Before even going into why such rants are useless, Its important to understand certain realities about cosmopolitan set ups and how societies function. Take a look at the ethnic and racial mapping profiles of the cosmopolitan haven New York here. The very fact that you have segregated ghettos for Asians, whites and blacks speaks volumes on how societies function. A similar mapping if performed on Indian Metros will not provide any surprising result different from New York. A quick survey on how many Muslim households would rent their houses to other communities will also throw up similar results. More on this read Professor Thomas Sowell on the Multicultural Cult I and II.
Now coming to the rants by some of these people. Sample this
"I don't see it as a failure for the Muslims, I see it as a failure of a country that refuses to grow up and accept its own people"Such sweeping statements are utterly misleading and uncalled for. The country has come a long way from Yusuf Khan, Mahjabeen Bano, Mumtaz Jahan had to masquerade under Hindu names to get wider acceptance in Bollywood.
If my memory serves me right, even Shabana Azmi had made a similar statement that blogger female tends to make.
"I have never been the idealistic or the religious Muslim but I am definitely a proud Muslim who has never been guilty of being born one. I am not starting now"Now this brings to the central question that the Islamic community has not been able to answer beyond rhetoric. What does it mean to be a proud Muslim? How does a proud Muslim view non-believers? What is a proud Muslim really proud of? Whom does a proud Muslim look up to?
Until and unless these questions are answered coherently by the Muslim intelligentsia and elsewhere societies are well within their limits to be protective.
Last words from Professor Sowell's piece.
"There was a reason why employers in the middle of the 19th century had signs that said, "No Irish need apply" -- and why employers in the middle of the 20th century no longer had such signs. It was not that employers had changed. The Irish had changed"
From the media's standpoint anything sensational is worth covering. If you have a story on how a Hindu donated blood to save a Muslim's life, thats not worth covering. Its all about the angle.
ReplyDeleteI like the last words from Sowell.
It is a brilliant exposition of a needless argument that perhaps was raked up by the Congress Party for petty vote bank politics and as usual, by the media for sensationalism.
ReplyDeleteIt is reciprocal comfort that social communities thrive for. If you get caught by one bad element amongst a socially upbeat living group, that only ends up in spoils. Let us admit it, Muslims are governed by a fanatic outlook. In areas where they are not predominant in numbers, they either become social outcasts or mostly end up being social thorns.
It is a wonderful counter argument whether they would rent out their houses/flats to others under similar conditions. Definitely not. The same applies to Christians too.
However much we boast about being metropolitan or cosmopolitan, the basic discomfort from being overwhelmed by a dogma not suiting your freedom does invoke discomfort and needless disenchantment.
And this feeling is mutual by the way.
Excellent piece of blog, Sir. Thanks.
All you've said is how societies function in India and abroad. You said nothing about why societies must keep functioning that way. I have not seen the TV news on it, neither have I read about it anywhere, so I cannot say if the media is blowing things out of proportion. But if the complaints are legitimate, i.e people are denied houses just because they're Muslim, the least we should do is acknowledge the fact that this is unfair.
ReplyDelete