Can You Take It Arun Shourie?

I am sorry but it’s disheartening to see all the comments below laced with religious fundamentalism subtly or outright or both. As much as Arun Shourie talks about religion and faith he is looking at the larger picture of Secularism. Focus on the larger picture and the ratio of his argument as a whole than simply picking up random facts separately.

On the other hand, it’s a great interview. I came across ‘newslaundry’ only today and Madhu ma’am RESPECT. I hope you visit faculties of Journalism and inspire students like me because the young breed of journalists of our generation needs someone like you to inspire.

Excellent interview, there was *not one* thing that Arun Shourie said, that I could even remotely disagree with. Regarding Madhu’s questions and responses (though I know she could sometimes purposefully ask questions that are “factually incorrect” or “provocative” for the sake of a deeper and better interview):

1. The bit about Narendra Modi possibly having dealt with the Godhra train-burning incident differently is profoundly naive. The suggestion of “instant justice” is in itself immature (as also unrealistic). We have, thankfully, a good justice system in this country where “summary trials” and “next-day executions” do not (and cannot) occur. In any case, is Madhu seriously suggesting that the conspirators of the mob that burnt down the Sabarmati express would not have denied their role (or alleged an “accident” inside the carriage, as the Congress and UPA allies like Laloo later did propagandize) and avoided the law by hook or by crook? Look no further than Ajmal Kasab — the 26/11 attacks with 300 fatalities could be called more dastardly and devastating than the burning alive of 60 pilgrims returning from Ayodhya, and we also have CCTV evidence, 100s of irrefutable proofs and a solid case against him, and yet the justice system of this country has not been able to hang him for 4 years! Then what is she talking about Modi being able to hang the Godhra conspirators “publicly” (which would have been illegal, by the way) in a matter of days?!

2. Regarding the post-Godhra riots and (two-sided) mob violence, Shourie’s answers were perfect. Don’t forget, that region has had a long history of communal tensions and riots. But even if that was any other part of India, it is highly unlikely that a provocation as blatant and flagrant as the Sabarmati burning would have gone unnoticed or without retaliation. Riots are tragedies and societal screw-ups, yes, but one cannot just close one’s eyes and assume they do not exist. Liberal and peaceful (“general” traits attributed to Indians) persons like you and me are not the only ones that inhabit this planet.

3. Madhu, *please* stop giving credence/popularity to Sagarika Ghose’s shallow, nonsensical and offensive term “Internet Hindu”. If Sagarika Ghose were ever to meet me and discuss a few of her pet subjects (she doesn’t have many things she can talk about anyway) I am quite certain she would categorize me as one “IH” as well. But I am not even what she would normally call a “Hindu” (well, at least not in the religious or narrow sense) in the first place! Also, stop overplaying caustic behaviour on Twitter by acting the victim. “IHs” (who, as I said, probably ain’t even all “Hindu”) are just the confident and aggressive young Indians who are no longer cowed down by pseudo-secularists who have controlled India’s politics in a tight irongrip for 50 years since independence.

4. Also, what does the above “aggressive Indian” (or “Internet Hindu”) have to do with crimes against women, molestations, Khaps or honour killings? The media has been mischieviously hiding and mischaracterizing several details recently. Take that recent case of the Baghpat village that banned women from using mobile phones or going out alone with male relative escorts, that the media mischaracterized as a “Khap decree” — but Asaara is neither a Jat village nor does it have any Khap in the first place! It was just a clear-cut case of the village men trying to impose Shariah on their womenfolk. In any case, as Shourie replied, it is obviously necessary to delink the crime from the criminal’s religion, unless there is an above-normal correlation between that crime and that religion.

5. Kuldip Nayar? Seriously? Oh please, come on! But I would give the benefit of the doubt to Madhu here that she took that old fool’s name just because she was trying to extract some kind of response from Shourie that he ultimately gave

6. Did Madhu really allege that the *BJP* “uses” religion and brought it into India’s politics?! This has to be the joke of the century! And again, I am sure Madhu herself knows that the *Congress* has been blatantly communal (and a cynical “user” of religious identity) since even before independence! Anyway, yet again, Shourie’s response was brilliant. The BJP is *not* a communal party, but one that has had enough of the *other* parties’ communalism and minority-appeasement (that is nowadays dressed up and passed around as “secularism” in India).