Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
happy102785

The Religious Tolerance Thread.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

{It took just ONE Gandhian, Mahatma Gandhi himself, to kick out the British Empire from India. He convinced so many people that he raised his very own army of Gandhians.}

 

It wasn't one Indian...It was the people of India who did all the hard work and suffered with beatings. It is the Indian people who got the British out of India. There were attempts at independence before which were not as successful. But Gandhi had the brain, he thought out the strategy. He saw that in this situation the British did have a conscience and knew what they were doing was wrong. Plus the British had used and abused India long enough - it looted it's riches and exploited it's people that the British had done all the wrong they could do and realised that the least they could do is to leave India...in a bad state. The British realised they couldn't use violence on a non-violent people because of non-cooperation movement, the world was watching. Not only that but Gandhi realised the majority of rural India were physically weak, if you were to stage a violent uprising against the British who had guns against weak farmers/villagers with sticks, what would that have resulted in?...more dead Indians! It would've been a disaster and the world would curse Gandhi. He wanted a method of fighting the british which would've resulted in less deaths and non-violent protest and non-cooperation was the way.

 

On a controversial note, I can see why Gandhi agreed to split part of it with Pakistan. That part of India had majority muslims many of them with fundamentalist views and they were a big propblem especially under the leadership of Jinnah. They would've been a huge problem if they were still part of India, just imagine the problems India would be having today if there wasn't partition. Of couse this sparked outrage in the time and with passions inflamed the riots should've been expected.

 

But Gandhi was not perfect, he made too many mistakes and what he called his "hymalayan blunder". He became too idealistic in his mind and lost touch with reality around him. Because he was helped by muslims in his early days in South Africa he had a soft spot for them, and he ended up getting back-stabbed by his ex-freind Jinnah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<< It took just ONE Gandhian, Mahatma Gandhi himself, to kick out the British Empire from India. >>

 

No.

 

There are a few major reasons why the brits quit Bharat.

Besides gandhi was not alone. he has his army of brave cowards willing to die than to get strong and fight.

Note that gandhi failed to make the muslims of Bharat non violent.

 

- They were tried of WWII

 

- They know there was a possibliity of army mutny. This army was Hindustanis serving the british raj. When a question was to a british politician or historian ( I do not rememger his name) why the brits left India, he said with wide mouth, "M U T N Y". They took the excuse of Gandhi, to cool down teh masses.

 

- British people still are civil better, than nazis, or muslims. gandhi would have failed in a Muslims counry. For this reason you can see that No Muslim society has produced a Gandhi. An exception is Afghanistan, where Khan Abdul Gafar Khan was known as a gandhi of the frontieer. This happend mainy becaue of the neighboring Hindu influence, but it did not last long. Gandhi coudl have failed against Hitler, e.g. . The black community in US produced Martin Luther King, who was not a Muslim, and a black Malcum X was a Muslim and a Militant.

 

So, in essence, Gandhi stole the credit (or the Brits tranferred the crdit to gandhi) that can be given to others as well. The violent freedom fighters of India, did not die in vain, nor should they be forgotten or looked down. Their love for the Vedic dharma, Vedic society, and the Vedic land was no less than any one else who fought for the country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{{{ There are a few major reasons why the brits quit Bharat.

Besides gandhi was not alone. he has his army of brave cowards willing to die than to get strong and fight. }}}

 

I don't deny these other reasons. If you had read the post you replied to, I mentioned that it took one Gandhi to raise an army of Gandhians which made India free. I also acknowledge it was not Gandhi alone that caused the independence, but you cannot doubt he had a lot to do with it.

 

Gandhi failed to make India's Muslims nonviolent? There are 120 million Muslims in India. Are you trying to tell me that every single one of those is a violent, bloodthirsty human being?

 

Good job citing some random "British politician or historian" whose name you do not "rememger" as your proof for your argument that munity caused the Indian independence. Very credible.

 

Gandhi's "army of brave cowards" made the whole world turn their eyes toward the peaceful revolution that erupted in India.

 

What the hell is a "brave coward" anyways? Can one get any more oxymoronic?

 

It's a shame that you do not appreciate that people died by the hundreds in nonviolent efforts so that your precious "Vedic dharma, Vedic society, and [sic] the Vedic land" could be free of foreign rule.

