This theme looks around at areas of new conglomerating identities.
This theme looks around at areas of new conglomerating identities.
[ click on the ballot box]
Please copy and distribute extensively.
Feminist, blogger and activist Anasuya Sengupta, in an essay called ‘Fundamentalisms of the Progressive‘ wrote,
‘One of our campaigns was to wear a white ribbon for peace (the White Ribbon Campaign for Peace, India) – we used it both as a symbol and as a talking point, to begin conversations about violence of all kinds, including what we call ‘communalism’ in India (the rousing of hatred against particular communities). Initially, some of our friends scoffed at us, and wondered what an insignificant white ribbon could do, to change attitudes and animosities.
But the interesting thing was that there were so many people – both young and not so young – who were unable to be political in the same way as they saw ‘activists’; they felt this meant standing at street corners with banners, or going on rallies, or shouting slogans against the government. They found this too ‘political’ (in their understanding of the term), and yet they were deeply disturbed at the kinds of violence being perpetrated in the name of religion.
So for these people, wearing a ribbon was the beginning of a series of conversations they had with others, which began other processes of change, at least in terms of breaking the silence around violence.
And because it was something everyone could do – and have conversations at whatever level of politics and ideology each was comfortable with – it wasn’t intimidating in any way, and yet gave a sense of belonging to a community against violence, and speaking up for peace.’
Do you believe in pluralism and justice?
Are you Secular, liberal, free thinking?
Do you believe that all religion has in its essence ways of leading a soulful, integrated and fulfilled life?
Do you believe that religious extremism has done us no good?
Say No to religious bigotry.
In the past few days we have seen a brave intercession in the country’s political sphere. In what is becoming an increasingly stifling atmosphere for diversity and difference, it’s time to take a backseat and readjust our gaze.
To speak for all women in India one needs to stifle some aspect of one’s identity so that your voice comes through and is easily translatable. But to speak today, I’m going to stop trying to stifle the angst that is keeping me so narrowly focused, or else, I would just buckle-up and abandon the fight. So I speak as a woman and as a Muslim.
After Gujarat 2002 the psyche of the nation was shocked beyond belief that it was actually possible that the fabric of the country’s humanism had eroded. Had 60 years of being citizens of a secular republic not had any effect on us?
If what we saw in Gujarat is the success of a laboratory experiment in Fascism then it is important to analyse with great care its philosophy and hypotheses. To know how the symptoms were bred and where the zeal came from, to look at both perpetrator and victim and the real difference between them.
What effect the massacres of Gujarat have had upon the women in Gujarat will show itself in time. Because implicit in the understanding of sexual violation and rape as a means of extermination is a thinking that is at its root the gravest danger to feminine life.
Can we talk about this easily? No. Because we are suffering from it. There is no tenderness in the act of disclosure. No safe vantage point where our grief will find utterance. We’ve buried ourselves with and in it in order to exist so as to safeguard some other means of being. We will try to reach it, point fingers at it and leverage it on other indirect causes but our loss is as clear as the silence and rebuttal after an outrage. Nothing that can be said carries with it any meaningful articulation when it comes to this. Where there should be pain, agitation, aching and remorse there is grim intolerance set in sullen eyes, all too willing to look away.
What distance or gap could separate a woman from another’s pain? It could only be the vindictiveness that makes one want someone else also to suffer and feel what you have been through. This only means that the difference between pain is just of degree. When inhumanity is bred, that process is one of pain. In cold blood. Wanting to put someone else through the endless road to doom that you are already walking. Because you have been bred, not to immunity but to the vice. Because you can see better but you don’t want to because you didn’t have any better. When one woman is violated, all women are at shame. And all men are to blame. And this makes the massacres of Gujarat a telling systemic register for the sexual ethics in our ‘nation’.
Hope is still a better vision of the world because one has the imagination for change. The deepest precipices are written over but the outcry needs to be addressed first.
We all have been wronged.
More from the Feminist Front in Ultra-Violet.
And if you disagree with what I have said, because you can feel, then, lets come together.
What you said about the One State Solution Week, 2007.
Two responses of ‘mainstream’ women.
‘I think the question – and therefore a possible ‘answer’ – can be phrased differently. What needs to help the violence in the sub-continent abate? What do we need to do for peace?
And one possible solution to that is not, I personally feel, a campaign against nations and nationalities because that can be historically difficult to comprehend and to change; it is to turn the issue of borders upside down, and to recognise that so much of nationhood is ‘imagined communities’ – different depending on who imagines, and what they imagine… In which case, we can be one state of mind… one state of imagined peace, of harmony, of non-violence. Some of us across the artificial, geographical borders of South Asia already do – to some extent – share this state of being. We share cultural habits of hospitality, social habits like films (!) and best of all, political beliefs in peace.
However, for the future, this imagined community needs to be louder, more visible, more powerful. It needs to express this vision of a shared sub-continent of peace. And pragmatically, it needs to push the fact that cooperation, rather than conflict, is better for trade, for finance, for security and ultimately, for the well-being of our people.’
Anasuya Sengupta, ‘One State of Mind‘.
‘One state solution is a very attractive idea but i don’t think it is feasible. I know I speak very bluntly and seculars don’t like my views. But I speak what I really feel; I don’t care for secular image/credentials.
Why this idea is not possible because
(1) Muslims cannot live peacefully with other communities.
(2)Hindus in pre-partition society were different, they were naive, they were ready to go to any extent to appease their Muslim ‘brothers’. It was easy for mahatmas to suppress feelings of those wounded refugees who had to leave their everything in Pakistan.
Now I don’t think Hindus can be fooled so easily.
(3)seculars (of course Hindus) will never try to understand the real nature of the problem so naturally whenever any communal problem arises they try to equate RSS with Muslim fanatics/terrorists, secondly they will always remember ‘Gujarat’ but will never dare to mention ‘Kashmir’. (See your mail in which you have done the same thing).
As long as these seculars exist in the society communal tension will always prevail.
If Muslims follow leaders like dr. APJ Abdul Kalam or Jinnah of 1920 then only Hindus should support One State Solution.’
Vedavati Jogi, in response to an initiatory mail.
*Please note: the graph is an artistic statement, and was not plotted with demographical data.Any dispute/protest is welcome.And the two responses are set-up by way of contrast, not comparision.