Narendra Modi - protector of Hindutva?
This is not an anti-Hindu post.
This is not a pro-Muslim post.
This is not a BJP vs Congress post.
This is about Narendra Modi and Hindutva
Please keep that in mind when leaving comments.
Now that I have cleared that, I want to ask all you people who are proud to be Hindu’s, are you also proud of the so called ‘protectors’ of Hinduism via 'hindutva'?
The Tehelka Exposure has left us in no doubt of the Gujrat Goverment's hand in orchestrating the cold blooded massacre in 2002. There is no room for debate on that front anymore.
Members of the VHP, Bajrand Dal and Shiv sena confess with pride their hand in the cold murder of Muslim men, women and children. They raped them, cut their limbs and burnt them. Just an instance: Babu Bajrangi, then VHP leader, current Shiv Sena Leader, brags that he ripped open the stomach of a pregnant woman.
I have grown up with an adequate exposure to the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the Geeta. The amount any regular Hindu is exposed to in this country. I don’t think Hinduism professes cold murder of random people of other religions to retaliate against the acts of a few. Defenitely not in a torturous, brutal manner - rape, cutting limbs.
If the killings in Gujrat, are in accordance with Hinduism, I can’t be proud to be a Hindu.
Thankfully, they are not.
These killings are in accordance with the grotesque philosophies that guide certain politicians and their parties. These philosophies allow them to stoop to any level to suit their agenda. They manipulate facts to generate a hatred and xenophobia which subsequently allows them to kill in the name of God and later justify it.
What is sad is that the killers, blinded by a frenzy for blood, constantly repeated the name of ‘Sriram’. This is, to my eyes, no different from the Taliban. They too impose atrocities in the name of their God.
Any self-respecting Hindu can not possibly support Modi or the above-mentioned parties just like no self-respecting Muslim can support the Taliban or terrorsim. My heart will bleed for this country if Modi is elected to power again. Because he is damn good at polarising the state.
Supporting these parties (that use 'Hindutva' to supposedly protect Hinduism) is equivalent to supporting a pollution of Hinduism itself. Do you see the irony?
Comments
i donot, however, believe in passive tolerance either. why, did the gujarat take place, is what i keep asking myself?
u might want to read -
http://debum.blogspot.com/2006/03/secular.html
that was quite interesting- from innocence to hindutva!
Some of the scribes, who are considered to be proponants of Indian philosophy says
"vasudaiva kudumbakam' - the whole earth is our family!
Some other scripture says
"Ekam sad vipraha bahudha vadanti"-it is the "same" who scholars define differently!..
if we read about the life of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa- who is said to have practiced all religions to know them- also says "only" the name is different!..
And hindu philosophy is based on yama and niyams- which include honesty, non-violence, devotion, not recieving gifts and like.
So there is nothing wrong in believing a religion that stood for non-violence and justice.
Gita is a treatise which explains why a "kshatriya" like Arjuna should stand for justice and truth- ( before the Mahabharatha war, krishna was sent as the mediator, to settle the dispute, if kouravas agreed to give even one village or five villages to them, but they were so stubborn- it was only a war for truth and justice)
So when 'hindutva' is not about hinduism and Indian philosophy, it is just another example of vandalism.
One more word, some leaders, irrespective of their caste twist and explain accordingly to justify their brutal deeds. Why fall prey to such an exercise and get confused about hinduism?
Shouldn't we be proud to be an Indian?
u sound like the protagonist of the movie 'nair saab' - angry :)
shall reply to your comments there only - in case you are interested.
I believe that religions came up whenever there was trouble in the world. Both christianity and Islam have stemmed from troubled times and they are nothing more than a 'guideline' to lead our lives.They are not strict rules that have to be abided by to prove ur religious tendencies. They are merely a way to live a good life. So the basic principles of any religion are the same.
Most of them have been written centuries ago in scripts that have been mastered only by a handful of people. However for every true master of that script there will be a hundered who would claim to know better. So more often than not the scriptures are open to interpretation.
So what started out to be the straight and righteous path to live has been twisted to beckon people to join a jehad for no sane reason....or a fight for Hindutva because some bearded idiot felt so....I am proud to be a hindu in a detatched way without actually comparing it to any other religion....for like i said the heart of every religion is the same.
welcome back smiling dolphin! yes i did meet indira. she even considered me for a lifebuoy campaign. thanks a lot for the help. hope you had a great trip!
Murder is a crime very difficult to justify...regardless of the person's religion...
But u seemed to be only concerned by the fact that the Gujarat violence is against Hinduism and its ideals...
Although I cant agree more on it, it makes me wonder on your stubborn silence on the violence and oppression practiced by Islamic religion across various countries...
Is it because Islam authorizes Jihad?
Try to speak about both sides of the story...
Tc
see that now BjP and Narendra Modi had agrred to save Taslima Nasreen-another political stand to be wid muslim intellectuals!.......
a similar event is underway in sudan.
you could provide other examples.
Bloghopped here. I must say, it's difficult to fathom a 4-yr old predicting the sex of a new-born child by sheer deduction. Either that or kids are getting dumber these days :-) It was an "innocent" blog nevertheless.
Afaik, the reason a majority of Hindus in Gujarat support Modi is the radical infrastructure surgery the state has seen in his tenure; that is not to say his actions are justified.
For long the most popular religions of the world, namely Christianity and Islam have gone from strength to strength basically by breeding religious fanatics. Christianity has walked through a violent path in increasing followers. It branded disbelievers as heretics and witches and burned them alive. Later when the European nations, which were the mainstay of Christianity attained an aura of civility, they gradually restrained the aggressive repression.
Civilization also brings questioning of faith, which bought some serious trouble for the Christianity and the Church.
Its interesting how the Church tackled this monster called civility or knowledge or science. It replanted Christianity from the civilized Europeans to the developing countries of the world, where reason and science were yet to take serious root. On another level, it turned to the non-violent means of growing and strengthening their religion, by turning out a huge number of clergymen and women armed with mental bullets to shred people into sinners who need a Christ for redemption and eternal life and to avoid the fires of hell (If u can't be violent, threaten violence after death). Christianity has developed this into an art which is targeted at children, to make them fanatics, who will secure and ensure the survival of their religion.
Now lets give a glance to Islam, Its a religion that authorizes violence as a rightful and effective means to ensure growth and obedience from followers. Even in this modern world, large tracts of the world still resort to violent means advocated by Islam, to ensure its growth and propagation. The most glaring crime of Islam is its treatment of women. Women are treated as slaves, or worse as cattle, just to be fed and to procreate. The power of religion is at its zenith in this issue, A human being is ready to shroud herself in a black nothingness, to become a nobody to the world at large, till then end of her mortal life, just for a religion. If a lady is made to do this for any other reason in a part of the world, we will be sure to call it a discrimination against women and surely a huge controversy will erupt.
But when its done in the name of religion, its fine for everybody. This is just a simple and most popular example of the power of violence that Islam wields over its followers and others. Look at the Taslima Nasreen issue for an update.
Now lets come to Hinduism, its not the most popular religion in the world, It has numerous variations and sub-cultures and beliefs. In short, a Hindu can't be defined in a conventional way. There are vegans and non-vegans. They may eat beef, pork or whatever they feel like and they still remain Hindus. They don't actively work for conversions, although some sects have managed to garner some followers. In short Hinduism has never been a violent religion either defensively or offensively. But history has proved that, with its non-violent strategy it could never hold on to its followers, because they were free, to chose anything they believe in. Neither could it grow into a popular religion, because it had no exclusivity. But still it has never been violent.
What Modi has done here is take a leaf from what other religions were doing or are doing even now. What Modi has done is not acceptable by any standards, a state sponsored genocide is one of the worst crimes ever, a crime in the category of the Nazi Holocaust, but let me ask another question, If a nation turns a blind eye towards terrorists, just because they , belong to minority communities, how would you rate that crime.
Isn't the life of the innocents who die in these blasts as valuable as those killed in the riots?
Are their dreams lesser than those who died in the riots?
Are they orphans who have no dear and near ones?
Aren't they too parents, sons, daughters, wives and husbands?
Are their lives any lesser than the others?
If you look a the percentage of conviction rate of such crimes, you will understand the story of a nation turning a blind eye to the terrorists and their sympathizers in our midst.
Because our political leaders can only see in terms of vote banks, if Hindus for Modi, then Muslims for Congress...
So lets open our eyes to the evils of the religion & religious politics, played by the Modis and others.
And the main culprit in all these is our quest for religion, and our misguided respect for anything religious.
Theeyeofhorus, thank you for pointing out the first 4 lines of my blog.
Infact, i wrote those lines especially to keep the Devil's workshop shut. but sigh!
Alien and Notgogol, i agree wiht you guys.
Samurai, sure there must be other examples. i condemn people who elect such people to power, wherever that be in the world.
But now I think ur guilty of the same.
Coz u haven't gone through my second reply properly...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/world/asia/11gujarat.html?ex=1198126800&en=20458d4df6b41381&ei=5070&emc=eta1
just cut and paste the link on to your browser..
from your blog "i condemn people who elect such people to power, wherever that be in the world."
Well, those who elect him are common people. They represent random sample polpulation like you and me.If they think that their interests, social or economical (interests are never religeous) are better protected by Mr. Modi being in power, I do not see anything wrong in this selfish thinking. After all they have to survive. If they think they can survive better with a hindu fanatic in power compared to a so called "secular" leader, I do not see anything wrong in it so as to condemn them. So even if Mr. Modi is reelected there is no need to undermine the intellect of those who elect him. Its a sound decision made by a common man and a law abiding citizen of India who is selfish enough as 95 % people in the world are...
Perhaps the common man feels 'protected' under Modi.
But where did the requirement for any protection arise from in the first place?
An inteligent man will be able to see through the fraud. Modi himslef spurned this hatred and cause for fear. Just like those encounters - FAKE.
I watch Modi's interviews. He staunchly refuses to apologise or express guilt for the innocent killings that he sponsored. He claims he will always take steps against 'terrorism'.
The result: the ordinary man feels 'protected'
Would it make sense if someone did a similar massacre of govt officials and their families in the name of fighting corruption?
Only a fool will fall for Modi's tactics. The bottomline is he is a man that can be evil enough to sponsor murder. Just like Tytler did in 1984.
You can't allow such individuals to govern your state.
What progress can one hope for admidst simmering fear and unrest?
Cheers!!!!
Cheers!!!!
Yes, Modi was elected again as the CM. It does not prove that all are agreeing to what he does or says. I would like to say, it may be his strength as a leader that had paid off.
Now, back to basics- To kill others to retaliate a train tragedy was the beginning for gujarat riots- why did people think they had to retaliate?.. ( Think again!...Is it because, we have already given fire to hostility between religions! - it was already in the mind of people)
Then, further being humane would mean helping others to live..or at least not stepping over others, when they are trying to meet ends..)
another question, do we think political leaders and not the philosophers have framed our religion?....Why do we react to all comments on religions made by politicians?.....After reacting, we take sides, then we go ahead with the tide already created.....
if we say educated are intelligent, then why do they get carried away? Then we can only feel pity for the uneducated?....
There's already hatred and fear in the air, in the midst of everything, why do we blame people for making an irrational or clouded decision...after all, we have to live!
lets check again, did we have enough freedom to speak out..did we get the right reports from the media..were the trials after the riots justified and in proper way..
So, if we can't help people think themselves, lets start thinking, whether we are thinking properly or not?...
am not proving anybody right or wrong..it only proves we are wrong in adding oil to the fire..rather than searching for water with cooler heads!!
Well, like i had mentioned in this post...my heart bleeds for my country.
I attribute his winnning to the excellent PR and marketing adopted by him.
He knew what to say where and when. he had videos of his speeches uploaded on utube. he had masks of himself distributed amongst supporters. he visited each and every corner in Gujrat.
Modi scared some, blinded some and convinced some.
I believe that people voted for him for fear or for the presumption that he can make "gujrat win" .
They did not vote for him for his fascist ideals even though that is what Modi truely stands for.
since you talk of your heart bleeding for our country, i thought i must comment too. for, i am someone who is passionate about our country too. ideally, we'd like to look at people who can even look beyind the boundaries of countries, but heck, charity begins at home they say.
you're right when you say people did not vote for modi's ideals which u think are fascist. i think at the end of the day - the common man - you and me - is selfish. if they voted for him, it is in all probability because life in general has probably been better in gujarat, and the prime driver of it has been modi - whether or not we like it.
talk about his campaign and subsequent victory - well, he no doubt did a smart job and so won it hands down. btu imho, a big factor contributing to his voctory was the shoddy campaign by the congree in general and sonia in particular. interestingly, out of the 13 constituencies in which sonia herself took part in massive election rallies, modi won in 8. if they voted for modi, the reason could also be a complete lack of faith in the other obvious alternative - the congress.
Having said that, Modi is the only person who can stand up to ‘minority appeasement’ of so called “secular” party and call for tough action against terrorism which is a greater threat to this country. Tehalka expose just before election only shows to prove how low Indian press can stoop low, to get their TPR rating go up!! Can those expose be taken as evidence in Court of Law is questionable. Tehalka’s only agenda is discrediting Modi and having nothing concrete.
What happened in Gujarat is pent-up feeling of millions of Hindus who are derided, debased and ridiculed by their own people and countrymen in the name of “secular” education and western culture for a long time.
is gujarat a hindu majority state or not?
if what you suggest is true,what would have been the motivations of the police and the govt?
what do you mean by appeasement?
where and how were the derision,debasement and ridicule inflicted?
if you have to uplift yourself socially,is sanction of violence the only method available?
then there cannot be any getting back to normality.
by the time you realise that there is no substitute to dialogue and fairplay,enormous damage is done.
you wont have the inclination or the patience to engage in democratic resolution.
there have been innumerable issues of conflict which have been overcome only because of the influence of the father of our nation on our thinking.
the palestine issue is the worsr injustice that could ever be inflicted on any people.
Even in Gujarat riots there were 254 Hindus got killed so it was not only Muslims who killed in the riot. Left leaning intellectuals and Congress has portrayed a picture like that and gullible people like u have fallen trap to it. Gujarati people knew the truth and that is why Narendra Modi has come ever more stronger.
The root cause of communal problem in India is the failure of Indian government after Partition to provide groundwork for Hindu nation and instead went for a ‘Secular’ concept. Secularism is an alien concept from Europe where even there it not hold good. You have US and European western nations declaring Christianity as their national religion. This is because democracy is all about majority politics. But in India it is perverted to keep Hindus divide on cast line and appease the minorities to create vote-banks.
So when you say we should talk about dialogue and fair play, I would like to say one thing, we tried it with our Muslim brethrens in 1947 and what we got back was partition and communal violence. Last but not the least not all Muslims are communal and there more tolerant and peaceful friends who have positive approach towards other religion; but sadly they are minority among minorities.
All i can say is to please re-read the first 4 lines of the post.
Aberation on not, a mass murder is a mass murder. It reflects badly on the religion in whose name it has been done.
I have gone sore in the throat screaming that I condemn ANYBODY who does that!
So shouting "others did it first" is not the agenda here.
the sachar committee report was placed before parliament.a community which has found itself neglected and marginalised due to the so called appeasement you mention needs a lift up according to the report of the learned judge rajinder sachar.
if the shah bano judgement had dealt hindus a gross disadvantage,you can be justified in calling it minority appeasement at the expense of the majority.
Shah bano case is an example how Congress pampers to muslim votes. It certainly dealt Hindus a gross disadvantage when they don't get any special treatment in law. Why is there seperate laws for Muslims based on sharia? So u segregate them first from mainstream society and make them backward and create a vote bank based on that; than you cry they are backward and needs special treatment for votes. What a humbug argument!!
Sachar committee is just aother Mandal commission to divide the society. Beware!!
we are a democracy ,and whenever any community feels that it is ready for change,change will be implemented.that is,regarding matters of religious sentiment.
the govt can nudge in the right direction and can provide a wise guidance and counselling.
reservation is mandated by the constitution and the mandal commission was a constitutionally appointed body which did a study and presented its report which has been implemented.
the govt has not created caste.
you are casting aspersions on constitutional mechanisms.
hi pooja,you have set the dice rolling for a much needed debate.