 

Oh, hey, by the by Maadhav--why don't you actually respond to the post I directed to you? I know the fundamentalist life has its calls, but taking some time out of all that busywork of hating and Gandhi-bashing to academically respond to my reply to your first post on this thread wouldn't hurt, would it?

 

Here's another radical concept for y'all: love for Vedic dharma/society/land doesn't mean hate for anything non-Vedic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{{{ There are a few major reasons why the brits quit Bharat.

Besides gandhi was not alone. he has his army of brave cowards willing to die than to get strong and fight. }}}

 

Gandhi failed to make India's Muslims nonviolent?

 

<< There are 120 million Muslims in India. Are you trying to tell me that every single one of those is a violent, bloodthirsty human being? >>

 

No. but that is not due to gandhi. it is because:

 

- they are not following koran and hadith to their word.

- they are not listeinign and following teh mullas in mosques and madresas

- they are weak at this time to enforce their will.

- they feel friendly to the majority kafir hindus around them.

- they know that hating the majority will be a danger to them.

- etc.

 

among this muslim population of bharat is a small number of muslims who are a part and are supporters of ISI, the CIA of pakistan. this has a lot of power and funding (to do terrors) from pak which it gets from US to fight terrorism.

 

<< Good job citing some random "British politician or historian" whose name you do not "rememger" as your proof for your argument that munity caused the Indian independence. Very credible. >>

 

if i get time, i will find where i read it.

 

<< What the hell is a "brave coward" anyways? Can one get any more oxymoronic? >>

 

they are brave to die fearlessly giving fullprotection to the enemy, but not brave to fight adharmis. a kshatriya on the other hand fights bravely with adharmis, and doe snto care if he dies fighting.

 

<< It's a shame that you do not appreciate that people died by the hundreds in nonviolent efforts so that your precious "Vedic dharma, Vedic society, and [sic] the Vedic land" could be free of foreign rule. >>

 

but many have faught violently an dies also, why forget them? additionally, due to the dis-united stance of the hindus, the current gov. also is anti hindu in hindustan.

hindus mistakenly think at this time that secularism is best, but it is not for the hinds. hinduism is already secular, it does not need foreign concept of secularism imposed on the vedic people in the vedic land.

 

<< Here's another radical concept for y'all: love for Vedic dharma/society/land doesn't mean hate for anything non-Vedic. >>

 

okay, love islam, but kick it out of bharat.

invader has no right to stay.

 

note that hindus do not want islam out of the world, just out of Bharat; in contrast, islam does not want any kafir religion any where on this globe.

 

arjun loved bhishma, drona, durodhan, etc, but he killed them because krishna told him so. even if you cannot love enemy, you need to fight adharmis, else it is cowardice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Without interrupting. Some of the non-dogmatic views of mr. Happy and mr. Desai are interesting and refreshing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can hold it in no longer. My politeness can no longer be kept in any further. I will say what both Mr. H. Thakkar and myself have been think this entire time; Maadhav you are an idiot. First and foremost, you have no understanding of Indian history. You know a few basic facts, but lack indepth knowledge. You also lack the critical thinking skills required to actually understand history. You are stuck on your racist views and ignorant belief that you are more human than others. Let us forget for a second about what the muslims have done to the hindus. Lets look at how the hindus have behaved toward the buddhist and also to other hindus. You must know about the thousands of buddhist killed by hindus between 75 BC- 150 AD. When hindus wanted to push buddhism out of "hindu lands" and into the east. Lets not forget about how hindus of the upper caste have treated members of the lower caste.

I am quite sure you have enough general knowledge on this matter.

 

You want to about invanders. Let me remind you that all hindus of the north are actually invaders. Many of them trace their origin to Afghanistan much like Mr. Thakkar, while mine is traced to Iran. Of course, I am sure you are aware that when those hindus arrived they forced the original people into the south and slaughtered hundreds over just land. So I just want to say before you begin to trash others be sure to turn the microscope on yourself and your people.

 

Let me just end here by saying, do not open your mouth to speak if you do not have the knowledge or even the common sense required. It shames me to know that there are people like you in this world who call yourself hindu. You are not hindus even of the slighest sort. Being a hindu deals with much more than prayers, hymns, and doing pooja every so often.

 

--Ronak J. Desai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is the article remembering which I said that it was mutny that caused the Brits to quit. The Brit politician I mentioned is named here.

 

My error was that I said he said M U T N Y, whereas he said M I N I M A L. Sorry about that.

