I don’t see even a “Y” in my post, let alone something to the effect that “Yazad Jal is the BJP supporter”. So if you think the only BJP supporter I know is *you*, then I’m pleased to meet you :-)

Well, I am *not* a BJP supporter. And my point is that critiquing you seems to make me one according to your logic.

You just knew I was going to say that, didn’t you Yazad? ;)

BTW, the restaurant food is a hit, and I’m still waiting for you to fly down and taste it. :)

I don’t think there were any accusations flying around on this particular post and by now, if you have been reading Jivha regularly, you should know that most of it is done with irreverence in mind rather than pettiness or name-calling.

Just peeved that Jivha –
1. Equated a criticism of Digvijay Singh to be supporting the BJP,
2. Did not have the courage to name me although he clearly linked to the comments page where only I had connected Digvijay with banning cow slaughter.

Let’s do this slowly this time:

1. In the original post I said that the BJP which won the MP elections ostensibly on their BSP(”bijli, sadak, pani”) platform was now falling back on it’s well-known hindutva practices(which it incidentally didn’t talk much about during the elections).

2. The point to note was that the BJP had won the elections supposedly on the plank of “BSP”, not on hindutva. And since the Congress lost the elections, it’s own past behaviour(and policies) was of no consequence to us while discussing the BJP’s present behaviour. Because the people had *rejected* those through the ballot and hence relegated to history/insignificance.

3. Then you pointed out that in the past the Congress had also championed the cause of banning cow-slaughter. Picking up a past action by someone else to try and justify another instance of the action by another person?

4. I’ll try and explain my point using the Nizkor style which you seem to be quite enamoured with:

Fallacy: He did it, so I can do it too.

He did it, so I can do it too is a fallacy in which a person “justifies” an action undertaken by him with the reasoning that his opponent(s) too had undertaken such an action in the past. There are no references to the validity of the action per se, but mere references to earlier occurences of the action.

This fallacy has the following pattern of “reasoning”:

1. It is claimed that person B performed action X.
2. It is acceptable for person A to perform X because B had also done so/professed to doing so.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because an action needs to be justified independently, regardless of whether it is performed by others too.

5. I don’t know about others, but to me someone who uses the Congress’s behaviour to try and justify(I see no reason other than justification..as you gave no argument for/against banning cow-slaughter per se) the BJP’s seems like a plum candidate to be branded a ‘BJP supporter’.

6. Guess I’m “Cap’n Courageous” now, eh?

(1) I agree — nothing I said disagreed with your main issue of the BJP ignoring development and instead banning cow slaughter. I had only made an incidental point (a non sequitor). I realised that there was a misunderstanding and in your original post did make a fianl comment clearly making my point, which is that

the Congress was not really better in the holy cow / secularism game. In MP they were just as bad.

(2) Now why is the Congress’ past behviour of no consequence? Just because they lost? That’s a strong insult if you ask me.

Jivha’s rule: If you lose an election, your past is airbrushed.

The Congress did a lot of good in Rajasthan and still lost due to caste considerations. Is that also to be airbrushed by defeat?

(3) I am NOT justifying Uma Bharti. I am simply stating that both the Congress and the BJP had similar policies on cow slaughter (at least in MP). Does not mean I agree with the policy per se. I actually disagree. Apart from the libertarian reasons, I *love* beef. This is the crux of my peeve. I ignored Uma Bharti and you assume I am justifying her?

(4) I agree! And you’re the one committing the fallacy.

(5) Just because I did not give an argument either for or against banning cow slaughter, you assume I am for it. Why not make the opposite assumption? Tell me is zero positive or negative?

This is the entire focus of my post and why I am peeved. You are colouring my neutral position. Worse, my position is not really neutral, just that I did not mention my position while commenting (must I always wear it on my sleeve?). You then assumed what you thought my position might be, *without bothering to check*.