If you think we should be oblivion to it, than what kind of a country is this – Taliban state or a modern country?
If you are not amazed by this double standard, then Hindus getting angry and happenings of Gujarat do not amaze me, when they are treated like second-class citizen in their own country. The best thing for you is to join Taliban movement, which might make u happy.
The so-called ‘change’ your talking about will not happen as long government indulge in minority appeasement and vote-bank politics. What wise guidance ur talking bout when Indian government is providing financial assistance to ‘Madrassas’, where it has no business there. What do you think they preach there, modern education? Its full of unadulterated Taliban crap!!
Deobandi Islam which runs largest madrasa school for Muslims in UP is the ‘spiritual’ guidance and mentor’s for Taliban in Afghanistan. This is the school, which preaches Jihad and all of Indian subcontinent to adopt Sharia law.
Finally, ur views on reservation is full of nonsense. Constitution only allows reservation for lower cast Hindus, that too in principle it is stopgap measure. The Mandal Commission report was criticized for not having criteria to arrive that is backward or schedule caste. The whole political drama behind Mandal Commission is a case in point of how caste-based politics has ruined this country. That is entirely another story for a new debate in the blog.
Now, my point is where did Muslims or Christians come in this. Both this community beat there chest proclaiming that caste does not exist in their religion, and hence raison d'être for conversion of low caste Hindus to there religion.
Last but the not the least, Constitutional mechanism might not necessarily mean morally, ethically or socially correct for the country’s well-being. Few examples, Article 356 allows the central government to impose president rule in the state, incase there is a breakdown of constitutional mechanism. Now how many times it has been used by partisan Central government to dismiss a popular state government, which it opposes. The Emergency that Indira Gandhi imposed in 1975 was based on constitution, but everyone knew she did it crush the legitimate opposition and stall all democratic process.
it is a good thing that the govt spends on the air tickets of the muslims trips to saudi arabia.it is for a holy cause and only good will come out of it.
when the minorities are deprived of their institutions,it means persecution.
the muslims and the christians in india are from the most marginalised sections,which were left out of everything by the so called hindu society.when religions from other lands came to india,they embraced them like a drowning man gasping for air.the demands that they be excluded from reservation is obnoxious and seeks to punish them for wanting to retain their dignity.some of the newly converted will display ridicule towards their old religion which is understandable for anyone with common sense.introspection is what the so called hinduism needs,instead of going out and attacking missionaries and demolishing places of religious worship.
a quarter of indias population was kept suffocated for a millennium,sanctioned by the so called hinduism.now destiny has given them their due through the constitution in place for the last fifty years.instead of rejoicing at their upliftment,childishness and churlishness can be detected in the calls for ending reservation.
i m a hindu and i feel ashamed at being defined like that because the so called hinduism actually actively marginalised fellow citizens and robbed them of their potential.
Then you should not blame Hindus for Gujarat violence. First of all who demolished the place of worships in Somanath, Kashi and Ayodhya? Know ur Indian History before indulging in purposeless argument. Hinduism is oldest religion and like every other religion has got its own drawbacks. But all religions have their own drawbacks and it has to be looked in perspective.
If what you say that ‘reservation has uplifted low caste hindus’ then why do we still have 45% of people still below poverty line after 60 years of independence. If you say reservation is to correct the ‘historical wrongs’, then what is the issue, if Hindus ask for building Ram temple at Ayodhya and other places where Hindu temples were demolished and Mosques built over it. You’re logic cuts both ways.
There is no problem in giving reservation to really deprived class and economically backward section. Politicians use Mandal Commsion to get voted from a particular caste. So the whole reservation has become a ‘Tamasha’ and people like u supporting it jokers.
You have no valid answer to my criticism about Mandal Commission.
You still have not answered about the issue on conversion and reservation for Muslims and Christians. Looks like u have a lot of axe to grind before debating on these issues
If ur a Hindu and feel bad about it is because ur totally ignorant abt this noble religion and its culture. Grow up!!
P: S: If you have anything to say on reply or dissent please make it sensible and don’t indulge in juvenile verbosity.
shiva,go to ur first post in this blog,u said that hindus were at the receiving end since the 60s.
when asked whether that was borne out by facts,u changed direction.
i asked you where the derision,debasement and ridicule were inflicted.
again,you did not answer.
as for my question about what constitutes appeasement,you referred to the shah bano judgement,subsidies for haj and govt funding for minority institutions.
those would hardly constitute appeasement except to the most hardline fanatic and you seem to be one.
if the appeasement of a particular community has made it dominant,a person with common sense can understand.
the pettiness in opposing subsidies for the haj is matched in the rhetorical question of why 45% is still below the poverty line.
if granting subsidies is against the constitution and illegal,u or ur soulmates can argue against it in the supreme court.
the petty people of the hindutva brigade are more at home when they are rumour mongering and hyping up trivia.
i think u could not understand what i had raised about the social and economic backwardness of the converts to the judaic religions.
they convert to gain esteem and you want to use that to punish them,when you argue against reservations for them.
the mandal commission used 12 criteria to arrive at 3443 castes which were socially and economically backward.
the states had their own data.the castes featuring in both the lists were put in the central list.
who is juvenile can be judged from your comparing social revolution achieved through affirmative action with the revenge against somnath.
one is positive and real while the other is negative and justifies violence.
it is surely worse than juvenile.
we have made progress by making development broadbased.
the vast majority of hindus have no clue about hinduism.in tamilnadu,it is only in 1945 that temples were made open to everyone in the face of stiff opposition.
and it is only now that archanai is being done in tamil so that a person can understand it.
otherwise,it was mumbo jumbo.
the same points were raised by the buddha 2500 years back.
I have been following the exchange of comments between you and Shiva and from that I could only conclude that your fundamentals about religion, caste system, reservations and international social interactions including natural human tendency are quite merky. Let talk about it one by one. It might prevent further illogical posts from you and take of unnecessary pressure from Shiva.
Lets start with the RESERVATIONS as its easy and clear of all mentioned above. The fundamental idea of Mr. Ambedkar behind allowing reservations to lower caste people was noble. The logic behind it was as Dalits are kept away from education and social involvements and inturn repressed, their social and ecomonical conditions needs improvements. So to achieve this there should be a affirmative action plan which enables this upliftment. Hence by constitution, they should be awarded reservations for 25 years so that one entire generation will be educated well to gain enough financial and social status as rest of the population. After one generation is well educated they will no longer need reservations as the main reason to their backwordness is lack of education. So 1 full generation educated well, next generations will integrate well into the system and can then follow or take the real world merit based competetion. This is an excellent plan and opportunity for these people. After those initial offering of 25 years was over, we all know why and how the scheme of reservations got extended till today. I don't think i need to comment on that.
Now lets talk about some facts regarding reservations. To start with,any position any field from science to public service, where a person has to take decisions, make policies or evaluate and analyse contracts or tenders has to be filled strictly by merit. A good example is services like IIS. Until educated upper caste people held this positions in 60's and 70's government was running smoothly, rate of curruption was marginal and the quality was never compromised. Now you have reservations in such positions where a less intelligent, less skilled lower caste guy takes the same position which he does not deserve. This results in what we see now, roads need to be rebuilt before every election, flyovers and buildings collapse due to poor construction quality, 4 times excess employees in govt. offices where they do vitually nothing. See its not that lower caste people do not have merit, they do, actually quite a lot of them but due to the attitudes developed towards upper caste people and the feeling of revenge, I am sorry to say they are more succeptible to curruption and compromise of quality. They really don't undersatnd the idea behind why reservations are awarded and how they should be using it. This might sound anti-dalit but its true.
Another thing by statistics number of lower caste or those eligible for reservations inclusing minority make up 50 % of the population. I guess in that case there should be a movement to correct the meaning of word MINORITY.
First world countries too have such provisions for special cases but the difference between them and us is they do not compromise the quality. They abide the laws and don't feel proud jumping the signals.
Lets talk about caste system a little. The caste system is based on division of work as you know. Each caste has a defined function which is of equal importance for the sound goverence of society even if its picking up trash and cleaning the streets. Now why lower caste people became lower caste? The same reason for which you will look down upon beggers. We are humans, we like differences. Everybody, its you or me. There is always US and THEY. humans like grouping. There is this CLAN thing in everyone. so its just natural human tendency and the simple chance that chanting rituals was considered superior to picking up trash. I would like to combine the religion here. Not only hinduism has standards of differenciation but muslims have sunnis who look down upon shia, punjabis to it for sikhs and then there are catholics and protestants and not to mention another 100s of sects in christanity who look down upon each other. At least different castes in hinduism do not question the basics of religions like other who are still confused with true meanings of their holy books. Now there are many tribes in Africa who do not follow any religion or caste system. they have their indegenous believes. Still they look down upon other tribes and clans, not just look down but wipe them off in millions with their favorite toy, the Kalashnikov. so you really do not need religion or caste to look down upon people. Its human tendency inherited from animals. FYI we ARE animals.
As you guys have already discussed the current political and social situation I will refrain myself from commenting on them further as my blog is getting bigger and bigger. But on serious note here is a little advice for you, without having complete and authentic information do not just write on blogs to waste others' time. As blogs are meant for exchanging information and sound debates, unfortunately we have to read all you illogical comments and waste time. Here are some reccomended readings for you. Do interest yourself in reading books like GUNS GERMS and STEEL, CLASHES OF CIVILIZATIONS. Also you would only add to your knowledge by following http://www.bbc.co.uk. Then there are required readings in social psychology and history of India after independence. Kindly help youself with these before writing on any blog so that you can be a better person by helping others save their time in reading your bessless, throughlly illogical and incompetent arguments. You have already mentioned that you are Hindu and I am certain you belong to the lower caste and if not you are a total insane. Kindly invest the time you spend in writing blogs in doing good for the society and the upliftment of lower caste people. At least there will be people to cry on your death.
I apologize for not commenting specifically on any of your comments line by line as I thought its better to keep it this way, more general more panoramic more global. I also Request you to refrain yourself from replying to my post as it will save further time in reading your reply full of crap! :) I thank you in advance for not replying and also for giving me oppotunity to write something publicly.
Mooossa
we are discussing hinduism and i cant help it if you guys have inferiority complexes with respect to the judaic religions.
the cutoff marks for all categories in the tamilnadu medical colleges start from 90 % and above.
reservation allows a student to gain admission but it does not give him grace marks,he has to finish the course without any help.
a small section was pretending for long that it was the sole preserve of merit.
that hollow claim has been thoroughly exposed by the fact that the open category seats are also filled by the reserved category students.
immediately,perverse thinking of your type would jump and raise the question of why then are reservations needed.
they are needed so that every position in society is broadbased,not the preserve of a minority.
i humbly ask you to read the two articles on reservation that i have posted on my blog and also an article about the sachar committee that i will post a link to.
i hope that they will help you to shed your warped complexes and help us all to gain the real picture.
shiva who is widely read could easily read them also.
we were animals but we got into the road to become higher beings a long time back.
part of that road map means giving our long suppressed fellow citizens their due and not trying to spoil the process by shouting vehemently at the first available opportunity.
we are discussing hinduism and i cant help it if you guys have inferiority complexes with respect to the judaic religions.
the cutoff marks for all categories in the tamilnadu medical colleges start from 90 % and above.
reservation allows a student to gain admission but it does not give him grace marks,he has to finish the course without any help.
a small section was pretending for long that it was the sole preserve of merit.
that hollow claim has been thoroughly exposed by the fact that the open category seats are also filled by the reserved category students.
immediately,perverse thinking of your type would jump and raise the question of why then are reservations needed.
they are needed so that every position in society is broadbased,not the preserve of a minority.
i humbly ask you to read the two articles on reservation that i have posted on my blog and also an article about the sachar committee that i will post a link to.
i hope that they will help you to shed your warped complexes and help us all to gain the real picture.
shiva who is widely read could easily read them also.
we were animals but we got into the road to become higher beings a long time back.
part of that road map means giving our long suppressed fellow citizens their due and not trying to spoil the process by shouting vehemently at the first available opportunity.
Look to ur previous post were u have mentioned “some of the newly converted will display ridicule towards their old religion which is understandable for anyone with common sense”. Looks like you lost ur marble talking too much. I said ridiculing about a particular religion and faith, without knowing that religion completely is dangerous. Healthy criticism is welcome.
If you say Indian government providing funds for minority institution is not wrong, than it only show your complete ignorance about the word ‘Secularism’. Secular as per the original meaning is ‘devoid of any religion or religious aspiration’. Nowhere, in the world governments provide funds for religious minorities, and tax the majority religious institution.
About reservation, you have still not answered my questions about why reservation based on religion? The criteria you have mentioned for arriving the number of OBC and SC/ST is based on 1931 census. So it has lot of gaps and not foolproof. Politicians have used this for partisan politics and to built vote-banks based on caste.
In many reputed institutions, reserved seats are often not filled at all. These are not opened up to the general category students and are therefore wasted. Data from IIT Mumbai supports this claim. Apparently, nearly 50% of the reserved seats in IIT Mumbai are not filled up thereby denying an opportunity for the open category student to get in inspite of having scored higher than the Dalit student. Another question being asked is “why are there reservations at the post-graduate level especially since quotas already exist at the graduate level?”. The answer to this question probably lies in the politician’s efforts to portray himself as the “messiah of the oppressed”.
Your logic that poor students should be given seats in spite of getting low mark is ridiculous and height of stupidity. So we have to tell meritorious students to take a hike then!! Where do you want to lead this country Mr Samuria – to the gutters?!
Mr.Samurai it looks like you have lot of time to waste with petty arguments; but I don’t have time for you nonsense dribble since I am a busy man, with lot of useful things to do.
this is the way i write and you could grit your teeth while reading it.
the republic is 58 years old.
if one wants to go back into time and start feeling agitated,awhole lot of agendas will come up.
maybe i could give you some food for thought to rid u of ur agitation.
arasiyal or governance is all about providing security and collecting taxes in return.
the rulers come and go,when there is an especially tough conflict,the victor ransacks the deity of the vanquished to occupy the minds of the people.
the victor then sets about providing security and collecting taxes.
some kings might impose harsh conditions on the people leading to rebellion or a rebellion might sought to be quelled by imposing harsh conditions.
when you have good climate and fertile land,the people are rich.
this will attract bandits and brigands.
a ninety year king once led the defence against the hordes from the west.
the bjp is in business by feeding negativities and defeatism.
it needs the hindus to feel insecure and inferior.
we have a great history which is constantly sought to be belittled by the sangh parivar.
it has even succeeded in fooling the educated denizens over the most trivial issues like haj subsidies.
it is a party with pettiness at its core.
the people i mentioned who ridicule hinduism were the people who have just gotten out of hinduism.
that does not suddenly result in them becoming socially and educationally forward.
they are all indians who have shed the suffocation of their history and are trying to regain some dignity.
you pontificate that there is no caste in the judaic religions.
about reservations,you will constantly talk about merit.
when told that the seats are kept empty when suitable candidates are not found,you will raise another point.
you have to reflect on why is it that only 15 % of the people are monopolising everything.
how did this situation come about whereby we have to take affirmative action to ensure that everyone is equal.
the mooose said that we are all animals.
but where did the sanction come from?
i request you to take some time off from your schedule whenever you can and go through the three articles i have posted in my blog on reservations and the sachar committee.
i sincerely believe that having fanatic misguided thinking especially in educate people is a big danger for the country.
I have only made a point clear as to why Muslims and Christians are asking reservation, when they claim that they don’t have caste in their religion. Why do we need reservation based on religion when we call ourselves secular?
