The perils of secular triangulation

I have been meaning to comment on these two articles. These are remarkable because they mark some of the rare occasions when someone from secular liberal establishment breaks off from the norm and makes an admission, even if grudging (and the above articles are reluctant, I regret to say), either  of exceptionalism of Indic civilization and her history, or of the conflict between Hindu and Muslims which is existential in nature.

First the article by Ashish Nandy (courtesy Rohit). Now even though he is a figure much reviled by us nationalists, I think unlike others he should be engaged in debate. In the article he rightly mocks the idea that Indians need to be indoctrinated with secularism for living in communal amity, something which has been the norm of Indic religious experience, if only our liberal overlords did bother to notice, (of course having been indoctrinated in missionary schools they can't be expected to, but that is a different matter). I do have two objections to it however. Firstly, there is still a reluctance to elucidate, namely , it is Hinduism which is the soul of Indic civilization, and history of India is inseparable from history of Hinduism. Secondly, as I have written earlier, tolerance, and inclusiveness is not the highest virtue a civilization can aspire for, and certainly not one that should be adhered to fanatically at all time without regards to cost, sure in the general scheme of things, being tolerant and respectful is a great enabler of social interaction and progress. However there are times, and situations, when tolerance is not only useless but impediment in doing what is right. So while India has been tolerant, it is not its highest virtue nor the ultimate goal she sought.

The article by Pratap Bhanu Mehta is also interesting in that it admits that the agitation over Amarnath is very much communal in nature, in fact, he goes further, correctly, in his explanation and reveals the great taboo. That partition was very much about conflicting identities (or nationalities he puts), and therefore any conversation without taking conflict and its history into account is for any practical purposes worthless. However even here he is reluctant to go whole hog and name the conflict identities,because doing so will establish a) That there is an Islamic identity which has influenced masses of Muslims from various parts of the globe, impacting events, in past as well as contemporary  world and b)  More importantly there is Indian identity which is independent of, and much more vast, than present shibboleth of secularism, which has directed actions of people living across this land since times immemorial. .

Finally the refusal of secular establishment to accept the truth and power of India must be recognized for what it is, a sort of schizophrenia, driven by their self loathing due to lifetime of indoctrination, the establishment seeks post-identity society. Since this is impossible to achieve, at least in this age of civilization, what it finds is stagnation leading to dissolution of India. Nihilism by chance.