'The entire country is not one huge cow belt out to harass any group'

Beef and bullfighting

I am against banning beef or any kind of meat because we ultimately have to consume living things to survive (“Hindutva hypocrisy: Why is beef banned as food but bull torture allowed for sport?”). But I am against jallikattu because it simply does not decide our survival. The idea behind it pleasure. But you do not have to agitate one living being to entertain another. Compassion for animals should always be part of our thinking. - Sumit Jain

***

The writer is more focused on finding fault with the BJP-led government than paying attention to the local realities. In Tamil Nadu, where the Centre has permitted jallikattu, beef is not banned. So the writer’s entire argument collapses.

Incidentally, beef is permitted in several states. The writer should realise that the entire country is not one huge cow belt out to harass any group. - M Venkatachari

***

Jallikattu is a sport, not torture. It incentivises desi bull rearing and should not have been banned in the first place. Beef is not the issue. Mutual respect requires that Hindu deities must not be violently attacked by anyone. The religious existence of Hindus must be secured just like any other religion within the scope of the law. – Somashish N

***

I completely agree that jallikattu is an uncivilised practice and should no longer be permitted. Even the practice of sati was part of our culture, but was banned because of its brutality.

Similarly, this sport is barbaric. However, the words that you have used in the article - Hindutva hypocrisy - are objectionable.

The central government’s move on jallikattu is politically motivated in light of the upcoming Tamil Nadu assembly elections. So please do not try to communalise the issue. Such statements are widening the gaps between different communities in India. Hindutva is not represented by the handful of people sitting in power. So please choose your words wisely.

If you really want to protest, then do it wisely by making people aware of the torture that bulls have to go through during training. – Prayas Chavhan

***

A very peculiar thing is happening under the central government, whose leaders are ready to kill those who slaughter cows, but have legalised publicly killing bulls just for votes.

People who killed a man on the basis of a rumour about him eating beef have let a cow’s son die in vain. – Vaibhav Mishra

***

Every domestic animal has some purpose. Without any job or purpose, no one gets encouraged to keep them. If the purpose is lost, there will be severe long-term effects on that animal. One should seriously think about the implication of any decision in the long run. – Rajesh Kumar

Drawing a line

Our myths are filled with inclusive, non-judgemental world views. We should encourage discussion and debate on what the stories tell us (“Faith over rationalism: The Indian elite are making the same mistake as their Pakistani counterparts”). – Shobna

***

Rationalism is nothing but faith in not believing what was said by our forefathers. Your argument is absurd in every term. I thought about replying word by word, but you are writing such stories consciously. – Krishna

***

I found your article disturbing for various reasons. It is biased and full of references to the right-wing and conveniently ignores the rise of Islamic extremism by giving a violent colour to right-wing thoughts.

Baba Ramdev doesn’t believe in homosexuality but he has never demanded that the LGBT community be given a death sentence. Liberal Hindus are offended that the media continuously paints the community as a tribe that is reverting to a barbaric past.

Secular is an ideology that is going off the charts. India is a Hindu majority country and has survived countless rulers. Blaming Narendra Modi for the 2002 riots is an old trick. – Abhinav Smith

History of Hinduism

I found the article facile and emotion-laden, rather an informed version of what Hinduism is all about. It appears that the author is harbouring angst against a group of people, which he is trying to air under the guise of “short history”, Nothing he says is original, nor is it informative. He also makes unsubstantiated statements.

I am not a Hindu chauvinist. If anything, I am agnostic. However, I am passionate about unbiased writing and this article does not fit that description. – Kishore Asthana

***

Many people live in a make-believe world of sentiments. This is a wonderful example of bringing a realistic perspective to religious sentiment. – SK Choudhury

***

While it is correct that Hinduism is a collection of schools of philosophy and religions, the article comes across as naive.

Is there any data or statistics to show that followers of Hinduism (for lack of a better word to describe the collective of indigenous philosophical and religious thought) were intolerant or violent?

Also, you seem to be suggesting that by naming Hinduism, the Persian world acquired some special right or ownership over its fate. – Harsh Modi

***

Thank you for writing this really nice piece. I’ve always believed in the ideas that been expressed in this article. It’s also something to gift our pro-Hindutva friends and brothers who just want rub in the face of others the notion of “this is India, this is our culture”.