What is this 15% your talking about? Must be politicians!! Than I agree on that point...LOL
Looks like you still not learned any lessons from my previous post. BTW, I am not gritting; just yawning at your loquacious language. Please talk some sense.
they provided governance.
the attacks faced by the western part of the country were in the nature of robbers who came from a desolate landscape and who had no other thing to do.
the khiljis,the tughlaqs,the slave dynasty and the lodhis and later the mughals and furtheron the british supplanted each other.
the british turned out to be the worst rulers the people had ever encountered.
despots would have been there but they would have found reasons to indulge in despotic behaviour when they were faced with rebellions.
that is when they would have resorted to destruction of temples.
no ruler will attempt to antagonize the native population and disrupt law and order.
the bjp paints everything in religious colours and fools the educated classes and stabs the country in the back.when the repercussions occur,they again fall back on falsehood,oomitting that they have a hand in everything that is happening,and sections of the educated classes willingly get fooled again.
bjp has the nationalistic agenda of raking up petty issues and hatred against a community in their quest for votes.
the 15 % who monopolise everything are the so called upper castes.
the centre has data only from 1931 but the states have up to date data.
the mandal commissions report of 3443 castes was matched with the data which the states had and only those castes which featured in both lists were put on the list.
a person converting to the judaic religions does so becausse he wants some dignity,it is a matter of the mind.materially,there is absolutely no change in his situation.
the constitution mandates affirmative action for social and educational backwardness.
if you want hindu unity,you must stop cribbing at the upliftment of your fellow hindus,not some foreign people,and not rake up trivial technicalities in loud and jarring self righteousness.
i think you need relief and rumination.
i too need the same.
what are the questions that i have not answered?
reservation is mandated for socially and educationally backward communities.
does that answer your question or not?
i have tried to give you the moral picture as well as the legal one.
there was vehement opposition to the temple entry agitations in the first half of the 1900s.
such vehemence is seen again in the outcry against reservations.
You have not answered why do we need reservation based on religion?
Why do Muslims have separate law according to sharia when we are secular state ?
What is the point in blaming Hindutva when we are facing onslaught of Muslim fundamentalism within and without ?
Why is it that if M.F Hussian paints Hindu gods and goddesses nude we call it freedom of expression; but when Taslima Nasreen or Salman Rushdhi genuinely criticize Muslim religion Congress and Left cries foul and bans it?
Why is there tax concession and financial assistance for religious minorities when non so exist even in more socially and economically advance countries ?
Try an answer this without ur usual mumbo jumboo nonsense. I will accept u have some brains to with ur mouth!!
the secular democracies that you raise comparisons can all fill up into this number and there would be more than they filled up.
we are managing a thousand and more million people in our country under our constitution.
muslims can marry more than once and do not give share in wealth to their daughters.
that is all that is different between muslims and others.
if a muslim steals,commits a fraud or any other crime,the indian penal code applies equally to everybody.
i did not know that muslims had tax concessions,please provide the details.
was there muslim fundamentalism before advaniji took out a yatra.
kashmir is a complex issue.
according to the terms of the partition,places of muslim majority and contiguous with the present day pakistan ie western parts would have joined pakistan.
why then did kashmir remain with india.
the princely states were provided the option of choosing wherever they could join.
the nizam of hyderabad opted to join pakistan,but we used force to overcome him.
the province of junagadh also faced a tricky question.
the hindu ruler of kashmir who belonged to a dynasty which had ruled kashmir from ranjit singh onwards,wanted to remain independent.he did not opt for either india or pakistan.the people started rebelling in favour of pakista and the king used force to subdue them.it was at this point that pakistan sent in tribal forces to support the people.
the king asked india for help and we got a legal foothold in kashmir.
nehru did his best to get a firm grip.
in this context,there has been an uprising in kashmir since the 1990s ,which our army and the jandk police(consisting of hindus and muslims)have negated and the people are slowly starting to trust indian democracy.lok sabha television had a wonderful programme last week with students from kupwara on a trip to the capital.
it is christian fundamentalism that has sought to target muslims all over the world.
i have read koenraad elst and i found it amusing.
article 370 and the kashmir issue is a complex conflict and the wise minds of our government will settle it in time.
the bjp has reduced it to a level where educated youth of your ilk find it easy to get aroused and agitated.
you have made a second turnaround now,asking for the tax issue to be left alone,after raising it in the first place.
your first turnaround was when you stated that hindus were at the receiving end since the 60s,you subsequently modified it to time immemorial.
when asked about muslim fundamentalism before the honourable advanijis yatra,you make a brilliant somersault and say the creation of pakistan itself was a fundamentalist act.
governance is done by wise men and they handle various demands and situations as and when they develop.
Iron men like the honourable advaniji are all well when raking up hysteria but the actual work is done by wiser and saner minds,who dont feel the need to provoke paranoia.
guys like you get worked up by the bjp,it is all well and good as you are basically frantic about some imaginary disturbance.
the country will move head by wise aplication of minds,not by getting the educated youth to feel desperate.
shiva thambi,that you say that the loksabha channel is a mouthpiece reveals that you are lost.
for a change,why dont you reveal some information about artice 370 and the background of the conflict,so that everybody is enlightened.
kashmir is getting back to normality by the efforts of the governments and the army,not by the efforts of the honourable advaniji and the shouries and the koenraads.
these people can froth at the mouth and get you to fall for them,but governance is something else.
Even if I give you more details, you still cannot answer any questions that I have posed or details I have given. So why waste time on person like you who have an IQ level of five year old!! You have not read any of my reply in detail and talk bullshit. So take your time and read all my replies before talking.
Before begging me for details, take some effort and read books pertaining to the issues I have talked about. You have long way to go.
The recent discovery of HUJI terror camps in Hubli is the strong indicator that terrorist activities have spread from Kashmir to rest of India. Normalcy?? Utter nonsense!! What are you on Samurai chacha?!! Look like you live in some cuckooland?
The minority appeasement followed by UPA government will destroy this country and it is high time to throw out this government.
So Samurai chacha you can take a hike to Taliban-land were you will be more than welcome.
points taken.
Shiva,
just like killing inoocents is wrong.
it is wrong to justify it the way you do.
u must admit that hindutva is capable of sanctioning brutal murder and is therefore flawed.
If your girlfriend cheats on you, would you still marry her?
Yes, if you are blindly in love with her. yes.
My point is we are not happy as to what happened in Gujurat. But u people shout on top of ur voice only when non-hindus get killed. Why was Gujurat riots took place; because Muslims wherever they are don’t adjust and live in harmony with other religion.
Where they are in minority, they want to be treated specially and would never mingle with other people. Where they are in majority, they persecute minorities. The example is Pakistan and Arab countries where there is a heavy restriction on non-Muslims – Culturally, Economically and Socially.
Why go so far, what happened in Kashmir, they don’t allow Hindus to have any facilities to be set up for Amarnath pilgrimage. All this because Congress government’s minority appeasement policy. Kashmir is a case in point of how minority appeasement has made this country sick and disgusting
Pooja, if my girlfriend cheats me I will forgive her if she has a reason. Forgiving and forgetting is the Love that I know…looks like u have not got the chance to love anyone. BTW, my girlfriend is with me for past four years, and smiling while I am writing ;)
So don’t break ur head on some thing u don’t have grip on. Hindutva is the only reason why India is in one piece. Don’t patronize anyone on a public debate in Blog. Ur the owner of this ‘piece’, ur not supposed to take sides. Rather u should moderate the debate.
Looks like u have lot of things 2 learn in life. Best Wishes
I condemn/bash religious fanatism.
I condemn the current behaviour of "The Mujahidin" as much as i condemn the 2002 riots.
As you said ur only good at bashing not making any constructive argument.
Now what happened in Gujurat? If u blame Modi for the Godhra Riot, he is the same person who has shown restraint and statesmanship now.
Now, i wud like to point out my earlier argument that it is the Muslims who provoke Hindus to retaliate, by doing such acts. The recent bomb blasts in Ahmadabad and Banglore is the example.
Congratulations to Modi for the restraint that he has shown.
Let's hope he (and others like him) plan to remain that way.
Otheriwse the series of 'retaliations' would never end right?
from the jehadis?
You want us to be a 'force to reckon with' and so you justify violece as long as it is in retaliation.
‘Eye for an Eye; Tooth for a tooth’ is the language jihadis understand. So the question of ideology is not relevant here. If we do not act and destroy Islamic fundamentalism, then India will cease to exist.
This is a war on terrorism. There will be causalities on either side and innocent people will get killed in the process. It’s ugly but a necessary evil.
You are clearly in favour of a war.
If you represent all that Hindutva stands for, i rest my case.
War is a necessary if its against evil. Don't blame Hindutva for your weakness to understand it. If you shrink from standing up for what is good and nice in this world, then your existance itself is purposeless. Standing up for what is Right and Justice is the basic human nature. If you lack this, i can only sympathize you.
Fighting against evil and destructive force Global Islamic Terrorism is a necessary.
You said (like a true jehadi), "War is a necessary if its against evil."
In what way your view is different from that of Osama? Both of you are cock-sure that you are justified to indulge in war "if it is against evil"!
You go on, "Don't blame Hindutva for your weakness to understand it."
We are blaming your jihadi stance that justifies "war" against those whom you disagree with. I suspect hindutvavadis would agree with you. If so, Hindutva too is to blame.
You declared, "If you shrink from standing up for what is good and nice in this world, then your existance itself is purposeless."
Right ho! You don't seem to be realizing that Pooja is standing up for what she thinks is right. Which is different from what you think is nice. But unlike you and Osama (and Bush), she does not believe that it is justified to kill others (either islamist jihadis or hindutvavadis) whom she feels are "to blame".
Is THAT too difficult to understand?
Anand
Would you mind elaborating your thoughts on "the right" way to counter terrorism and fundamentalism?
also you can be specific about what should have been done in gujrat and we will take it from there.
Eliminate communal hatred instead of further fueling it.
Narendra Modi was vilified by every newspaper in India but he emerged much stronger and more mature. That is the kind of Hindutva that we speak.
Whereas u half-baked intellect miss the woods for trees. What is ur response to the killings of innocent Hindus...??
Hindus don't kill wantonly they retaliate only when they are pushed to the limit of tolerance.
First of all read my comment carefully...I never justified war against anyone who is against Hindutva.
We justify war against those who want kill and destroy the Hindus and our culture which is the corner stone of vibrant India.
If you are a supporter of Osama then i can understand ur views. So understand what my comments says and then talk.
One of us is wrong, atleast.
It's not necessary that i am the one thats wrong.
You have not answered any of my question.
1) What will Hindus do if they are killed in their own country ?
2) What is your answer to the Islamic fundamentalism ?
3) Why is there a special status given to Muslims by law and constitution??
You preach things which are not practical and more towards suicidal!!
2)We need an answer to religious fundamentalism be it Hindu, Muslim or Christian or whatever.
- the answer is to stop worrying about religious supremacy
3)Muslims, Hindu OBCs and other groups are given certain previlages to ensure equal oportunity and therefore the collective progress of the country
You informed us, "Anand, Its seems you and Pooja live in some 'idealistic' cukooland!! "
The point is that we are still alive -- and very happily so at that!
Does it occur to you how we manage this WITHOUT an ideology that justifies killing of others whom we fear would otherwise kill us?
You told me that "Osama stand for killing everyone who disagrees with him."
Terrible stand! So you want to kill Osama who disagrees with you? I don't! And I would hardly think that I face any more danger from Osama (because I openly disagree with him) that I need to fear from you or Modi (because I openly disagree with you).
You said that if Hindutva was really bad, "there will be Gujurat riots everyday and in everyplace!!"
There is neither terror strike every day and in every place! You nasty guys need to be provoked, right? The point is that there was a riot in Gujarat in 2002 -- and this should be condemned. And there was a terror strike at Ahmedabad a couple of weeks back -- and this should be condemned.
You condemn one of the above, after having openly condoned the other -- as justified retaliation. That is how the Indian Mujahideen too justified the serial bombing, right?
We see you and Modi as factors that make this world "non-idealistic" -- along with Osama & Co. If you think we will seek YOUR help or advise on how to tackle Osama, perish the thought! For us, this is no different than seeking Osama's help to tackle you and Modi.
Some one asked -- how do we propose to tackle terrorism? Well, as you said, the world is non-ideal -- what with so much communal hatred and retaliatory violence. We certainly have the choice to avoid joining any of the hate camps. If that helps to reduce terrorism and retaliatory riots, good. Else, we are absolutely satisfied that we did what we think is right. And we remain alive and happy....
Anand
you are feeling insecurities and inferiorities which are wholly unwarranted.
would i be right if the genesis of ur angst lies in the fact that muslims ruled the subcontinent.
if yes,the clash was between the rival rulers,and cruelty was used against the defeated rulers.
the people were not a part of this to a large extent,a particularly fanatic ruler might have imposed taxes and other restrictions.
the peoples reactions would have forced retractions of these measures.
the hindus united with the muslims in various instances while fighting against the westerners.
it was after ww 1 that religion again was used to rally people.
after partition,until 1989,there were only localised clashes.
kashmir is a case of regional aspirations into which the bjp throws in religion.
as for ur second question about islamic fundamentalism,i think u might have heard about the crusades.
the formation of israel is an unparallelled injustice.
as for ur third question about a special status,it must be said that ur education is inadequate when faced with ur blind rage and ignorance.
it is good that you have found some time to argue,i would recommend some time to be spent in going around the real country,whenever u find the time,instead of working urself into situations where the mind stops working.
Your language is too rich for us feeble-minded commoners. Will you explain in plain English how would you go about "taking a dignified stand by not encouraging mindless retaliation." I mean step by step, point by point like I will do this this this 1, 2, 3....Because there is no point playing around with words. Explain it like any other procedure, say if you are teaching some one how to cook you can't just say blend the spices in right proportion. You have to tell what the right proportion is and how to blend them and at what stage of cooking they should be blended. Can you explain on similar lines?
Thank you
Hinduism does not tell that it is supreme, but Islam and Christianity preaches only based on that concept. Infact ours is the religion which says 'That truth is one; but has different ways to reach'.
I can understand caste-based reservation, even though i disagree with it. But reservation based on religion will only pave the way for another partition.
To Anand, I think u have nothing but crap ideas running around in ur head. If you compare Osama and Modi at same level, i think u need a mental asylum to make u better. Modi is a democratically chosen leader; whereas Osama is a terrorist who takes pride in killing innocent people.
M.F.Hussain deserves for what he has done. You people keep ur mouth shut when Salman Rushdie and Tasleema Nasreen was driven out of this country for speaking freely. This is what pseudo secularist like you espouse.
You are alive to speak freely...its because we live in a democracy. This is what people like Osama and Islamic Fundamentalism hates and want to destroy; but u justify Indian Mujahideen's actions. On one side u talk against Osama and on other u dont want him get killed....what do u expect he will come and fall on ur knees for forgiveness. What a nonsense!!
If killing Osama hurts u than i suggest u join him soon and get ourselves rid of another spineless terrorist coward!!
BTW, I differentiate the Gujurat riots from Islamic terrorism. Because unlike Islamic terrorism which is based on hatred to destroy everything that is non-islamic, the Gujurat riot is an aberration born out of justified anger. Nevertheless both needs to be condemned. But the clear and resent danger is Islamic terrorism.
Samurai chacha, i think we had a similar argument like this before for which there is no cohesive argument or fact from you. So i will not waste my time replying to ur crap
Terrorist strike BJP ruled states because BJP is tough on terrorism unlike Congress and other parties.
The problem is not people like me but terrorist lovers like u. If u go on like this u might end up terrorist no less than Osama.
1) In India 85% of the population is Hindu. If Hindus are intolerant, how come Masjids and Madrasas are thriving? How come Muslims are offering Namaz on the road? How come Muslims are proclaiming five times a day on loudspeakers that there is no God except Allah?
2) When Hindus gave away 30% of Bharat to the Muslims for a song, why do they have to beg now for their three sacred places out of thirty thousand destroyed by the Muslims?
3) When the Constitution of India advocates equal rights to all the citizens, then why do we have different laws for people of different religious faiths? Why can't we have a Uniform Civil Code?
4) When Haj pilgrims are given subsidy, why Hindu pilgrims to Amarnath, Sabarimalai and Kailash Mansarover are taxed?
5) Why are the temple revenues diverted to fund Haj subsidy and the welfare activities of Muslims and Christians?
6) Why is post-Godhra blown out of proportion, when no one talks of the ethnic cleansing of four lakh Hindus from Kashmir?
7) If Muslims & Christians are minorities in Maharashtra, UP, Bihar, etc. are Hindus not minorities in J&K, Mizoram, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, etc.? Why are Hindus denied minority rights in these states?
8) In what way is J&K different from Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu or Uttar Pradesh to have Article 370?
