What is the problem?

Here is a sample conversion from my Facebook feed:

Hindu friend 1: Be wise…vote BJP. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/27-communal-riots-in-up-since-sp-formed-govt-cm-admits-in-house/1083234/ (The secular SP government has overseen more riots in last 2 years than the communal BJP in Gujarat which saw only 1 riot in last 10 years)
Muslim friend: solution of communal riot is communal party??? I wonder how
Hindu friend 2: Extraordinary Popular Delusion #1 is that India is a Secular country. A Secular state treats all its citizens equally irrespective of religion – which means same laws govern all citizens. Abolishing the Muslim personal law is required to make this communal country Secular. BJP is the only party that would probably do that. Male reactionaries and conservatives in the Muslim communities who want to perpetuate their dominance and subjugation of women are the most vehement critics of these reforms. Muslim psyche in India is fearful and paranoid but the reality is opposite – Rest of India has much more reason to fear totalitarian, monolith Islamic ideology. “Communal Party” will do more good for Muslims than Congress and SP ever will.
Hindu friend 1: @Muslim friend Riots in BJP ruled sates vs Congress/SP ruled states in last 10 years?

You can’t help but feel sorry for the Muslim friend. What he says is logical, but somehow the data doesn’t match.

Even if 0.1% of each sect is problematic/extremist, minority will still encounter more problematic people than vice versa. The chances of meeting a person of different sect rise exponentially with total population. Thus, sectarian issues become much more important for minorities than the majority.

Communalism in India is not an issue for Hindu voters. Most of them can’t be expected to care either – they have never faced it! Where minorities see systematic problem, Hindus have more basic concerns like economics (how to earn money) and corruption (how to keep that money). Christians aren’t that loud against the system because the prescribed ideal system is based on christian values in the first place. Sikhs, at least after 1984 riots, are either scouting foreign countries or, as of yet, are unsuccessfully trying to create a Sikh country. Kind of like Jews before Israel. Muslims, as the biggest minority in India and as one of the biggest religions in the world, end up mostly alone, and due to the (consequential) varying response among them, let the louder mouths be more prominent.

Solution to Muslim problem? I am not a Muslim so I won’t know.

But personally, as a Buddhist/Atheist, I think Sikh’s are mostly right.


Male Chauvinism, Masculinity and Logic

I have encountered following traits as socially being interchangeable:

  1. Male Chauvinism
  2. Masculinity
  3. Logic

If you don’t follow this list, try reading it from below. Examples:

Men are logical while women are not.
Men don’t cry.
Women are emotional.
Girls are’t good at Maths.

I mean to say, it is fairly obvious that masculinity is confused with logical thinking. This has historically been understood, and it is easy to find proofs of it in historical texts. I will not dwell into it further.

No, the point of concern here is how often masculinity and male chauvinism are confused. For example, these are sentences I have heard from my friends over time:

  1. A man should control his woman’s mind. It shouldn’t be allowed to wander too much.
  2. It is better if your woman sees the world through your eyes.
  3. A younger girl is better because she will trust you more than herself.
  4. Women crave a commanding authority.

As such, a ‘masculine’ liberal is a man who forces freedom upon the women (and not shares it). A ‘masculine’ conservative is a man who doesn’t think freedom is for women.

It is easy to digress from here into a discussion about women’s rights. But that would be missing the subtle charge laid upon men to be ‘masculine’. Or rather, accept the authority of those who are more masculine. By forcing a man to govern over a women, and thus derive masculine identity from it, one forces a man to accept an order. That the indicter, by the very fact of being a part of such an order before the latter, is proven to be more masculine becomes an essential side effect.

Of course, once indiction is completed, one needs to find another victim to boss around and include in the hierarchy.