???
Like Guru, I don’t quite understand what Ramachandra Guha is on about when he writes, in the NYT, of how he “came to understand (though not support) why so many Indians had favored building a Ram temple in Ayodhya.” He writes:
Once a center of Islamic civilization, later the center of a white man’s Raj, after 1947 Delhi had become a city of the Hindu and Sikh victims of partition. These Punjabi migrants had lost homes and businesses in that bloody summer of 1947. Starting from scratch, they had come to dominate Delhi’s commerce and social life. Yet they remained insecure; who knew when catastrophe might come again? And so they hoarded diamonds and maintained Swiss bank accounts.Why does Guha generalise that all Punjabi migrants were a bunch of cheats? Why does he forget that the Ram temple project also received support from quarters that were unaffected by Partition? And finally, what does it mean to “understand (though not support)”?They also cheated their tenants. In six years in Delhi, my wife and I had four landlords, all refugees from the Pakistani part of Punjab. All four hooked their appliances to our electricity meter, and all kept our deposits when we left.
The rest of the piece is also rather strange, especially some stuff about a dream…
I agree with you. To say that all punjabi migrants are cheat is quite some generalisation. Besides, the article is in pieces and ends rather abruptly.
Comment by Truman — August 18, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Yes, the Punjabi migrants part is strange. Also, the article seems to be going all over the place(Ayodhya, East Coast, Pakistani friend, Ayodhya again) and doesn’t seem to be making any substantive point.
Still, why can’t one “understand (though not support)” something? I can see why some people feel as they do about the Ram temple — but breaking the law is hardly the answer to any question.
Comment by scritic — August 24, 2007 @ 4:05 pm