10) Why did Gandhiji object to the decision of the cabinet and insist that the Somnath Temple should be reconstructed out of public funds, not government funds, when in January 1948 he pressurised Nehru and Patel to carry on renovation of the mosques of Delhi at government expenses?
11) When Christian and Muslim schools can teach Bible and Quran, why Hindus cannot teach Gita or Ramayan?
12) The percentage of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh after partition in 1947 was 17 and 25 respectively. Today their percentage is almost nil in Pakistan and 10.5 in Bangladesh. What happened to the missing Hindus? Do Hindus have human rights?
Answer this and we can carry our debate from there.
So, lets focus our energies and thinking on how to improve the legal system.
Its better than punishing a community for the acts of certain individuals.
Non-violence is far harder to understand and adopt that violent methods.
You too will eventually understand it, that is IF you genuinly want to.
1) Hindu's are not intolerent (the rest of your question show your intollerence) and muslims are not terrorists.
But, some hindus are intolerent and some muslims think terror.
So, we have to collectivly tackle these individuals.
2) you are not responsible for the acts of hindus in history. so it is useless to see history in terms of "we" and "they".
3) Our constitution endeavours to MAKE everyone equal. That is why women have previlages over men. minorities over majorities and backward classes over high classes.
SERIOUSLY, none of this will ever harm your interest. ( a hindu, brahman(right?) man). :)
4) The presentation of this fact is flawed and you know it.
5)Another lie.
6)Because the Gujrat episode was state sponsored and everything else is acknowledged as terrorism
7)Becasue preivilages are provided on the national front and not for the state you hail from. (woman from keral = woman from rajasthan) you could call that unfair too...
8)I dnt know what is article 370.
10)False.
11)FALSE. :) hindu schools very much teach geetha and ramayana and mahabharata. i was tought it in my KV, even though is it not a 'hindu' school.
12)False.
You said (as if this is a brilliantly new revelation!), "Terrorist strike BJP ruled states because BJP is tough on terrorism unlike Congress and other parties"
I thought the ONLY aim of being "tough on terrorism" is to scare the prospective terrorists -- and thus PREVENT future terror strikes.
But it seems that Modi's policies are inviting terror strikes -- as you yourself now admit! Which may be okay for those surrounded by black cat security guards, but sadly, not okay for ordinary people on the street.
Do we conclude that being "tough on terror" (the Modi way) does not make life safer for ordinary people?
You went on, "The problem is not people like me but terrorist lovers like u."
Wrong on both counts!
a) You (and those like you) are at least half the problem -- because you are a supporter of communal riots against the Muslims community (as a justified method to protect Hindu lives and culture)
b) As for us, we condemn BOTH terrorism by Islamist fundamentalists and communal riots and propaganda indulged by those like you. No, we are not "lovers of terrorism" of either variety!
Then you let the cat out of the bag, "If u go on like this u might end up terrorist no less than Osama."
And for that reason, you believe that it is okay to wage a war not only against Islamist fundamentalists, but ALSO against secular and liberal minded people who oppose all varieties of hate politics with equal vehemence.
You wanted me "to go thru" your "questions and answer" these.
Now that you have gone to my own blog at Sulekha, you may read the answers to each of your hackneyed questions at "Secularism and the RSS Ideology". If you go through my blogs carefully and my responses by way of comments, you may get wiser -- but this is difficult, as prejudices run deep, and are difficult to shake off...
Anand
India's legal claim of Kashmir being a part of the country is the "Instrument of Accession" signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, the then soverign ruler of that country.
Article 370 was later enacted by the Indian Parliament as per the terms insisted on by the Hindu Maharaja for acceding to India.
Essentially, the act stipulates restrictions on purchase of land within Kashmir by those who were non-residents in the kingdom at the time of accession to India. This restriction is NOT based on religion, and there is no restriction on Hindus, Sikhs and Christians from buying land there -- provided they were residents in the kingdom at the time of accession to India.
If the terms of accession, as insisted on by the Maharaja, were not acceptable to India, we could have rejected this Instrument at THAT stage. But in that case, the Maharaja may not have signed on the instrument of accession -- which alone is the legal basis of our present claim that Kashmir is a part of India.
Unilaterally abrogating Article 370 (once having signed the Instrument of Accession) will undermine the ONLY legal basis of Kashmir's accession to India. It would be totally immoral to do this without a specific referendum conducted within the affected region to ascertain that this has the general support among the people of Kashmir. All the more so, at a time when there is an active secessionist insurgency within that State. Any such action (at this stage) would only strengthen support for secessionist sentiments. (Which would allow the BJP to shout "foul" and use this to spread hate against Muslims in general!)
As for Uniform Civil Code, why is the Special Marriages Act NOT good enough for those like Venkat? This is UNIFORMLY applicably by choice to all people of all communities!
At present, the personal laws only apply to those community members (Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Christians etc) who voluntarily choose these. The demand for "UCC" (mainly by the BJP/ RSS) would thus seem NOT based on the perceived need for a uniform, liberal & secular code, but to REMOVE the choice of people to be guided by their own personal laws. That would be undemocratic -- irrespective of the fact that the existing personal laws (including for Hindus) are regressive and patriarchal.
As for Haj subsidy, this mainly benefits the Air India! This is NOT even a vote bank issue! Air Deccan etc may gladly accept to transport the thousands of pilgrims each year at contract rates LESS THAN the current "government subsidized" rates charged on the pilgrims by Air India. This issue is a red herring used by the RSS to fool people.
I contend that those who raise these issues (Article 370, UCC, Haj Subsidy and so on) are either ignorant (at best), or communally vicious (at worst).
Anand
Your’e explanation about Article 370 is totally nonsense and bereft of any facts. On October 26, 1947 Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir, signed the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir to the Dominion of India. Under this Instrument, he surrendered the jurisdiction of three subjects - Defence, External Affairs and Communications to the Central Government. Lord Mountbatten, presumably with the knowledge and consent of Pt. Nehru, unwisely insisted that the final decision of the accession would be ratified by the Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir.
Was it not a blunder committed by Nehru to follow Lord Mountbatten blindly? When neither Maharaja Hari Singh nor Sheikh Abdullah demanded the ratification of the Instrument of Accession by the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, it was wrong on the part of the Government of India to insist on the ratification. It was a Himalayan blunder committed by Nehru.
During the annexation of states to the Union of India, Sardar Patel had been paying little attention to Kashmir. But once Pakistan invaded the Valley, and as the situation went out of control, the Sardar stepped in, and it was his clarity and firmness, along with the valour of our Army and Air Force which saved the Valley. Soon enough Pt. Nehru inducted Gopalaswami Ayyangar as Minister Without Portfolio to help him take charge of policy regarding Kashmir. The Sardar had not been consulted regarding Ayyangar's induction, although it was to impinge directly on his responsibilities. This increased the rift between Nehru and Sardar and led to the resignation of Sardar from the government. With Mahatma Gandhi's intervention the Sardar was made to stay.
Sheikh Abdullah apprehended that if Hindus, who migrated from Pakistan to India, were allowed to settle in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, they would transform the majority of Muslims in the valley into minority. Hence he pressurized Pt. Nehru to get Article 370 incorporated in the Constitution of India, which harmed the entry of non-Kashmiris into the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Thus the nefarious plan to continue outnumbering Hindus in the valley was fulfilled by the dint of Article 370. If pernicious Article 370 had not been incorporated in our Constitution, Hindu immigrants would have settled in the valley to reduce the Muslims to minority, and the problem of Kashmir would have been solved for ever.
Where is the question of Hindus, Sikh and Christians buying lands in Kashmir when they are totally driven out by the Muslim fundamentalist??
As for your explanation in Terrorism it is pathetic. If you are tough on terrorist they are bound to resist and hit back. So it only calls for even tougher measures and tougher laws like POTA to be brought back. Anyone with least common sense will understand that. I can figure why it is tougher for you.
If you condemn Muslim fundamentalism then why is u kept ur mouth shut when Kashmir Pandits were driven out of their homeland.
An intensive research conducted by Zenab Banu of Gujarat on the cause and effect of communal riots since 18th century (which was a topic of her Ph.D. thesis), wherein she had analyzed and documented major Hindu-Muslim riots spread over 250 years, shows that in over 95 % cases the riots were initiated by Muslims. Her thesis has been published in a book entitled 'Politics of Communalism' (1978). I suggest you read that.
Well you are terrorist lover because you give reasons for terrorist’s action and justify their attacks.
As for your explanation on Special Marriage act it is total bunk reveals ur ignorance at the best. Special Marriage act does not give anything special to Hindus, Jains or Buddhist according that law. Whereas Muslims according to their Sharia can marry more than one wife and have even minors as a wife. If India is Secular State than why are we having laws based on religion?
Lastly, ur explanation Haj. Air India is operated by Central government and gives subsidy to Haj pilgrims; whereas when Kashmir government tries to give lands for facilitating Amarnath pilgrims, it is brought down.
So stop making nonsense arguments and tried to be more relevant and purposeful in ur facts.
Now coming to the point, you have not answered any of my direct questions, but rather going around talking nonsense and cursing.
As I said earlier I can accept reservation for socially backward class. But why for Minorities. Do minorities all over the world get such reservations? Muslims were ruling India for six centuries, so where is the question of them being underprivileged. The reason for them being backward is because they never accepted Western education and always had suspicious about them. It is altogether another debate. Suffice to say Muslims situation is there own making and Muslims leaders who have kept them like that for their personal and political interest.
Where is the proof that Gujurat riots were state sponsored!! Its wild imagination running riot in your mind. 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed in the riot according to Supreme Court observation. The number of Muslims killed, were manipulated to 2000 just to show India and Gujurat in bad light to the international media.
Ethnic cleansing in Kashmir was state-sponsored and it was a state policy to support separatism. Kashmir Pandits only mistake was that they supported India and were patriotic Indians.
As you have nothing new to add and simply deny facts without any counter facts and stick ur head in the sand like an Ostrich…its no use talking reasoning with u.
his range of thinking cannot begin to understand that it is a monumental feat to be managing our diversity under a constitution.
he falls for petty issues and misses the bigger picture.
only if his community is targeted with violence and vilification will he begin to understand the chain of reactions that such acts set off.
when the facts about kashmir are attempted to be explained,he falls back on an assumption that he is a superpatriot and others are taliban backers and terrorist lovers,part of this thinking has been provided by koenraad elst.
everyone knows that there is a problem in kashmir which has resulted in deaths in the thousands.
the complicated scenario can be twisted into just one of repeal of article 370 only by simpletons like shiva venkat.
the following thinking of this educated guy explains his mode of thinking.
"If pernicious Article 370 had not been incorporated in our Constitution, Hindu immigrants would have settled in the valley to reduce the Muslims to minority, and the problem of Kashmir would have been solved for ever."
muslims live in a predominantly hindu society,their lives are intertwined with the majority,their businesses will have predominantly hindu customers,their bosses and employees will be predominantly hindu.
if in a village or a town of a thousand people,approximately 100 are muslim.they cannot produce goods or services for just those 100 people,they are inevitably interlinked with the remaining 900 people.
a bigot of shiva venkats ilk will resort to kindling trouble between the communities.
the 100 people will not be courting suicide by raking up trouble.
probably,shiva venkats mindset thinks that in such a situation,the 100 people will constantly be attacking the remaining 900 people,as the remaining 900 people are not equipped to deal with a situation of nuisance created by 100 people.
this mindset has been sought to be created and nourished by the bjp because it consists of people who have been fooled to the extent that they think the people of this country are lacking in logic and practicality.
you go to mumbai or chennai and look at the businesses being run by the muslims,who are their customers,who are their employees?
go to a small town anywhere and look at the professions of the muslim.
how many muslims are there in our small towns and how many hindus surround them.
the hindus are well organised on the basis of caste(clans).
shiva venkat does not understand these clans and their religions and their minds and their modes of worship.
they go about their lives,as they have been going about for millennia.
it is because he does not feel a part of this sea of humanity does he feel the need to strive for hindu unity.
he has read too many books as he himself proudly lists in his blog,(such a grand list has unfortunately contributed nothing to his evolution) and has no touch with real people and their lives.
you like to involve yourself in arguments for the sake of arguments,
you read all the books of arun shourie,
could you be dealing with existential ennui,shiva.
take it easy,hindutva is not going to resolve your inner conflicts.
the people live their lives without trying to get dogmatic because they are not imprisoned within a book,as others are in the world.
forget about the others and be sure that truth will triumph.
vaazhga vazhamudan
Shiva,
The truth has already come out in your comments.
Hindutva is based on skewed facts.
You still don't accept that the Gujrat riots were state sponsored.
Another lie "Hindutva" is trying to propagate.
You have to agree "The hindutva model" breeds hatred.
im totally in favour of a debate on bringing out the real religion behind the socalled hinduism and removing all that has crept into it through the ages and which keeps the vast majority of the socalled hindus in darkness.
if you have the vedas as your guiding light,that is your religion.
no one is trying to prevent you from following your religion.
when you talk about hindutva in the context of targeting the muslims and all the other crap about fighting back,you are motivating people to hate.
that has nothing to do with religion.
it is done by a systematic disinformation campaign and peddling of lies,half truths and rumours.
hindutva is propagated by a party whose prime ministerial candidate is the prime accused in a case of a demolition of a mosque,
he hails from an organisation which apes the nazis.
this particular organisation has been banned for quite a while in the history of our democratic republic.
intellectuals like you deserve applause for indulging dimwits like me.
aaditya,what is the lie in anands point about kashmir?
BJP is a democratic and cultured party. It has presence over India, comparing it with Nazi only shows ur complete ignorance about BJP and Nazi both!!
Shiva has put things in perspective and thrown some valuable facts about Hindutva. Good Job!!
If you mean RSS, then yes it was done by Congress who could not stand an organization which has grown tremendously over the year threatening Congress fiefdom.
the negotiations were conducted with him.
read this article from yesterdays hindu.
http://www.hindu.com/mag/2008/08/03/stories/2008080350130300.htm
is everyone in the congress party having the iq of a three year old.
it has offices in all the 500 plus districts of our country,
you misread my sentence and you accuse me of idoicy.
what do you know about jamnagar and hyderabad,
there are always 2 sides,get acquainted with both.
shiva,ramachandra guha has iq of which age?
you could read the article and give your guess.
simpletons cannot comprehend complex issues and both of you have proved yourselves to be sound simpletons.
http://www.indiatogether.org/peace/kashmir/intro.htm
shiva,im awaiting ur guess about the iq of the authors.
why do we need iq tests,
shiva venkat has ventured to guess them?
During partition there was lot of competition with Pakistan and India. In fact Pakistan was asking whole of Bengal and Punjab...so what u say we should have given that as well??
I agree when you say Shiva has hit the nail on the head.
He and you have shown that
'Hindutva' thrives on manipulation of facts, getting on the offensive and justifies violence.
Reflects in your comments.
So Hindutva is the culmination for answering those injustice...it might look offensive...but when we are surrounded by enemies who want to subvert this country. At times offensive is the best defense.
You deserve an apology for some of the offensive statements made against you on this forum.
It was in bad taste and I am sorry for it.
Thanks for participating
cheers!
Pooja
Point is that you have chosen to see only one aspect of history.
If you want revenge for suffering caused during the past, then why target only Muslims?
Why not upper caste people also who ill-treated lower castes for generations?
Why not declare the British as our enemies too?
The purpose of history is not to determine our present enemies.
Hindutva only takes away our attention from enemies that hold greater relevance today:
Corruption, illitracy, bad legal system, xenophobia .....etc
The problem now is of Muslim fundamentlism, so that is what we have to address. British do not bother us now nor is there any upper caste atrocity in large scale.
The clear and present danger is Islamic terrorism which is not only the problem of India but all ove the world.
Other enemies will be tackeled when we first identify oursleves to our culture of Dharma.
Muslim fundamentalism is a problem.
The answer, however is not Hindu fundamentalism.