It’s funny that every time someone screams Hindustan instead of Bharat, they are simply pushing the Mughal agenda deeper into our psyche. – Pradeesh R

***

Most knowledgeable Hindus are aware that the Zoroastrians were from Aryavart/ Iran, and that the term Hindu was derived from the river Sindhu, by replacing the sound of S with H, For example, Soma in Sanskrit was replaced by Homa in Avesta.

The term Hindu predates Mohammed by a millennium. The Arabs were illiterate camel lovers when the term Hindu was coined. Anyway, the phrase should be Sanatan Dharma, not Hinduism. – Meherban Irani

***

A great salute to the writer’s little and incomplete knowledge of the so-called Hindu religion. Kindly do not propagate your little knowledge. I do not believe in the history that has been written owing to some wrong calls by society. – Bhawana Upadhyaya

Biased reportage

How much more partisan can you get (“Was Malda really an incident of communal violence?”)? The writer painstakingly tries to invent artificial secular reasons for the incident. The “criminal element” and “political angle” are typical factors in all sectarian clashes. She tries in vain to bring in the alleged presence of the RSS, as if it somehow justifies the attack on innocents. The author’s motives are highly questionable. – Ravi Veeraraghavan

No laughing matter

This is the height of intolerance (“The Kiku Sharda case: Why people in power hate mimics more than other comedians”). Our society is digressing into a banana republic if a person is being sent to jail for mimicry.

Some Bharatiya Janata Party supporters will cleverly argue that the government is powerless in a judicial matter. However, the government instantly finds out if any complaint of this sort is registered and can sort out the matter outside court. If the Haryana government wanted, it could have persuaded the complainant to withdraw the case after the actor’s apology and he could have been spared this ignominy. – Vishal Jindal

***

A poor comedian living peacefully in Mumbai was arrested for hurting the sentiments of a man who has created unrest in Punjab. What a joke! – Vipul Grover

Underwhelming criticism

I am the director of the “The Printing Machine” video (“Is the “groundbreaking” Kalki Koechlin video powerful poetry or an ad?”). Just read Shubhra Dixit’s review and I have to say “thank you” and “however”.

Thank you, because you have ended my patient wait for a negative review. “Groundbreaking” was a kind adjective assigned by some web portals, but we the creators hardly feel deserving of such flattery. Starved for the “other point of view”, yours came along swiftly, but left us all feeling “meh”. Here’s the why and the “however” of it.

I have a problem with your problem. Why do we, as a generation, fear “the packaged”? The instant social commentary becomes entertaining, self-aware and glossy; why does it become shallow? It’s like having a problem with that liberal feminist who wore blood red lipstick. Or can we only handle satire, if it is raw, rundown and badly lit? Can we only sense “earnestness” if it tip-toes into the conference room and quietly takes the back seat?

Your opinion in the article seems to hate stereotypes, but I fear it just became the biggest, albeit subconscious reflection of one. And calling it “advertising” is hardly an insult. In fact, far from it, I’m rather glad it is (although I have my reservations with the portmanteau ‘femvertising’, but never mind.)

Social media is here for us to discover, delight and debate. Had it not been for this “cold cream commercial” version of ‘The Printing Machine’, Kalki Koechlin’s initial rendition (at the Hyatt Mumbai, by the way), would have continued to be relegated to the shadows of YouTube playlists with its measly 2,000 views (which you seem to love so much). It wasn’t discovered, couldn’t delight and never started a debate. Now it does. And our job as creators is done.

I wish the bone you had to pick on this one had more meat on it. – Akanksha Seda

Selective prohibition

The policy has been introduced to reduce the consumption of alcohol in Kerala and the people of Kerala have accepted this policy as a good initiative (“Five star discrimination: Why the Supreme Court judgment in the Kerala liquor ban case gets it wrong”). The only remaining issue is helping those who lost their jobs because of bars closing down.

The state-owned liquor retail outlets can solve the author’s concerns about the poor not getting alcohol across Kerala. Please don’t try to make this argument about social class and status.

Now let us see the real face of these bar owners. Most of their hotels are run mainly from the revenue from bars, which often provide separate entrances. Their customer base comprises a large number of daily wagers who visit these bars after work or even in the morning before going to work. – Aravind Ajayakumar

Temple dress code

We don’t expect a better appreciation of the need for proper attire by visitors to temples from a feigned liberal individual who flaunts his penchant for criticising Hindu practices (“The dress law for temples is just another tool to rein in ‘provocative’ women”). The likes of TM Krishna only cry hoarse against Hindu traditions, which never fail to glorify women. – JR Krishnan

***

The same Hindus who often visit a gurdwara or a church follow those traditions without a whimper. In particular, a Brahmin willingly visits the gurdwara with handkerchief on his or her head. I have never seen anyone complain or produce a whimper of dissent.

