History of hate

Sir ? Tapan Raychaudhuri?s three-part article was interesting and well researched but he missed out on some key points in his attempt to be politically correct. For instance, Raychaudhuri says that the likes of Togadia would want to punish those who profess Ghazni?s faith. Raychaudhuri?s analysis is quite irrelevant as the problem lies not with those who share Ghazni?s faith but with people living in the reflected glory of this tyrant. If somebody feels proud to be a descendant of a Moghul tyrant, then there is a problem. After all a secular person cannot be expected to defend this view just because it comes from a Muslim.

Moreover, in order to blend with the mainstream, different communities need to share and be proud of a common past. A Muslim might find it difficult to appreciate the Upanishads or the Vedas. Does this mean that he is forced to identify with the Hindu past and scriptures? Raychaudhuri needs to address such difficult questions and merely claiming that Muslims are respectful of Hindu scriptures will not do.

Raychaudhuri has also refused to address some other critical issues. On many occasions, Muslim fundamentalists have been pardoned after taking part in a riot while their Hindu counterparts have been punished for their involvement. The Muslim intelligentsia has desisted from condemning acts of terror carried out by Islamic militants, leading to speculations that they in fact endorsed such criminal acts. Someone needs to tell Raychaudhiri that fundamentalism needs to be confronted through dialogue rather than by criticizing Togadia and Advani. After all, people like them exploit the divisions that have been created by us.

Yours faithfully,
D.P. Ghatak, Durgapur

Sir ? The palpable concern shown by Tapan Raychaudhuri for communal amity is admirable but he, like many others, ignores an important point while talking about ways to solve the problem of communalism. Scholars like Raychaudhuri tend to believe that the minorities are ignorant of the factors that jeopardize peace and harmony. This is not true as minorities are aware of the inhuman treatment meted out to marginalized sections by upper caste Hindus and that nothing much has been done to stall the oppression. How can members of the minority community take the promises of good will on the part of the Hindu majority at face value? Mutual distrust, therefore, seems to be the biggest hurdle on the path of achieving communal harmony in India.

Yours faithfully,
A.K. Biswas, Patna

Sir ? In ?What lies hidden in the footnotes of the past? (June 7), Tapan Raychaudhuri has spilled venom against the sangh parivar for fanning communal discord. Not only that, he also blames the forces of Hindutva for ? destroying mosques and killing Muslims?. However, the only mosque that has been ?destroyed? by Hindus is the Babri Masjid which was a disputed structure and there is nothing wrong in this. With regard to Raychaudhuri?s claim that Hindus under the instructions of the sangh parivar have repeatedly taken part in communal riots, I would like to remind Raychaudhuri that more instances of communal violence have taken place in states which were not under the rule of the Hindu right. At a time when Hindus are being killed in cold blood in Kashmir, does Raychaudhuri expect them to do nothing but sing paeans to the spirit of brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims?

Yours faithfully,
Asoke C. Banerjee, Calcutta

Sir ? Tapan Raychaudhuri analyses the problem of communalism in his three-part article so as to find a solution to this problem. But first, we need to ask what communal violence means in the Indian context. The general perception is that communalism refers to the animosity between Hindus and Muslims. Raychaudhuri has explained at length how elements in the majority community propagated a xenophobic ideology which portrayed Muslims as a pampered minority. But is that all there is to it? Have we forgotten the plight of other communities like Christians and Buddhists who have a long history of persecution?

Raychaudhuri has referred to the nefarious designs of the proponents of Hindutva to gain from propagating hatred. According to Raychaudhuri, the misdeeds of the sangh parivar should compel all conscientious Hindus to have second thoughts about identifying themselves as such.

All this makes a lot of sense but no discussion of communal disharmony can be complete without referring to caste-based discrimination. Raychaudhuri has touched upon religious hatred but does not mention caste-based violence, which, in fact, is related to the problem of communalism so typical in India. There can be no end to the menace unless one talks about the different kinds of violence related to it.

Yours faithfully,
Asok Dasgupta, Calcutta