Hindutva is Hindu fundamentalism.
extremism cannot brook views differing from their worldview,their use of words is involuntary
shiva the iqguesser can be brought over with patience.
shiva the iqguesser,
why dont you report to the home ministry that the site indiatogether has the backing of the ISI,if you have any gumption,and if you are not all bluster.
any conflict becomes a conflict because there are two sides and two contentions.
the palestinians have accepted to live with the west bank,gaza and east jerusalem though the entire
israel belongs to them.
that is a case of magnanimity even under extreme distress.
you and adityaa need to look at the situation as it is and the views from both perspectives.
that is why the two govts are having talks.
shiva,you say that hindutva is the answer,the indian mujahideen says that islam is the answer,
what do we decide now?
also,you havent yet come out with the iq of ramguha.
You are confusing the issue by talking on the merit of whether or not the Instrument of accession needed to be ratified by the Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir! The point is that the Maharaja himself had sought to limit accession to the areas of Defence, External Affairs and Communications to the Central Government -- and THIS called for Article 370 that accorded a status to J&K that is different from that of other states.
Be that as it may, what is wrong if the instrument of accession was sought to be ratified by a more representative body? (Nehru did blunder -- but that was much later, when he alienated the popular and secular minded Sheikh Abdullah by placing him under house arrest).
Your idea of "solving" the Kashmir issue by altering the demography and changing the religious composition of that state is downright evil. This again shows that you are a fundamentalist of the Osama variety. We expect no better from a supporter of rape and killings in retaliation for terror strikes...
Your stand on terrorism -- and how to deal with this, is in keeping with your unethical attitude that supports riots. You would support "tougher measures" however ineffective these are on ground! Ideology has indeed made you blind. Let me repeat:-
Modi's policies are inviting terror strikes and endangering ordinary people -- as you yourself admit! Which may be okay for those surrounded by black cat security guards, but sadly, not okay for ordinary people on the street.
The conclusion that being "tough on terror" (the Modi way) does not make life safer for ordinary people.
No, I had not kept my "mouth shut when Kashmir Pandits were driven out of their homeland"! You talk as if you were there to hear the silence that came out from my mouth!
No, I do NOT propose to read the book by "Zenab Banu of Gujarat". I don't need to do that, as I oppose the politics of hate -- and you want me to read this only to show that "Muslims" are to blame! If either the Muslims or the Hindus are to blame, then hate and retaliation are justified, right? THAT is not the way I see the world....
Sorry, I do NOT give "reasons for terrorist’s action and justify their attacks"! I oppose the terrorists and their motives -- just as I oppose you and your motives. It was Modi -- and you -- who justified riots, and lamented the fact that Muslims could not be reduced to a minority in the Kashmir valley.
You guys are terrible. But it is your constitutional right to be terrible -- till when you break the law. When either you or the terrorist break the law, the normal law of the land must take its own course.
Secularism is a state policy -- whereby the State rejects religion -- any religion -- as the source of ethics. Secularism need not necessarily interfere with the freedom of people to practice or propagate religion! Obviously you are opposed to both core secularism (rejection of Hinduism as the source of ethics by the Indian State) and also freedom of choice of religion that our Constitution grants to the people of India!
You need to decide your stand on Haj & Amarnath. My stand is consistent on both these issues, let me assure you! Do you have a consistent stand on ANY issue?
Anand
The Article 370 was the brainchild of Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah. If you don't know that i think u shuld read the 'The story of the integration of the Indian States', 'The Transfer of Power in India', 'The Transfer of Power in India' all written by V.P. Menon who was instrumental in making Hari Singh to sign the Accession.
Modi's policy is the only way to surmount Islamic terrorism. If you have to fight terrorism sometimes u need to act with terror. People like you who loves Osama and Muslim fundamentalism make hue and cry about his policy which is nothing but completely absurd and ridiculous.
So you have made it the policy to keep your eyes wide shut to opposing views then ur only being a pig-headed!!
Talking of Haj and Amarnath, the secularism that is practiced by so-called 'secular parties' is one-sided and dangerous. People like u support this because u come form culture that hates Hinduism and Hindus.
Ur left-leaning views is obsolete and carries no value outside Kerela and Bengal. Even their it will be kicked out soon!!
They have nothing more to add to the fact then calling Modi as Hitler. But the facts and current happening are far from this bullshit crap.
He had emerged as a more strong and matured leader and he will strengthen Hindutva and its positive influence on Indian politics.
You seem to be rather proud of the "kicking" you give certain people.
No wonder that Hindutva makes perfect sence to you.
Many refrain from being offensive and rude to avoid deviating from what is important.
I guess those are the kind of people that don't see the sense in Hindutva.
"Hindutva doubles up the overall fundamentalism"
It doubles the violence. It doubles the innocents dying. it doubles the hatred. it doubles the intolerence.
"Narendra Modi is the one man who can stand against Islamic Fundamentalism."
The recent blasts that tore through the country show that his "stand" is quite lame.
Clearly, he did not touch a single terrorist with his carnage.
Instead his blind mob killed a lot of innocent people to impress people like you and Shiva.
Anand. has not answered any of points comprehensively; but rather deny everything like you. The problem with u people is u want to deny there is a problem of Islamic fundamentalism and only parrot what leftist writer say.
Hindus are being treated in their own country and will be reduced to second-class citizen if pseudo-secularism is continued as a state policy.
Double, Triple and all that mathematics boils down to one thing..if Hinduism has to survive it has to come out of its shell and show this world that we are strong.
Jew were treated like animals for centuries and were killed. Only when they became aggressive did the world took them to be a force to be reckon with.
We had to follow the same principle. Hindutva is the principle that carries that message.
So don't blame Narendra modi but rather the central government which has no guts to hang Afzal.
Do you believe or don't you believe that the 2002 riots were state sponsored?
i just want to know what you beleive is the truth
Because further discussion about Modi depends on that...
Furhter, If Modi is guilty as u say, were is the evidence....it was a trial by media. We all know what English meida is anti-modi and have huge prejudice against him.
Even if what you say that Gujurat riot was a progrom....then only muslims should have died. This is the case of sikh-riots in 1984 were only 4000 sikhs dies and not a single hindus were killed
That was a state-sponsored an pogrom. But in Gujarat riot, the hindus were killed first and more than 300 hindus died along with 700 muslims.
So what r u talking is absurdity to the core!!
As i said in the very beginning ur left-leaning views and speech does not hold good with majority in this country.
Leftist does not believe in anything and always spoken against India in general and Hindus in particular. So if u want to ape them, u can do that.
Their stand on Nuclear deal is the case in point, they want powers without responsibility. You wait for next election they will be consigned to dustbin.
As for ur stand on Hindutva, it does no matter whether u like it or not. If ur a paki-loving Islamic fundamentalist, i can understand ur anger and venom.
But, if ur true and patriotic Indian then only time will make u understand that Hindutva is the cornerstone for Indian civilization and way to counter all kinds of threat to this country.
you said that i was an isi agent,
i asked you to specify on what basis you came to that conclusion.
or were you just joking?
i asked you a question about you finding hindutva to be the answer and the indian mujahideen finding islam to be the answer and how it should be decided over who prevails?
you are having problems with your identity and have found hindutva to provide you with an identity that satisfies your doubts.
your big talk is not provoking me to imitate you because iam in sympathy with your situation.
if that is how you want to feel good,by talking big,i dont want to spoil your fun.
can you answer my question about the site india together,is that site isi affiliated or do all of the people on that site have the iq of a three year old?
put yourselves in the shoes of the indian mujahideen,
they think modi massacred the muslims,and they are retaliating.
how would you intellectually address their problem?
the site indiatogether has put together a chronology,which they have said is evolving,and references have been mentioned.
they are welcome to alternate versions backed up with documentary evidence.
can you contribute anything?
can you tell where that chronology is wrong,
or can you point to a similar site with a differing version?
You make a strange statement, "The people of Gujarat has given the mandate to Modi, which absolves him of any guilt."
This is NOT how guilt or innocence is determined under our system of criminal jurisprudence!
But you are right that Modi has not (yet) been tried or convicted for his crimes. And no one says that Modi should be punished by law (or killed in a fake encounter) without a fair trial. Do you, Pooja?
But then, Modi's guilt that we talk of here, is political and moral. In our perspective, hate politics is amoral, and any one who justifies riots or terror is guilty in that sense. It is in this sense that Modi is guilty and you are guilty -- and the Indian Mujahideen is guilty. We do oppose the hatefilled ideology that drives fundamentalists of all hues. And note that we express our opposition politically through words and arguments. And not by calling for any one's blood...
aadityaa,
Can you quote what you claim VP Menon or Sardar Patel said about Article 370? Please remember to give the exact references and page numbers -- so that we can check up on accuracy and context.
But did you know that it was Sardar Patel who (as the Home Minister) had banned the RSS for several years?
Anand
Ur comments are the similar to what Pakistan and ISI propaganda sounds. So ur doing their job with or without knowing. Hindutva is the answer to Islamic fundamentalism, if u feel different tell me what is the answer.
I have no problem with identity. I am proud to be a Hindu and following Hindutva. It seems it is u who lot of problem including identity.
You can’t get provoked since u deserve it rightly. Well thanks for ‘caring’ abt me, the feeling is mutual.
The site u has mentioned says that India shuld be together and that’s exactly what Hindutva also says. Unlike u I am not paranoid by ISI asking stupid questions. I can also tell u check out this site about Hindutva http://www.hvk.org/Publications/hindutva.html
What nonsense, “Modi massacred Muslims”, where is ur evidence for that? This is what I called 3-year old IQ syndrome.
Now u have taken u the case of Indian mujahideen and u don’t want me to call u Paki ISI agent. Since as u said we cannot answer them intellectually we need to speak to them in their own language and fight them on their own grounds.
Ur comments are intellectual cowardice taking shelter in websites and contents not urs. The site India together has nothing new to add. If so I want to hear it from ur mouth.
So all ur rhetoric’s means nothing but shit. So I suggest u do some more reading come with something useful next time.
Guess what? You and people like you have no guts to do anything but brood over. If politicians are to be judged for their morality Modi will emerge clean and many of the politicians who are anto-modi like u will be in jail.
Well Modi has proved politically, ideologically and administratively he is the best champion of Hindutva.
If u say Modi is guilty then people who elected him also is guilty? You keep on adding to your nonsense dribbles. Just condemning fundamentalism will not do anything. We need person like Modi to do something and send a strong message.
I am not here to present thesis here. If you read the books I have mentioned you will find all the proof you need. BTW, did you read my full comment? I have not mentioned or written V.P Menon or Sarder Patel in relation to Article 370. I only said both were the reason why Kashmir become part of India.
I said Article 370 is the brainchild of Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah. You desperately want to twist what I am saying and trying to prove urself smart. But you're anything but smart and I am not going to oblige you!!
About my stand on Modi, you asked, "Why don’t you start a PIL against him if you so passionate."
I am quite satisfied expressing my dissenting views regarding Modi's brand of politics. I have a right to do that, right? There can be no compulsion that if I criticize a man for fomenting communal riots, I must also file PILs. Whatever for?
No, I do NOT respond to political crimes committed by fellow citizens by either PIL or violence. I merely express my views condemning the ideology that leads up to these crimes.
Modi has not commented on this blog, justifying communal riots. But you have done just that. And you are indeed guilty of indulging in hate politics -- whether or not Modi is, and whether or not I file a PIL against you!
You said that Modi is a "champion of Hindutva". It is precisely this vile politics of hindutva (that calls for hindus to retaliate against muslims) that I oppose! Indeed, the people who voted this man back to power are just as guilty -- unless they plead ignorance or that they were misled. Where is the doubt? At least some of them are the same who "retaliated" against Godhra, right? How can one be in the same ideological company as Babu Bajrangi and still plead innocence?
You said, "We need person like Modi to do something and send a strong message."
No thank you! We prefer to live in peace and tranquility! That is our message and response to fundamentalists of all types.
Anand
Of course, Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah were instrumental in drafting Article 370 -- as required to based on the nature of the Instrument of Accession. Of course, VP Menon and Sardar Patel played important roles in getting the vacillating Maharajah Hari Singh to sign on the Instrument of Accession -- though this was only a conditional acceptance of India's sovereignty by the Maharaja. These are the FACTS that I state.
You definitely tried to mislead by suggesting that VP Menon and Sardar Patel were opposed to Article 370. When asked to substantiate (by giving quotes), you claim that you never said this!
But I am happy that you now acknowledge that VP Menon and Sardar Patel were NOT opposed to Article 370. Right? By this confession, you have indeed obliged me!
Anand
So you have no guts to follow up on what you believe is right. First check up on the facts and talk. You just keep talking bullshit and tell I have said things which I have never said. Sarder Patel was against Kashmir being taken up by External affairs. He and V.P.Menon were in charge of Integration of various princely states. They convinced Maharaja Hari Singh of joining with India.
The point is not whether Article 370 was opposed by Sarder Patel or V.P.Menon, what is important is why it included in our constitution in the first place was.
Sarder Patel no only opposed Article 370; but also said that Kashmir should not be taken to UN as this was internal problem of India. Nehru took it against his wishes. Now what are the consequences? Kashmir is still disputed and it always the flashpoint for any war with Pakistan or China. There is nothing to substantiate on this, everyone know it. It’s surprise you don’t know it.
If you want to debate any issue you should read first about then talk. You have neither well-read nor can understand the issues. You just pick my words here and there make nonsense bullshit out of it.
Well, you don’t speak with any authority rather take lot of bullshits from media and try to present the case. So Babu Bajrangi is your proof. What happened to the sting operation on him? It is has gone to cold storage. They can neither prove nor substantiate anything. It was done by Telhka channel which has the history of hatred against BJP and Modi.
This operation was done just before Gujarat election to give Modia bad name. What happened after is a history. Your blaming Gujarat people for electing him….well in democracy people decide who they want, if you don’t like it you can get out of this country. We don’t need a dumb ass coward like you.
The accession of the States brought about the irrevocable unification of the Princely States with the State of India, irrespective of whether they accepted to become a part of any future constitutional organization of India. The integration of Jammu and Kashmir into the State of India was, therefore, brought about by the accession of the State to India and not by Article 370.
The oft-repeated assertion that Article 370 was an enabling act, was politically motivated and used by successive State governments to perpetuate the unrestricted power to rule by decree, vested in them, by Article370.
I never mislead anyone rather you have misquoted me. Sarder Patel was against it in the parliament. Patel said that “neither Article 370 nor Sheikh Abdullah is permanent. What is permanent is the people of India and if the people of India have no guts to change it later on, we do not deserve to be together.”
Your happy at being ignorant fool is something worrying. Looks like you need to check up in a mental hospital soon!!
Aadityaa
Coming back to my question,
Do you believe or don't you believe that the 2002 riots were state sponsored?
It matters what you beleive because it helps me understand how I must view all the "facts" that you present.
If for even a moment take your viewpoint, it should have been state sponsored pogrom were only Muslims should have died. It was not the case, even Hindus died in the riot and the Gujarat riot was started by killing Hindus in the Godhra.
So it was Hindu-Muslim riot went out of control. But we cannot see this isolation and talk as though no riots have taken place in Gujarat before. In previous cases Hindus were at the receiving end and nobody cared about it. When Hindus get killed no cares but when even a single Muslims die there is this hue and cry.
I will give you an example of a state-sponsored violence. It happened in Sikh riot in 1984 were Sikhs were killed systematically. Not a single Hindus were killed. But it was Congress sponsored riot for just one person – Indira Gandhi, who was killed by her Sikh bodyguard.
So to your question whether Gujarat riot was state sponsored or not; by resounding answer is – NO. You agree or disagree; it has no value unless you can provide a substantial evidence to support your claim.
Similarly the 2002 riots were state sponsored.
Both are shameful blots on the country's politics.
Neither event is justifyable.
You can't turn a blind eye to the eveidence about the 2002 riots.
They were both heinous, inhuman steps taken by people who can stoop to any leval to achieve personal goals
its hard to find politicians who are not selfish and corrupt. but its easy to sift out the 'evil' people.
Tytler and Modi, clearly have evil streaks in them. I don't feel safe if someone like either of them is in power.
You claimed, "there is no relation between Article 370 and Instrument of Accession."
False. The Instrument of Accession explicitly limits the role of of the Central Government to "Defence, External Affairs and Communications" (to quote from Shiva Venkat's comment). This meant that the status of J & K had to be different from that of the other states of India. THIS is what necessitated Article 370.
