(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva). I am against this as they are trying to mix religion and politics. Modi in his speeches has made it clear that religion and politics are separate, but their manifesto and BJPites speak differently.
- I am against heavy privatization. Govt. sector should never get in private entities. That is what govt. is. It is for the people and by the people.

P.S: I am not pro-congress (but policies of congress are really good) !! :-P

Sanchita Jha said...

I almost CHOKED while reading your posts.

And without even further-a-do, I guessed you are a die-hard NAMO supporter :)

And, ALAS, you are one!!

Karthik Rangarajan said...

@Sanchita

Good job missing the entire point of the article. No, really, well done - it takes real effort to be oblivious to the point of it all, and conclude that this is a NAMO supporter writing in support of his idol.