In Islam, one cannot enter their place of worship without following a strict code. Yet, when Hindus try to bring back a tradition observed over thousands of years, it is other Hindus who revolt. This is hypocrisy.

Justice Vaidyanathan’s report only asks for adding some traditional values to a decaying system. So why the outcry? When you can observe traditions at home, why doesn’t the same apply to a temple?

It is important not to dilute anything and everything of traditional value in the name of rights, freedom and oppression, and learn to appreciate traditional values and customs that have prevailed for thousands of years. I can understand the outcry if the systems are inherently oppressive, but they are nothing but expressive. – Hari Subramanian

Respecting the anthem

It would have been civilised behaviour by this person to explain his stand in a lucid manner, which he should be capable of doing as an intellectual and a writer (“Bollywood screenwriter hustled out of theatre for not standing for the national anthem”). His failure to do so indicates that he is uncivilised and does not deserve respect despite his credentials.

He learned his lesson and behaved rightly the next day by entering the hall after the anthem and will hopefully continue to do so in future.

Those who litter public places are equally uncivilised and a time will come when people will act similarly against such offenders. This person can lead or join them, since (thankfully) he finds littering objectionable. – Arun Dabir

Too quick to criticise

The article seems extremely biased against the Aam Aadmi Party (“In odd-even plan, Kejriwal has found his Swachh Bharat moment”). The writer is willing to applaud Narendra Modi for merely raising the slogan of Swachh Bharat and levying a tax on the already struggling common man. But he is unwilling to appreciate the sincere effort by the Delhi chief minister to reduce pollution, which involved just a short 15-day experiment.

While the writer is willing to be patient with the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan for months, pay tax, as well as see no improvement in the levels of cleanliness, I don’t understand the urgency to label the odd-even plan a failure.

Instead of blaming AAP for feeling that the media is out to get them, he should first take a sincere look at his own article. Just to clarify, I’m not associated with any party but am a concerned Indian citizen who wants to give the Delhi government a chance. It is made up of educated, patriotic people who are working in an environment where they are up against very wealthy and experienced political parties, which are creating hurdles for them because they are finding it difficult to handle an honest and popular party such as the Aam Aadmi Party. – Priti Khanna

BJP’s Kerala foray

Dhirendra K Jha’s arguments have several flaws (“In poll-bound Kerala, the BJP may already have got its caste equations wrong”). Firstly, Ezhavas cannot be brought under a single banner as the inhabitants of Kasaragod district, who are Kannada-speaking Billavas, are not on the same page as the SNDP.

Both the BJP and SNDP know that this assembly election is crucial for them as the UDF and LDF are entangled by factionalism. So they won’t let this opportunity go in vain.

An important miss on the writer’s part is the VS Achuthanandan factor. If the CPM veteran, who has a strong clout especially among the Ezhava community of south Kerala, is neglected, then Vellappally Natesan can become a spoiler for the LDF and UDF in many seats. – Naveen Kulamarva

Exoticising a community

It is unfortunate that the young writer feels indebted to Survival International alone, especially since serious scholars and concerned citizens of the past and present have contributed greatly towards our understanding of the Particularly Vulnerable Tribes of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and the Jarawas in particular (“Why this young writer switched from campus romances to the Jarawas of Andamans”).

Notwithstanding Survival India’s concern for the Jarawas, many of its positions are questionable as they are not based on any clear or first-hand understanding of the community or its relationship with the state or settlers.

Scholars who have worked with the Jarawas for many years are well aware that the community have a mind of their own and have the capacity to decide whether or not they should be mainstreamed and under what conditions.

The recent attempts by young writers to suggest that all of this is a “mystery” and hence in dire need of being written about in popular formats is yet another away of exoticising a people for popular consumption, albeit with more politically correct rationales. – Dr M Mazumdar

Religion’s economic link

Perhaps the article and the underlying study would be more credible if some thought was given to other factors that may be driving this correlation (“Two charts show how economic prosperity brings a decline in religiosity”).

Russia and China showing up lower down on the religiosity scale is not so much a function of economic prosperity, but an outcome of political regimes that have systematically and officially disowned religion.

Organised religion is essentially a political tool, and is as relevant as ever in today’s world, given the extent to which societies are polarised.

Therefore, it seems plausible that economically less-developed societies are more prone to the use of religion as a political tool. – Rahul