You did try to mislead regarding the stand of Sardar Patel and VP Menon on Article 370. As you do now try to mislead regarding Article 370 and the Instrument of Accession that Maharaja of Hari Singh signed (and which alone is the legal basis of Kashmir's accession to India).
But then the whole of the Hindutva project is based on lies and falsification of history. Hindutva is immoral -- and its proponents know perfectly well that it is immoral. Just as a thief knows that thieving in immoral...
Anand
We are NOT trying to "establish" whether or not Modi is culpable for the 2002 riots. We do feel that he is culpable -- and it is this private view that we are stating here.
And we do say that the 2002 riots (in retaliation for Godhra train burning) was a barbaric act -- whether or not this was state sponsored or state condoned. We need to condemn each participant in the riots as a barbarian. (As indeed the participants in the 1984 riots were barbarians)
If you and Modi agree to the above (regarding 2002 riots), then we have nothing more to say. But if you guys feel otherwise, this is self admission of complicity and guilt.
You told (knowledgeably) us that the 2002 riots were NOT state sponsored. Well, I disagree with you. I feel that this WAS state sponsored. Let these two views on the 2002 riots coexist and compete. Okay?
Or would you or Modi like to file a "PIL" against me?
Anand
Well, there is no comparison between what happened in 1984 and 2002. First one is clearly state sponsored; while the latter is spontaneous riot with justified anger.
Probably, politicians you follow might be corrupt and selfish, but Narendra Modi has proved that he for the people and above all corruption-free administrator. His no-nonsense approach in administrating has brought accolade from all quarters.
Obviously some are jealous that a Hindu leader could stand up against minorytism and Islamic terrorism. They can go to hell.
So, Pooja you have nothing constructive to say but be cynical about everything. We call such people as losers!!
So you talk whatever crap and bullshit in private. That’s what I told earlier, you and Pooja could add up to no more than a third-rate tabloid.
Well, you have no idea about the happenings in Gujarat riots and read it from newspapers with biased coverage as you moot point. This shows your shallowness and how much lies and craps you’re capable of.
Modi or myself have to agree to any nonsense you dish out since they have no facts or truth in it.
You’re views are biased and full of untruth and unsubstantiated facts. So my truth cannot co-exist with your lies and falsehood. But being a true believer of Hindutva, this not the first time lies and falsehood being pointed towards us. So we can tolerate that much.
Well Modi or for that matter myself are busy with more purposeful things in life instead of wasting PIL on a shithead like you
Shiva
You ask, "What is the proof?"
We are entitled to hold opinions without "proof". Just as you are, and as all other Indians are!
Yes, you too are entitled to hold the view that the 1984 riots were state sponsored. Of course, I do regard this as an idiotic and dishonest opinion. Why? Let me tell you:-
Despite the involvement of certain Congressmen and the possible complicity of the Delhi police too in the riots, there is a huge difference between Congress party's attitude towards the Sikh community and the RSS's attitude towards the Muslim community.
The Congress Party has not been denigrating Sikhs and their religion -- either before, during or after the 1984 riots. The RSS has been doing just this in case of Muslims since the inception of this fascist outfit. You have been doing just this in this blog! You guys are driven by xenophobia. The same cannot be said of Congressmen (whatever may be their other shortcomings)!
You have not given any good reasons for suggesting that 1984 riots were "state sponsored". Unlike you, I do have good reasons based on which I hold Modi's government to blame for the 2002 riots! I have already stated these. Would you like me to repeat here? Okay:-
For one, you (a supporter of Modi) have expressed the view that the 2002 riots were justified retaliation to the Godhra train burning. You (a supporter of Modi) have openly expressed hate towards Muslims as a community in this blog. No, "anger" (as would drive people to kill and rape ordinary Muslims) CANNOT be morally justified. It is barbaric.
Any one who rioted in anger (in 1984 or 2002) is a barbarian. I am sure Modi too was angry. Right? Thus, by self-admission, you state that it would have been justified for the State presided over by Modi to have sponsored the riots "in anger". How disgusting!
Nor are you an aberration. You are the archetype supporter of the RSS. The ideology of the RSS is fundamentalist and immoral to the core -- the RSS represents hindu version of the ideology of the Islamist fundamentalists.
It is as stupid to ask, "What is the proof?" of the complicity of the RSS in case of anti-Muslim communal riots, as it is to ask the same question on the involvement of Islamist fundamentalists in the recent serial blasts. For me, the boasts by Babu Bajrangi and the Indian Mujahideen are good reasons to believe that the Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists are squarely responsible for the atmosphere of mutual hate, and for the cycle of communal violence that we see today.
Even Haji Mastan may be a great organiser and administrator. Who cares? We have just as much contempt for Modi's alleged administrative skills. Such people are NOT assets, but liabilities to society. As Germany realized rather late in case of Hitler. And Gujarat too would realize this, one day...
Anand
You said, "The Instrument of Accession is only an enabling act which makes it come under Indian Administration"
That is incorrect. The accession of various princely states were NOT based on a common "Instrument of Accession". Each princely state came to be part of the Union under different circumstances.
In case of Kashmir, the Maharaja had the choice (as did all other rulers) to merge with India or Pakistan -- or to stay Independent. None of the rulers were keen to voluntarily give their kingdoms. In almost all cases it was the popular sentiment that forced the hand of the ruler (plus a bit of not so gentle persuasion) by India. The Travancore Maharaja yielded in the face of popular revolt -- and the assassination attempt on his Dewan (Sir CPR Iyer). The Nizam of Hyderabad too faced popular revolt. He yielded soon after the "police action" by India. The Nizam of Junagarh ran away to Pakistan, fearing popular revolt. The numerous rajahs of Rajasthan too yielded under similar circumstances.
Maharaja Hari Singh too faced popular revolt (against his idea to remain an independent kingdom). This revolt was led by the secular minded Sheikh Abdullah -- who wanted Kashmir to accede to secular India, and not to theocratic Pakistan.
The Maharaja resisted accession to India, till the "raiders" sent by Pakistan reached the outskirts of Srinagar. In panic, Hari Singh asked for Indian troops to assist him. It was then that VP Menon flew to Srinagar, and negotiated for the Maharaja to sign the Instrument of Accession. Hari Singh signed at the very last minute -- though under certain conditions that would provide special status to the State within the Indian Union. (There thus had to be Article 370, as opposed to Article 355 for other princely States).
Soon after the Instrument of Accession was signed by Hari Singh, Indian troops were air-landed in Srinagar. The State was in pitch darkness as the raiders had destroyed the power station near Rampur. Sheikh Abdullah organized volunteers of the National Conference to line up on the airport run-way with flaming torches -- to allow the Indian planes to land with troops. It was thus that Kashmir was saved from the Pakistani raiders.
In the circumstances, I would think that it would be immoral to abrogate Article 370, without first building the consensus for this within the valley.
It may be mentioned that other rulers too had insisted on conditions such as "privy purses and privileges". These were abolished by Indira Gandhi's government in 1969 -- under protest by the Jan Sangh (the earlier avatar of the BJP). This was done, as the popular sentiments were then in favour of doing away with feudal vestiges. May be, in future we may abrogate Article 370 too. But only after the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir are first won over. The RSS ideology is the biggest stumbling block towards such a possibility...
Anand
The various princely states have become part of India, but that’s not the question. Why was Kashmir given special status when all the other princely states where not given.
That’s because Nehru had a special attraction towards Kashmir; that being his ancestors birthplace. The Instrument of accession was similar to all the princely states, there is not reason or evidence toe suggest why it was different.
You have just repeated whatever I have told and made a new story out of it. It was true that none of the rulers were giving their states voluntarily, but nobody was given a special status to be part of India. Infact it was Patel with a strong will to integrate India made some tough decision like Police Action in Hyderabad to quell any threat to India’s sovereignty. He infact would have done the same to Kashmir and made it part of India had it not been Nehru with advice of Lord Mountabatten who insisted that Kashmir issue was taken to UN.
That was the Himalayan blunder and the worst decision made by independent India. India is still suffering for that mistake. In fact General Carriappa who was the Army chief during that time said to Nehru to go for ceasefire after driving out raiders completely and make the whole of Kashmir part of India. Nehru told him. Nehru who was afraid of Carriappa that he might take over India in a military coup was not in mood to listen to him
A just released biography Field Marshal K M Cariappa, authored by his airman son Air Marshal K C Cariappa (Retd), says that because of such an unfounded fear, General Cariappa was packed off to Australia as India's High Commissioner in 1953!
Secular Sheikh Abdullah would be same as Secular Osama. It was because of Sheikh’s duplicity and his personal agenda that Kashmir is neither here nor there. Its because of his insistence and foolhardiness of Nehru that Kashmir has become an alien state within India.
Who said Sheikh was for India, then why was his government. Dismissed by Nehru in 1953. Read your history properly and don’t indulge in idiotic arguments. Sheikh was having a secret liaison with Pakistan and was infact the reason why Pakistan started supporting separatist and latter terrorist to bleed India thru Kashmir.
You are a fuking moron who does not know the true meaning of the word secular. So stop writing bullshits and first check your history and facts.
There is no evidence to suggest that Maharajah Hari Singh asking for a special status when he was having no power to bargain. He was losing ground when V.P.Menon went to him and pointed out his dangerous position. Your facts are full of shit like you.
Soon after the Instrument of Accession was signed by Hari Singh, Indian troops were air-landed in Srinagar. The State was in pitch darkness as the raiders had destroyed the power station near Rampur. Sheikh Abdullah organized volunteers of the National Conference to line up on the airport run-way with flaming torches -- to allow the Indian planes to land with troops. It was thus that Kashmir was saved from the Pakistani raiders.
National Conference lining up in runway is your entire grandmother story!! Tell me where it is written? I think even Sheikh Abdullah would be surprised to hear this story
So all this story is about Sheikh Abdullah being secular is far-fetched, but that is not what is debated here, so don’t fill ur comments with stories nobody knows and come out with something useful and factual.
Who the fucks give what you think. Article 370 is the reason why there is still problem in India. The whole Amarnath issue is because Kashmiris will not give land to the Amarnath shrine board.
Pirivy purse was given to all the former Kings and Princes and Princesses, so that is not an issue. Looks like you’re idiocy as entered a new level. Jana Sangh never asked for abolishing Privy Purse. Infact it was the because of that Rajmata Vijay Raje Scindia of Gwalior joined Jana Sangh from Congress.
You’re comments are full of bullshit and nonsense craps. Its people like you who give India and Hinduism a bad name in front of the world.
Aadityaa
" You’re entitled to have an opinion as long as it does not border falsehood and crap lies. "
Why don't you practice what you preach?
Aaditya you say,
"You have just repeated whatever I have told and made a new story out of it."
If he has repeated what u said.. where is the conflict? if he has made a new story then it is no longer a repetition of what you said right?
When you can't convince people you begin to confuse them...
Fact is you are driven by islamophobia. Everything you believe is retrofitted to that.
You don't care for the anything that does not build your case for islamophobia.
I can see your abuses come now...when you can't confuse, you resort to abuses...
So you have accepted that you’re making stories about everything. It has to be understood that all your arguments are stories to make your point true. If this is not falsehood than what else??
There is no confusion if you have read all the historical facts and made an argument. Since you can’t make a point, you say I am confusing. This only shows your utter ignorance about the subject on debate.
I am not driven by Islamphobia or any ‘shit phobias’ like. You people are paranoid about Hindutva and have Modiphobia to start with.
If you don’t understand or know about anything than you should get into argument about it. You are like a monkey who has got its hand inside the hole and does not know how to get it out!!
Well, I am not the one who said “We are entitled to hold opinions without proof.” So it is you people who talk nonsense in the name of "opinions" without any basic evidence or proof and have been uttering falsehood from the beginning. So ur advice don’t mean a shit.
You told me(rather authoritatively, I am afraid), "You’re entitled to have an opinion as long as it does not border falsehood and crap lies. "
You are wrong! I am legally and morally entitled to hold and express (loudly) opinions that you or anyone else may regard to be "falsehood and crap lies".
You are NOT entitled (legally or morally) to decide that I "shuld be send 2 lunatic asylum" because I regard opinions that you regard to be false.
This is merely the classical fascistic political intolerance that you display. Not surprising, knowing that you are a person who regards the 2002 communal riots as a consequence of "justified anger of the Hindus"; knowing that you are a supporter and apologist of Narendra Modi!
Of course, the 2002 riots were a consequence of the politics of hate that is the life blood of the RSS and the BJP. Of course, the 2002 riots were played out with the full blessings of Modi.
The charge in case of Gujarat is NOT merely that the BJP leadership was "behind the riots". The fact is that BJP thrives on spreading hate against the Muslims. And no, the Congress Party does NOT thrive on spreading hate against the Sikhs -- even as some Congress leaders may indeed have been complicit in the 1984 riots. THERE lies the BIG difference...
You said, "Even Muslims don’t generally like RSS"
Which is great. As great as when Hindus dislike Muslim fundamentalists. I detest the RSS and its ideology; as I detest the ideology of Muslim fundamentalists. Yes, I do detest Modi's and your ideology! There is nothing wrong with this legitimate political position!
But it is as uncivilized for a Hindu to dislike Muslims as it is uncivilized for a Muslim to dislike Hindus. BOTH these examples of "dislike of the other community" are examples of xenophobia!
Our stand is that neither the 1984 nor the 2002 riots were justified -- that all those who indulged in either of these were barbarians. Your own hypocritical stand is that 1984 riots were terrible
(because the Congress was involved), but that the 2002 riots are justified (because the BJP was involved).
You are indeed a dishonest person and a shame to India and all that is good of our traditions and culture. As the RSS is, and as the BJP is.
Anand
It is a pathetic attempt to get some attention. Besides she thinks it is fashionable to be anti-hindu.
Comparison of RSS with Talibaan is laughable
The comparison is valid in the sense that:-
a) Both these outfits are xenophobic -- based on spreading hate and paranoia towards the "other".
b) Taliban believes in nationhood that would derive ethics from Islam; and the RSS seeks to establish a nation that would derives ethics from "Hindutva". This makes both the outfits anti-secular.
c) Both justify and have indulged in horrific violence against ordinary people only because they belong to the "other" hated community.
d) Both are intolerant towards detractors -- would destroy places of worship of the "other" and so on.
d) Both are essentially fascistic organizations.
Beyond the above similarities, the two outfits are vastly different...
Anand
You again miss the point!
It is LEGITIMATE -- morally and legally -- to be anti-Modi, anti-hindutva, anti-Islamism and indeed to be anti-religion.
But it is both ILLEGITIMATE and IMMORAL to spread hate against a community (whether religious, ethnic, linguistic etc).
Modi and Osama are politicians with their respective agendas. Modi's agenda is to establish a nation that derives ethics from "hindutva"; whereas Osama derives ethics from "Islam". Yes, I do oppose all ideologies that seek to base nationhood on religious ethics. This does NOT make me "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Hindu". I certainly do NOT support retaliating (using serial blasts or communal riots) against ordinary people, simply because they belong to this or that religious group!
Let me repeat -- Modi and his brand of political Hindutva are legitimate targets for political and intellectual opposition. Osama and his brand of political Islamism are legitimate targets for political and intellectual opposition.
To claim that any opposition to Modi and to political hindutva would amount to being "anti-Hindu" is false -- and often deliberate fascistic propaganda.
I am entitled to express opinions that I believe to be true -- even if I am unable to convince you that these constitute the truth. To seek to send me to "lunatic" asylum because you disagree with me (and you regard as false what I regard to be true) is immoral and fascistic. Ditto if I seek to send you to the asylum on similar grounds. My position is consistent symmetric, yours is hypocritical and asymmetric.
No, you don't need to "apologize" for supporting Modi. You have the moral and legal right to support Modi. And we do NOT seek that those who support Modi need to be sent to lunatic asylums (nor even to jail)!
You said, "RSS and BJP hate minority appeasement, vote-bank politics, corruption and pseudo-secularism."
If the RSS ideology was confined to the above political opposition to the policies of the Congress party and the Left, it would be fully moral and legitimate!
The problem is ONLY with the "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Christian" propaganda routinely indulged by the outfit and its supporters (like you). The 2002 riots were directed against ordinary Muslims -- and not against "pseudo-secularists". (Murdering and raping of political opponents too would have been despicable and immoral -- but at least this would not have been dishonest!)
