Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Interwebs and the National Conversation
2002 was not a good year for India. Trouble that had been brewing for a while (some say since 1993, some say for much longer) erupted, and almost 60 Hindu Nationalist workers were burned to death on a train in Gujarat by a Muslim mob. The victims were coming home from efforts to build a temple at what is said to be Lord Ram’s birthplace in Ayodhya.
This led to (more) horrific violence in Gujarat state — in which about 2,000 people died, many women were raped, and thousands were made homeless. The fabric of our national life was ripped in ways that turned out to be hard to repair. And the person held responsible for the bloodshed by many is now our Prime Minister.
At the time, many Indians who were overseas (like myself) had a visceral need to connect with home in some way. We did it, generally, via the internet. There on news and discussions sites, we talked, warred, screamed, and sometimes reconciled. (Sometimes not.)
It felt like the world we had grown up in was ending in fear, fire, and bloodshed. And the things we felt and the things we said were heartfelt, sharp, angry, and unforgiving. And sometimes unforgivable.
But the years passed. We (my side) realised that everything the side that won did was not evil (or at least not yet!). And our opponents realised that they agreed with some of our misgivings, that some turned out to be justified. When I ran across one of my cyber opponents, about 15 years after we had last sparred, our common response was utter delight.
You’re still around? So am I! Do you remember that argument we had about…? Turns out I was right about that. But you were right about….
We had learned, over the years, that we had so much more in common than what divided us. That neither of us was completely right or completely wrong. The conflict hadn’t gone away – but our certainty about the right outcome and its price was diminished.
Right now it seems as if many in the US feel that they are in extremis — and that their interactions with “opponents” take on a fight-or-flight dimension. But in 20 years, you all may feel differently.
Trust your country to endure. And recognise — please, please, please — that what you have in common is so much greater than what divides you.
Published in General
Thank you Zafar; this is beautiful.
Agree.
Yes, but first one side has to win, the other side has to lose, the loser must submit and the winner must unanimously allow the the loser to survive.
Yes, this is the civilized way to handle such things. We shouldn’t leave things permanently unresolved.
But, Zafar, it was so much worse for India with the number of deaths and the savagery and the violence that took place. We can hope and pray that America doesn’t go that far. Unfortunately, that decision is out of the good peoples’ hands. The anger and support for violence is being tested right now as to how far it will go.
Great post, Zafar.
Indeed, sir.
And based on their history, we can expect the progressives to want to tour the battlefield shooting survivors if they win, so let’s not be the losers. Of course, they won’t submit either, just change their name again.
Yes, that is why zafar’s anology will not hold. I don’t expect to survive the Left’s purge after they completely win.
Than what partitions you?
Thank you, @zafar. It’s my fervent hope that we can all remember this!
Funny you should ask this. I’ve always thought of Canada as an escape valve for the early United States because it had somewhere for the loyalists and royalists to go and not be left here causing trouble.
Similarly with Northern Ireland as an escape valve for the Republic of Ireland.
And Pakistan should have had that effect on India and has really done it to a great extent. However, so many Muslims were treated so well (as in well enough to not cause them to leave) in India that they stayed rather than uproot their families and communities. So, as communal issues come up rather than go to Pakistan (well who would want to go there?) they stay and fight it out. As Zafar points out in India it has calmed down for now.
Try being a Hindu or other religious group in Pakistan, though. That’s a different story.
Then there’s Israel — Zafar, how will that resolve itself if we are to trust in what you recommend?
We learned the hard way.
And frankly, too many of us didn’t learn.
I didn’t realize that Israel was divided against itself. ??
But seeing more in common with people with whom we disagree is probably a good thing anywhere.
Let’s get each point understood. Let’s start with: You didn’t know that there is a non Jewish minority in Israel?
Larry – There are Arabs who are citizens of the State but are they members of the nation?
That’s how the issue plays out in India – some people that you have to be Hindu to be truly Indian, other people don’t have that belief.
This is part of a word game. You can be more forthcoming than this, please.
Some people think lots of things but this isn’t responsive to my questions.
I’m afraid your question is unclear.
Can you rephrase it?
Is there anywhere in the world where Muslims are not a problem? Why would any country in their right mind bring in more of these sorts of problems. Sure I trust my country, but I think it will be a better place with as few Muslims as possible.
I don’t understand: in the incident you relate from ’02, which “side” were you on? Was there a “side” whise slogan was “Burn More Hindu!”?
In these kinds of situations there are indeed two sides: the side of violence and side of peace.
In India, at that time, you found Hindus and Muslims on both sides.
Their religious label wasn’t dispositive, but rather the language they used, the way they viewed ‘the other’, their understanding of history and their place in it, whether their morality (and truthfulness) was situational and tribal or not, and how all of these things made them more or less prone to see violence against people and things as a valid tool to recover what they believed was a golden age from a corrupted present.