The irony of “moving on”

"The verdict itself was not in tune with the aspirations of a modern, democratic, young nation."

This line,written by her eminence Vidya Subrahmaniam in The Hindu today sounds so emphatic that you will be led to believe that she has done some extensive interviews covering a wide range of "modern" and "young" people, pieced together enormous data and finally arrived at that conclusion. However, a cursory (or a indepth) reading of her article doesn't point to any numbers. Now, then we begin to wonder how exactly this conlusion has been arrived at!

Ignoring this fascinating conclusion, we move on to read the article. A couple of paras are dedicated to the peace that was prevalent in the country. For the whole of last week, The Hindu through various articles kept on reminding us that there is peace but there is discontent. And now it is beginning to sound like as if they are unhappy with the peace despite the discontent! (Note: This is only my feeling and not of all "readers of The Hindu").

And then there is a cursory mention of this - "The Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid used the Friday prayers to deliver a fiery, rabble-rousing speech". No condemnation of this speech, just a mere mention.

She then goes on to mention how she picked up "unbiased, untutored" muslims. Now, I wonder what does "unbiased" mean in this context? Having an opinion implies being biased towards the opinion. Now, is she to say they are unbiased because their thought process is in sync with her? Untutored makes sense, but unbiased, really? Who is really unbiased in this world? Don't we all have our biases? Why should the likes of VidyaS keep talking like this?

Sample this - "
However, most people added a caveat: This did not imply unreserved acceptance of the verdict. I reminded them of the Muslim promise that the community would honour the verdict, no matter how it went."

Why was that "reminder" needed, Vidya? Did they say they are not honouring the verdict? Did anyone say "You know what, we ain't care a hoot about the verdict, what follows is pure violence"? They just said they don't agree with it. Now, from when did that become a crime? They are well within their rights to disagree with the judgement, and yet decide to move on. They are well within their right to feel strongly either way about the verdict, and yet decide to move on. Why should you and your ilk make this sound like some simmering discontent in the entire "young muslim" community?

Last question. VidyaS says - "Did India's Hindus, all 80 million of them, believe that Lord Ram was born at the same, precise spot where the mosque's central dome once stood? The verdict implied so,...."

Rhetorically, here's a question to VidyaS - "Have you spoken to all "young muslims" (in millions again) to get the title of your article? The title implies so..."? :D.

This article is not an isolated piece at all. The electronic and print media, to a very large extent has not been able to come to terms with the verdict. And as an attempt to showcase and flaunt their "intelligence", they are coming up with pieces like this on a daily basis. TV media spilled vitroil for almost three days (multiple debates, talk shows - all of which, incidentally, have been derided by the print media for their instant journalism!). Print media continues to publish such ill-informed pieces (too many examples to link them up here).

At one end, they exhort that India has moved on, but at the other end, these people refuse to "move on"! Talk about irony!