You said, "BJP has never said anything against muslims…"
Great! If this is true, then the BJP is okay. But you did rationalise and support the 2002 riots against ordinary Muslims as "justified Hindu anger". Your political position is despicable. When we oppose THIS political position, we are NOT being "anti-Hindu"!
For me, the question is ONLY about spreading communal hatred. This is the PRIMARY reason why I oppose BOTH your brand of hindutva and Osama's brand of Islamism.
If the RSS were to give up its agenda of spreading communal hatred, I would have no issue with it.
Anand
You are the 3rd person so far to miss the first 4 lines of my post.
I repeat for your sake.
I am not anti-hindu or anti any other religion for that matter.
I am anti philosophies that justifies violence and fails to accept guilt for the same.
Check these out:
http://www.yehhumnaheen.org/cc.php?finalpage_os=index.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06pFjE_5MSc
Osama is not a politician in democratic sense so he cannot be compared with Modi, who has been elected democratically. I don’t know what do u mean by “ethics”, Hindutva is a concept of living – a Hindu way of life. This is being endorsed by Supreme Court, so it cannot be the same as what Osama is doing with Islam. So ur wrong in comparing Hindutva with Islam.
You talk all nonsense and then you don’t owe upto what ur write. Ur are at the best a coward who cannot stand up on what he says. That is because u are not clear abt the subject in discussion and what ur trying to convey.
U can target whosoever u want as long it has some cohesiveness in the argument ur trying to make. U have no case since u cannot prove anything against Hindutva or Modi. Now if u think talking bullshit is ur LEGITIMATE RIGHT than ur suffering from a serious mental disorder!!
Now u can talk against Osama since he is a threat to world peace and everybody acknowledges that. Now ur comparison is far-fetched when it come s to Modi. That is possible u think it is fashionable to be anti-Hindutva and anti-Modi. So ur just a jerk-off to be considered anything but seriously.
There are nothing symmetric abt ur thoughts because u don’t have enough facts to ground ur theory. Since u have no facts or evidence to u still have a vacancy in lunatic asylum and u can occupy that.
RSS is only confined to what I have said and much more like social service and creating a people with nationalistic vision and take pride in being a Hindu and Indian. Now u will not like that since ur busy being ‘anti’ about everything that is Hindutva. So ur mis-guided blind fool.
Well RSS and BJP are certainly against pseudo-secularism; if not then why is there an agitation in Jammu for ?? The so-called pseudo-secularist did not say anything when Kashmiri Pandits have been driven out of there homeland in the name of Islam. Now they cry foul that Hindus in Jammu are dividing the state. This is a classic example of pseudo-secularism which RSS and Hindutva is against.
If you’re a rational person than u will understand my rational viewpoint. I never justified 2002 riots….but why only look into that when there where lot of riots in Gujurat before when Hindus were killed. Nobody talked abt it. People like u have a selective amnesia when it comes to Hindu-Muslim riot.
If there is a genesis of Hindu-Muslim riot…it all started with creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion.
There is nothing communal abt Hindutva and as I said it has been endorsed by Supreme Court. So ur comparison again is bullshit and repetitive.
RSS, need not give anything up which they don’t posses. They are not anti-Muslim to start with, unlike u who is anti-Modi and anti-Hindutva.
It is islamic fundamentalism that supports terrorism.
Islam on the whole does not support it.
Hindu fundametalism (hindutva) makes you justify brutal murder as "hindu anger".
Hinduism on the whole does not justify it.
You are fueling hindutva to combat islamic fundamentalism.
In fuelling hindutva you are fueling a hatred against islam on the whole which is wrong.
Well, they both are driven by the exact same sentiment for their respective religion.
" I never justified 2002 riots….but why only look into that when there where lot of riots in Gujurat before when Hindus were killed. Nobody talked abt it"
I had answered the following:
" The 2002 riots were sponsored by the acting govt "
To which you say the following:
"there is no proof that it was state sponsored and that 1984 riots were state sponsored"
to which i said:
"if you can belive the proof we have for the 1984 riots, you can not say that u do not believe the proof we have for the 2002 riots"
To which you simply said:
"What is the proof? You have nothing but lot of bullshit going about “state sponsored” riot. Since you have no proof for it you have no case."
To which anand said:
"we are entitled to hold 'opinions' without proof but not regard it as the truth"
To which you said
"You’re entitled to have an opinion as long as it does not border falsehood and crap lies."
To which i asked
"why dnt you practice what you preach?"
So you switched tables and said,
"Well, I am not the one who said “We are entitled to hold opinions without proof.” "
To which anand said,
" You again miss the point!
It is LEGITIMATE -- morally and legally -- to be anti-Modi, anti-hindutva, anti-Islamism and indeed to be anti-religion.
But it is both ILLEGITIMATE and IMMORAL to spread hate against a community (whether religious, ethnic, linguistic etc)."
You said:
"Both the above statements are contradicting each other."
And now you repeat the question that led to this entire discussion...
Asking after the whole ramayan is over 'who is rama'?
Islamic fundamentalism does not come from thin air. It is inspired by Islam which aims to convert the whole world as an Islamic state.
Yes Hindutva calls for protecting Hindus and Hinduism at all cost…there is nothing wrong in it.
Not only Hindutva but even Hinduism supports violence when it is necessary. But it does it as a last resort. It does not believe in killing non-hindus for the sake of religion.
There nothing wrong to fuel Hindutva to combat Islamic fundamentalism…it is the right thing to do.
Hindutva does not hate Islam; it only hates the predative nature of Islam
Point to me anything that I have said is false and we can take on from there. Instead you just juggle with words and cud not hold ur argument on points u have raised. Now you have proved that u have nothing substantial but an absurd obsessive hatred towards Hindutva and Modi.
Opinions can be made only by competent people who have the grip over the subject , u don’t have any grip or sense in what ur talking.
Well, I am confused with ur version of Ramayan, which says Ram (Modi) is a villain as Ravan (Osama) is a villain. You see my predicament there Pooja Daadi!!
the above comment does NOT make me a supporter of islamic fundamentalism.
I AM AGAINST FUNDAMETALISM - of any religion.
But lets not dream that islamic fundamentalism is different from hindu fundamentalism.
They are driven by the same motives for thier respective religions.
Lets not start dreaming. Neither have u given us so much as a link to see the proof reg the 1984 riots.
Nobody has shared proof for either of the riots being state sponsored.
However, i believe that one had state govt apathy and the other had state govt encouragement.
BOTH 84 AND 2002 RIOTS WERE WRONG. BLOTS ON OUR GOVERNANCE.
Fortunaltely there is no party that secretly justifies the 1984 riots.
There is no party that is spreading fallacies about Sikhism.
Hindutva for some reason is busy twisting history, twisting Islam, most of all twisting the minds of Hindus.
I will not support anyone who claims 'psudo protection of hindus' by prosecuting non-hindus.
I will support anyone who supports protection of mankind.
The beginnings of Jihad are traced back to the words and actions of Muhammad and the Qu’ran. This word of Allah explicitly encourages the use of Jihad against the unbelievers. Sura 25, verse 52 states: “Do not yield to the unbelievers, but fight them vigorously with this.” It was, therefore, the duty of all Muslims to fight against those who did not believe in Allah and took offensive action against Muslims. The Qu’ran, however, never uses the term Jihad for fighting and combat in the name of Allah, qital is used to mean “fighting.” The struggle for Jihad in the Qu’ran was originally intended for the nearby neighbors of the Muslims, but as time passed and more enemies arose, the Qu’ranic statements supporting Jihad were updated for the new adversaries.
How do you explain the destruction of Temples like Somnath and other temples in the name of Islam. There is a lot of proof for this and infact the Muslims themselves have written it as their accomplishment for Islam. If you don't know even this than it is pathetic that you start an arguments on this.
Read the book by K.S. Lal 'Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India (A.D. 1000-1800)'. He says that close to 60 to 80 million people died becuase of jihadi Islamic invasion and also says that 2 million people died because of Mahamud Ghazni's invasion.
According to Sir Jadunath Sarkar a well known Historian of the yester years, several Muslim invaders were waging a systematic Jihad against Hindus in India to the effect that "Every device short of massacre in cold blood was resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects." In particular the records kept by al-Utbi, Mahmud al-Ghazni's secretary, in the Tarikh-i-Yamini document several episodes of bloody military campaigns. In 1527, Babur ordered a Jihad against Rajputs at the battle of Khanwa. Publicly addressing his men, he declared the forthcoming battle a Jihad. His soldiers were facing a non-Muslim army for the first time ever. This, he said, was their chance to become either a Ghazi (soldier of Islam) or a Shaheed (Martyr of Islam). The Mughal emperor Aurangzeb waged a Jihad against those identified as heterodox within India's Islamic community, such as Shi'a Muslims.
What fucked up logic is that, “They too claim to be 'angry' for the years of turmoil inflicted upon them by the west and for the demolition of their structures in India.” Just because West treated Muslims badly; does Hindus have to face the brunt? Compare our Holy places with their 'structures'...how many? The numbers are against you my dear friend.
All the fucked up fallacy is by you, who seems to be a cheerleader for Islamic Terrorists.
If you can justify Jihad as a method for defending religion than there is wrong in me defending Hindutva.
The proof is by the way of people got killed. Of the 4000 people killed all of them are Sikhs, so that is very staking proof that it is state sponsored systematic killing
There was no government apathy or telepathy!! They were countless committee set up for finding the culprits who did it. All of them were unanimous in one fact; it was started by Congressmen like Jagdish Tytler, Sajjan Kumar and H.K.L. Bhagat for instigating the mobs to violence. According to Nanavati Commission the then police commissioner S.C. Tandon directly responsible for the riots. There was widespread protest against the report as it did not mention clearly the role of Tytler and other Congressmen in the riots. It finally led to the resignation of Jagdish Tytler from the Union Cabinet.
It is not who justifies what, neither does BJP justifies 2002 riot. Even I don’t justify 2002 riots per-se. But I would like to see it in perspective that Hindus were at the receiving end during earlier riots. Nobody cared about it but now the entire hullabaloo about 2002 riot because Muslims were killed in more numbers.
You have all the fallacies about Hindutva and Modi but blame others. Fallacy is in the eyes of the beholder – YOU!
You don’t have any brains to get twisted in first place!!
You’re twisting the truth and making yourself look like a fool. I have given my proof for what I am saying. So if you have anything useful comes out with it – OR ELSE SHUT THE FUCK UP.
you will surely accept that your language reveals that you are a fanatic.
you are sounding more and more like you are losing it.
anand has answered each of your questions perfectly.
the anonymous guy has an example of hindu fundamentalism right here in this blog in shiva venkat.
in your first comment on this blog,you said that hindus were derided debased and ridiculed in their own country and i asked you to specify where the derision etc was done.
you have developed a hatred of islam because you are not able to reconcile yourself with the islamic rule of the subcontinent.
the majority of the people have no problems of your sort.
pooja has spoken about the jihadis in the middleeast fighting the injustice of the west and muslim terrorism in india developing from the babri masjid demolition.
you have foolishly exclaimed that "just because the west treated the muslims badly,does hindus have to feel the brunt?"
the anonymous comment is by a person who seems to be in your league.
just like the majority of hindus and the majority of muslims are peace loving,you are finding three hindus on this blog who do not share your hatred of muslims and with whom you cannot interact without using obscene language.
islamic extremists have also spoken about targeting the moderates.
I didn't say anything different. Key word being "offensice action against muslims"
"How do you explain the destruction of Temples like Somnath and other temples in the name of Islam. "
the reason is exactly the same as the reason behind the demolition of the babri masjid.
Both done to 'protect' thier own religions.
I repeat the purpose of history is not to determine today's enemies.
You say that I am a cheerleader for islamic terrorist.
Is that what you make out from what I write?
You do see everything in a skewed manner.
It only dilutes your standpoint.
before 1992,you tell that there was islamic fundamentalism during the 1200s-1700s and during the expulsion of the pandits from the kashmir valley.
so from 1700 to 1900 and from 1947 to 1990,there were no cases of islamic fundamentalism.
which are the famous temples in india that were destroyed in that period from 1200-1700?
for example,everyone knows that there is a famous temple in puri,in kashi etc.
did the islamic rulers make grants towards construction and maintenance of temples,whenever the citizens approached them with such requests?
did the armies and the generals of the islamic rulers have hindus?
what were the numbers of people killed in wars between the kings and dynasties of india?
rashtrakutas,chalukyas,cholas,etc
did the islamic rulers provide administration or were they brigands,looting and pillaging all the time?
if they provided administration,what does that consist of?
how do the citizens participate in such an administration?
were there hindu nobles and ministers and generals in the mughal dynasty?
did not any of them possess the courage of our own dear venkat?
from 1700-1900 were there riots between hindus and muslims?
did sikh extremists base themselves in pakistan and accepted the support of the ISI during their fight for khalistan?
venkat,can you provide answers to these?
can you tell in which answer of anand do you find yourself not convinced?
venkat,instead of rhetorical answers i hope that your vast knowledge of books will help you positively answer these questions in the spirit of a decent discussion.
something for you to go through before you reply
http://www.india-seminar.com/1999/483/483%20rai.htm
This shows your limited knowledge on any subject since you have no how to form a debating question. Anyway I will forgive you for that.
For you’re question whether Islamic fundamentalism before 1992 and during 1200s-1700s and recently in Kashmir during 1980s. Yes they existed and that was the reason why Muslim invaders came to India and other reason was for looting and pillaging Indian subcontinent.
The destruction of Hindu temples in India during the Islamic conquest had occurred from the beginning of Muslim conquest until the end the Mughal Empire throughout the Indian subcontinent.
An inscription at the Quwwat Al-Islam Mosque in Delhi states:
"This Jamii Masjid built in the months of the year 587 (hijri) (1187 AD) by the Amir, the great, the glorious commander of the Army, Qutb-ud-daula wad-din, the Amir-ul-umara Aibeg, the slave of the Sultan, may God strengthen his helpers! The materials of 27 idol temples, on each of which 2,000,000 Deliwal coins had been spent were used in the (construction of) this mosque."
Alberuni in his India [12] writes about the famous temple of Multan:
"A famous idol of theirs was that of Multan, dedicated to the sun, .. When Muhammad Ibn Alkasim Ibn Almunabbih, conquered Multan, he inquired how the town had become so very flourishing and so many treasures had there been accumulated, and then he found out that this idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it. Therefore he thought it best to have the idol where it was, but he hung a piece of cow’s-flesh on its neck by way of mockery. On the same place a mosque was built. When then the Karmatians occupied Multan, Jalam Ibn Shaiban, the usurper, broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests. .. When afterwards the blessed Prince Mahmud swept away their rule from those countries, he made again the old mosque the place of the Friday-worship, .."
An inscription of 1462 A.D.at Jami Masjid at Malan, in Banaskantha District of Gujarat states:
"The Jami Masjid was built by Khan-I-Azam Ulugh Khan, who suppressed the wretched infidels. He eradicated the idolatrous houses and mine of infidelity, along with the idols with the edge of the sword, and made ready this edifice. He made its walls and doors out of the idols; the back of every stone became the place for prostration of the believer"
Mughal Emperor Jahangir wrote in his Tujuk-i-Jahangiri:
"I am here led to relate that at the city of Banaras a temple had been erected by Rajah Maun Sing, which cost him the sum of nearly thirty-six laks of five methkaly ashrefies. ...I made it my plea for throwing down the temple which was the scene of this imposture; and on the spot, with the very same materials, I erected the great mosque, because the very name of Islam was proscribed at Banaras, and with God’s blessing it is my design, if I live, to fill it full with true believers"
Another very popular temple of Vrindavan which was founded by Harivamsa Gosvami, who started the Radha Vallabha sect emphasizing devotion to Radharani. The original temple of Radha Vallabha was destroyed by the Muslims in 1670 and a new temple was built beside the old one later on .
They were Muslims rulers who did grants and maintenance to Hindu temples. But it is like looting from your own house and giving you money for sustenance. Hindu Temples before Islamic invasion never required any grants since they were rich in their own rights.
