MESSAGE BOARD
NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

E-mail from readers the world over

'Can Ms Sinha point out any similar genocide or skin-based racism in the history of any of India's peoples?'

Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000, 09:48:46EST
Subject: Getting Personal About Language

To quote the writer of this piece, '...Language, or more specifically, my friend's version of Hindi (for the rest of us, that's Urdu and/or Hindustani) is a cover to promote bigotry and hatred among Indians in India. In this case, to pit Indians who are Hindu against those who are Muslims. As if Indians didn't harbour enough hate, based on skin colour, caste, socio-economic status, literate/illiterate, gender, let's make sure religion, language, and ethos aren't left out of the mix...'

I don't know what statistics she is referring to when she makes such claims. I think it is high time she got out of her library in Stanford and paid a visit to India to get her perceptions straightened out for good. I do not deny that the human phenomenon of discriminating on the basis of these criteria exists in India, but to allege that people actually 'hate' each other because of differences in skin colour, caste etc is a fantastic exaggeration if not a glaring falsity.

Reeta Sinha is at present living in a civilisation that has for centuries preached and practised hatred on the basis of skin colour. The enslavement and the oppression of non-White races in America, the continuing genocide of ethnic Indians in the two American continents, the Nazi attempt at establishing the supremacy of the White Race in the world, apartheid in South Africa, these and other historic tragedies are all a result of this very hatred. Can she point to any similar genocide or skin-based racism in the history of any of India's peoples?

I would like to tell Ms Sinha this: Please do not make such sweeping misstatements so lightly against an entire nation. It is a sign of immaturity and impulsive lack of judgment. The way I see it, such needless and baseless defamation of an entire people is itself a manifestation of bigotry.

She further says, '...If you must announce your prejudices towards a religion, RS, at least follow the rules of a language you obviously do admire and couldn't communicate effectively without (English). Sufi refers to a religion. In general, names of religions are capitalised in English...'

Ms Sinha, if you must make sarcastic jibes at others due to their supposed failings in the English language, do have the courtesy, the humility and the grace to direct the same critical eye (and tongue) towards yourself first. The word 'Sufi' (with or without the first alphabet capitalised) does not refer to a religion. Sufi' is the term applied to an individual who practices Sufism. For your benefit, here is the link to the English language definition of the term 'Sufi': http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=sufi

Please ask any 'Sufi' about this and the response will be either of these two. One would be to describe 'Sufism' as the mystical path within the religion of Islam; the other would be to claim 'Sufism' as an Asian (Middle Eastern) expression of the universal phenomenon that we refer to as mysticism or spirituality that predates Islam.

Ms Sinha, I think you seem to possess a permanent blind spot when it comes to criticism and vilification and it is just big enough to hide you from your own intellectual gaze and shield you from your own grand moral pontifications. You say that these people who come from a "different" place, when faced with the "different", they attack, they react. I would like to bring to your attention the fact that you have not behaved any differently in this very same article in which you so clearly 'attack' and 'react to' those "different" from you, who have opinions that are "different" from yours. Your article is in fact a case study of how to divide people using inflammatory words.

Ms Sinha obviously comes from a different world, a world where there is no place for those who feel threatened, a world where one does not feel the need to attack, to react. I am afraid her world is a no-man's land. Indeed it is also a no-woman's land, even a no-animals land!

She writes: '...It seems the majority of Indians remain mired in the muck of India's past, refusing to take responsibility for their own future, preferring to believe they are victims of history...'

Oh, so what should these "different" Indians do? Should they become like Ms Sinha and luxuriate in the fields of gold in America's present?

Ms Sinha, let me put this question to you: When once upon a time you read Rajeev's article, why did you not rationalise it by saying to yourself, 'Hey, this is something he wrote in the past. Why should I discuss something that he might have written days ago?' The fact of the matter is this -- whether someone writes, speaks or does something a minute ago or centuries in the past, if that speech, that piece of writing, or that action continues to have repercussions in the present then it is relevant and needs to be dealt with in the present or it will continue to influence the future. If you really look around, you will see that in the real world we are all mired in the muck of the past and the way to deal with it is not to ignore it and remain silent about it but to recognise it and then eradicate it.

Think about this: If one Rajeev Srinivasan tries to bad mouth some languages of India, you get all worked up and lambast the hell out of him. Now although Rajeev's article was printed just a few days ago, what impact has it had so far and what impact can it have in the future? Is it going to bring about divisions and give rise to conflict among Indians or the people of the world? Is it going to result in mass genocide or even lead to the eradication of some beautiful languages from India's varied linguistic landscape? Is it going to result in the destruction of entire cultures and civilisations, the annihilation of a few nations and a few peoples?

I hope you understand these are rhetorical questions and that the obvious answer to each of these is a clear 'NO'.

You must have also observed that in his article Rajeev stresses the point that no one single language can be forced down the throats of all Indians. Even this did little to prevent you from castigating his article.

Speaking for myself, I have no intention of hurting even an Islamic fly or of breaking any bruised Christian reed. But, like you, I reserve for myself the right to criticise and oppose something that I feel is manifestly wrong. I would steadfastly oppose anyone who believes or advocates that every human being speak only one language and that all other languages are falsities that should to be destroyed permanently.

Call it bigotry, if by doing so you get any comfort. I really don't care because I'm sure that by now you must have relegated me to the world of those who are "different" from you. Let me assure you that I would not have it any other way.

Govind

Earlier Mail