The case in point is Somnath Temple which was the richest temple. You can look at this wikipedia site for furhter detials - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath
Yes they were Hindus who have been generals of Islamic rulers, but they were traitors like you who support Islamic rule. For example Man Singh who was the general of Akbar’; but he is considered less then favorable among Rajputs. Whereas Maharana Pratap Singh who fought against Mughals is the hero no only Rajastan but for whole of India.
If you want more details read the following books and sites.
1) Andrews, P.A "Masdjid. II. In Muslim India". Encyclopaedia of Islam Online. Ed. P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Academic Publishers. ISSN 1573-3912
2) Tujuk-i-Jahangiri Trans. David Price
3) Alberuni's India, Edward C. Sachau
4) HINDU TEMPLES - WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM by Sita Ram Goel.
5) http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/temple1.html
6) http://www.voi.org/books/htemples1/ch1.htm
7) http://www.kashmir-information.com/Atrocities/Temples/temples8.html
People getting killed during wars is something else and matter to be debated on different blog, I suggest you can take your bulllshit there!! There are lot of people who die because of accidents and other natural calamities, if you want to add to your nonsense.
But debate here is on how much Hindus suffered during Islamic invasion and afterwards under Islamic rule and why Hindutva supports violence when is it necessary.
Well the onus is on you to provide what Islamic rulers did on administration, since you claim that Islam rulers were benevolent and were saint. I never claimed anything like that. As for looting and pillaging, the two principles upon which the Muslim rulers worked was 1) to plunder the wealth of India 2) to destroy Hinduism and replace it with Islamic rule based on Sharia.
Hindu nobles, ministers and generals during Mughal dynasty is not what we are debating…so you question regarding that are totally diverting the issue and makes you look like an idiotic moron who cannot find anything worthwhile to talk about.
Yes they were riots between Hindus and Muslims during all ages and time, since Islam came to Indian sub-continent. It was more prevalent after 1947, since Indian sub-continent was divided by Muslim fundamentalists. Samurai Chacha, what is your point in all this….don’t tell me this only way you alleviate your ignorance on the subject we are discussing.
The Sikh extremists are nowhere now….but lives like fugitives hiding in Pakistan. They have no more power or can make any real damage to India.
So this again is diversion from the debating point. From Khalistan they have only Emptyistan!! So you go round and round like a donkey and have no clue as to what to say or make any valuable insight.
None of the Anand’s answers are convincing since they are made out convenience rather than any conviction. So you are adding more bullshits to his and have made this debate a laughing stock!!
1) Why does Article 370 still exist in J&K, since it was adopted as temporary measure?
2) What is the need for special laws for Muslims and minorities when no country offers such overwhelming concessions for minorities; especially any Muslim countries.
3) Why cannot Muslims in Kashmir offer land to Hindus for Amarnath yatra, when the Muslims are given subsidies and other facilities in India.
4) Anand says that private airlines will provide air fare less than Air India for Haj pilgrims, then why doesn’t Indian government hand over that to private airlines instead of spending tax-payers money.
5) If Sheikh Abdullah is such a patriot than why was his government dismissed in 1957 and was put behind bars, by the same Nehru who was a champion of Kashmir ‘integration’.
The Nehruvian project rested on the assumption that the emotional foundations of India would become unshakeable if the Muslim minority were allowed a generous measure of separateness and firewalled from the intrusions of both the secular state and civil society. Nehru believed that "temporary provisions" giving a special status to J&K in the form of Article 370 would reconcile Kashmiri sub-nationalism with Indian nationhood. A common civil code was also put on hold because he felt that in time Muslims would voluntarily accept the idea of non-religious personal laws.
While Nehru viewed separateness as a temporary balm on the scars of Partition, his successors elevated it to a non-negotiable tenet of Indian secularism. The results have been hideous. Far from nurturing a Amar-Akbar-Anthony form of multi-culturalism, separateness nurtured both ghettoisation and separatism. The perverse mindset of SIMI and IM activists, for example, is almost entirely a creation of the ghetto and centred on an abstract ummah that takes precedence over actual neighbours. The similarities between the IM mindset and the radical Islamism of the Pakistani ghettos in Britain are striking. And the problem in both countries has been encouraged by an intelligentsia that equates liberty with licence and turns every complaint into victimhood.
Likewise, the dispute over 40 hectares of land was rapidly politicised and projected as a conflict between Kashmir and India. The transformation was possible because Article 370 had created the emotional space for separatism. Nowhere else in India have laws for the protection of 'locals' become a ruse for open secessionism.
Nehru's multicultural brainwave was opposed by many nationalists at the time. To them, emotional separatism was the precursor to actual separation as happened in 1947. They were right. Today, India is paying the price of Nehru's monumental folly.
should be replaced by
"To be clear the record, of the questions raised by me were not answered by Anand"
if an islamic ruler destroys a temple as a matter of policy,how will the same islamic ruler then sanction funds for building and maintaining temples in another instance.
there were a few despots during 500years between 1200 and 1700.
the worst of them aurangzeb made land grants for temples in allahabad and banaras.will you vouch for that?
you would also have probably read that 30 % of aurangzebs army consisted of rajputs.
since you have read these books,can you tell about the number of temples built by man singh including one at vrindavan.
how does man singh build so many temples being a minister in akbars court,if the policy of the mughals is to destroy hinduism.
you would also have read that akbar translated the ramayana and mahabharata into persian.
and that akbar minted coins of rama and sita.
why does raja todar mal,a rajput king stay with akbar?
can you explain why raja bihari mal of amber offered his daughters hand to akbar?
the same jahangir that destroyed a temple banned the killing of animals on two days in a week,which was welcomed by the hindus.
jahangirs mother and wife were both hindu.
within a 100 years,in 1800,hindus and muslims could fight with each other unitedly against the british.
after the 1857 war,the rebels installed a mughal on the throne.
were they not aware of the activities of the islamic rulers of the past?
i asked you about the numbers of people killed in the wars of the indian dynasties because you had quoted the number of two million killed in ghaznis time.
where have i claimed that islamic rulers were saints?
from the time of the khiljis upto the mughals,a pan indian government was administered which laid the foundation for the creation of india.
if islam was the primary motive,why did the khiljis fight against the mongols who were also muslim.
the administration of the country depended on the work of hindu officials.
after aurangzebs actions ,this system bbroke down leading to the fall of the dynasty.
you referred to the sikhs having been victimised and having been turned into a martial race but they took the cooperation of pakistan during their fight for khalistan..
there were wars between various personalities,the victor establishes his rule.
when there is a rebellion,the ruler destroys the temple of the rebel.
while administering,he is administering a hindu population and his army depends on the taxes which he collects from the hindu population.
what made you feel my comment about the offensive language was directed at you?
anyway,
You broadly, tend to randomly circulate between the following points
1) Hindu's have suffered injustice at the hands of muslims for centuries
2)Islam wants to kill us all non-mulsims in the name of jihad - this is a problem the world is facing today.
3)india favours minorities and therefor is not secular.
4)Modi had NO hand in the 2002 riots
Have i summarised your stand?
Well, here's my stand on the above 4 points:
1) Many have suffered during history. Lower castes at the hands of higher classes. Women at the hands of men etc
It is pointles to use that arguement to determine present day enemies
2) Islam believes in adopting "Jihad" when they feel threatened or wronged by non-muslims. Therefore they are no differnt from Hindutva's endeavour to "protect hindus and hinduism"
3) "Equality" by its very nature, demands special previlages for minorities. It is wrong for the bigger and stronger to complain.
3) About Modi's hand in the 2002 riots, well
a)i have seen and heard the Tehelka exposure,
b)read a first hand account by Barkha Dutt during the riots
c)friends in Ahemedabad have shared their experiences
d) saw a rescent report on NDTV about how the state is polarised ever since.
My instict makes me believe the above rather than believe you.
You too have made your choice about who and what you want to believe.
All I can say is, to each his own.
As for the grants or fund given by the Muslim rulers it is largely debatable and very few
Muslim rulers were kind and just to non-Muslims.
As I said earlier there were some Rajputs and Hindus under Mughal empire working for them; but that does not explain the vehemently anti-Hindu policies carried by Muslim rulers especially Aurangzeb.
Aurangzeb anti-Hindu policies were the main reason why the Mughal Empire fell, so your argument is totally hollow and does not hold any logic. Those who loved Muslim despots like Aurangzeb and served them, are treated as traitors by their own people and the country. So you want to be part of that bandwagon your welcome to join them.
There were many Muslim despots from 12 century whose policy towards non-Muslims were anything but benevolent. You have told that Aurangazeb had made land grants to temples in Banaras and Allahabad can you throw us with your ‘acumen’ as to why then did he imposed special taxes on Hindus and killed non-Muslims if they did not converted to Islam. Further why did he destroy Hindu temples like Somnath.
Guru Tegh Bahadur the ninth Sikh was killed by Aurangazeb because he gave protection to Kashmir Brahmins who were not willing to convert to Islam.
You’re example of Aurangzab as a benevolent ruler is pathetic and laughable and only shows your complete ignorance on any Historic facts!!
It is true that Man Singh built seven-storey temple for in Vrindavan; but it also true that it was destroyed by Aurangazeb later.
As I said earlier, they were few benevolent Muslim rulers who looked favorable towards non-Mulsims but their achievements pale to insignificance when compared to the atrocities and murder committed my Muslim rulers in the name of Islam and Jihad.
Yes they were people killed during Indian dynasties, but those were not in the name of religion or Jihad
So you accept that Islamic rulers were not saint and they have committed genocide against Hindus. In 1857 war there was no unified command under which both Hindus and Muslims fought. Read ‘The Last Mughal’ by William Dalrymple, the reason why Muslims fought against English was because of religion and it was a Jihad. There was no concept of one nationhood in those days, so it is fallacious to say that it was symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity.
As for the Mongols fighting against Khiljis; that is the true nature of Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic despots, once they have killed and destroyed everything that is non-islamic, they fight against each other. There organizing principle is to destroy, pillage and rape. So by the very nature of Islam, they are directed by their religion to kill and destroy whatever that is un-Islamic.
As for the Khalistan…it is nowhere in sight and has died a natural death. That’s because majority of the Sikhs are nationalist and patriotic. But Muslims are pampered as Aadityaa has mentioned and it’s because of that we find the likes of SIMI and IM who will go to any extent to destroy India.
what i wanted to point out to you is the lack of a hitlerian approach.
and about you getting into inferiority complexes which then turn into hatred.
the hindus of the times acted as the situation demanded,making alliances like the rajputs did, engaging in guerilla warfare like the marathas,sacrificing their lives bravely like guru tegh bahadur did.
there is nothing to feel worked up and surely nothing to feel ashamed.
the actions of ghazni and aurangzed brought a bad name to islam.
the times were violent and any excuse for engaging in violence would have been welcome for the rulers and the plunderers.
in todays time,the same excuses of religion are being used by both hindu and muslim fanatics to indulge in gruesome killing and political manoeuvring.
during shah jahans time,it was decreed that only newly built temples would have to be destroyed as islam permitted existing temples.
when the ruling elite professes a religion,it would try to use that religion for justification while suppressing uprisings with the demolition of temples and the priestly class will motivate the ruler to maintain a pure adherence to the religion.
the vellore mutiny and the south indian rebellion were a joint action of the hindus and muslims.
if all of them had been thinking like you with hatred,how could they have come together.
if you were in their shoes,you would have allied with the british as a result of your hatred.
the peshwas actually did that in the case of tipu sultan when tipu was on the verge of defeating the british.
but that was not the general behaviour of the majority who did not find it difficult in joining the muslim in alliance.
Shiva, I think you’re wasting your time and energy on a bunch of ignorant fools who know nothing about History or Facts. Leave these fools to their own make believe world. They both do not deserve any attention and should be treated with contempt they deserve.
Good show Shiva may your tribe increase.
you are confusing things.
has pooja spoken about the suffering of the indian muslims,
she just stated that islam adopts jihad when they feel wronged.
you take this from here and that from there and do a remix.
this link is about affirmative action policies in the united states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States
u posted this link to inform about temple demolition,seems like you get your worldly wisdom from such sites.
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/index.html
the followers of this thread must go to this link and check out the range of material.
ndtv is far more honourable and trustable.
this is the link about affirmative action in the united states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States
and about you getting into inferiority complexes which then turn into hatred.
Well you attribute whatever complexes or shopping malls….you know what Samurai whatever bullshit u write, I have developed a kind of liking to ur half-baked English…it closely resembles my six year old niece’s
It was you who started the comparison between medieval times and now…you forgotten it and now say it is all wrong, man how much bullshit r u capable of urself Samurai…don’t u get tired.
during shah jahans time,it was decreed that only newly built temples would have to be destroyed as islam permitted existing temples.
The facts abt newly built temple and existing temple is from you fertile brain full of rich clay….whatever is the case temples were destroyed and if they don’t allow new temples to be erected that only shows they want Hinduism to die a slow death becuase they were unable to destroy it through sword.
So all your arguments have proved that Muslim rulers used religion for administration and were communal despots who were hell-bent in destroying Hinduism.
Vellore mutiny was not done by patriots, but by sepoys who till that time were under the payroll of British. So they accepted the subjugation of British in the first place. If you can ally with Aurangazeb and Islamic fundamentalism, I see no sin in allying with British…infact I would be bold to say…the language ur struggling with is gift from them. British gave us a lot of things then Muslims despots who destroyed our culture and religion.
Tipu Sultan or for that matter any rulers who fought against British, were angry because their kingdom were lost. There was no Indian nationhood during those times. British were using divide and policy as their administrative policy. Tipu Sultan who fought against British did not had second thought abt allying with another colonial power – French.
The site you have sent on US affirmative actions does not mention a single case were such actions were offered on the basis of Religion,…so ur whole argument gets another big Zero!!
As for the blacks they reservations for them is debatable in America itself, if you have gone through the whole section about the results of such Affirmative actions you would have been more wise..well then again you have neither the patients nor wherewithal to understand such a complex issue. As usual ur diverting the debate.
As for the other site…I am not aware of that…I got my information from the same wikipedia were u got urs wrongly. As for your comments about the site, the site is much better than ur bullshit comments here on the debate!!
you said that coloured people in the united states were not given any concessions.
that was why i pointed you to that site.
now you say that there is nothing there on the basis of religion.
i did not argue that aurangzeb was benevolent.
what i said was that even a despot like him has made land grants.
pooja has raised the commonsense point about people not reconciling with the past.
you insist on feeling inferior because of the islamic rule inspite of the information which suggests that it was not entirely about religion.
here,you have said that there are no qualms on giving concessions to the oppressed classes whereas earlier in this thread,you had expressed yourself against reservations.
there was a south indian rebellion which was separate from the vellore mutiny,the vellore mutiny involved hindus and muslims staying united.
9/11 was about the oppression of the west in the middle east,
do not remain a simpleton and link that with what is hapening in india.
In reply to para 1 of your last comment addressed to me:
What anybody did to anybody centuries ago is not relevant in prroving present day enemies.
reply to para 2:
Refer to the 3 lines following my point number 3
reply to para 3:
But, hindutva, according to you also believes in resorting to violence to 'protect' hindus from offenders. (this is the jihadi sentiment too)
reply to para 4:
Like i said i chose to believe tehelka, BBC etc than believe you.
Second, how they grew centuries ago does not give me a reason to attack muslims today
reply to para 5:
Statement makes no sense to me because India has remained a Hindu majority state inspite of many years of Mughal rule. This inspite of it being a monarchy then instead of a democracy.
In reply to para 6:
We are talking about the EQUALITY the INDIAN democracy endeavours to provide. We are talking about INDIA.. Hindus are MUCH stronger and bigger in India - it is wrong for us to complain about the previlages given to minority and weaker groups.
In reply to para 7:
Who are you fooling? it matters a great deal to you what i believe. you would ignore me and my post if it didnt' matter to you.
Looking at your gyan about the Mughal rule, looks like you are going to tel me to stop believing my CBSE history textbooks aswell?
just like you tell me stop believing news reports.
The facts you present come frome vague books by vague authors.
Something in you, made you choose to believe them. Something i fail to understand.
Which is why i sigh and say, to each his own...
jintendra,
Well to you too. You too like aadityaa and anonymous are free to form your own opinion.