The link from where you could find the article says a lot about Gandhi. I request that do not lable the web site if it does not agree to your desire, but see if tells the truth or not. if not, prove it.

 

---------------

Gandhi's role in Indian Independence

Source: http://gandhiexposed.hindujagran.com/

______

Gandhi is remembered for his role in the freedom struggle of the Indian people from British rule more than anything else. This section is devoted to the study the role of Gandhi vis-à-vis the freedom struggle of India. Before we proceed it would be wise to get an idea of what the leading political figures though about Gandhi's contribution to the freedom struggle. Let us read the following lines from 'History of the Freedom Movement in India'(Volume III, pages 609 –10) by R.C. Majumdar, one of India's foremost historians. This work was suppressed by the Nehru Government of India an account of which is given in the appendix. The following lines is from a conversation between B.P. Chakravarti who was acting as Governor of West Bengal, and the then British Prime Minister Lord Clement Attlee who was on a visit to India. Chakravarti asked Attlee about the real grounds for granting independence to India. Specifically, his question was, when the Quit India movement lay in ruins years before 1947, where was the need for the British to leave in such a hurry. Attlee’s response is most illuminating and important for history. Here is the Governor’s account of what Attlee told him:

 

In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important were the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundation of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government. Towards the end, I asked Lord Attlee about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhi’s activities. On hearing this question Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, putting emphasis on each single letter — "M-I-N-I-M-A-L."

We must note here that this was a private conversation with no political overtones. Since Lord Atlee was the incumbent Prime Minister of Britain it suggests that Gandhi's role in the freedom struggle was negligible. This might seem as a shock to many who had thought it was Gandhi who single handedly led India to freedom. But Lord Clemet Atlee being the incumbent Prime Primister of Britian, cannot be dismissed lightly. But at the same time ,can we take just one man's word to base our opinions on? To get a better understanding of Gandhi's contribution to the freedom struggle it would help to study the circumstances under which the British departed India in 1947 we can get a better understanding and form our opinion about Gandhi's contribution to the freedom struggle.

In order to proceed further let us pose the Question 'Why did the British leave India?'. There are many answers that would normally crop up like 'The British found it too cumbersome to handle India and after three hundred years of exploitation, India was poor anyway and so the British lost interest', 'The British population had gone down due to WWII and thus did not need any colonies and decided to liquidate it's former colonies', 'The British had suffered badly due to Gandhi's economic boycott of British goods and thus were forced to leave as it would only cause losses for the British to stay in India'. These are the three main reasons given. All other reasons often heard are simply variations of the above or combinations of the above. If we study the matter a bit more deeply we can see that all the above three reasons are wrong.

The first reason can be proved wrong by merely observing British behavior in the Falkan Islands and Cyprus. It can be seen despite lack of significant economic gains the British tried to hold on to their former colonies. The second conjecture that the British did not need their colonies and thus gave away India is wrong as it can be seen that the British tried to hold on to India until the last moment of their exit in 1947. And now on the more oft quoted reason - Gandhi's non-violent movement caused mighty blows to the British economy which eventually caused them to leave. If this indeed was true why then did the British choose to leave in 1947. Gandhi was protesting using non-violent non co-operation since 1917. In fact Gandhi's movement was losing steam and people were beginning to get violent around 1945. But why did the British leave specifically in 1947. Did Gandhi's non-violent movement actually bear fruit after 30 years? Looking closely we can see this is not the case. The British were able to win one concession after concession from Gandhi, whether it was making Gandhi agree to India fighting for Britain in WWII - Britain’s entire WWII expenditure was done by India and Indians formed the largest ever voluntary force in the British army, or it was the signing of the Gandhi-Irwin pact and thereby giving a free hand to the British in executing other freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh. It can be seen Gandhi was not really creating problems for the British. After all the economic losses suffered by the British industrialists was peanuts compared to the raw materials, expenditure and soldiers provided freely by India to the British.

If we look at the years from 1945 to 1947 a few major events happened that would perhaps give a clue as to why the British had to quit India. During and after World War II, people of India suffered great hardships due to shortages of essential commodities and rising prices. In addition, in 1943, a severe famine ravaged Bengal, claiming three million lives thanks to British policies of banning agricultural crops in Bengal and replacing it with poppy which was the only thing Britain could sell to neighboring China. This caused a wave of discontent against the government and passions were on the rise. There was terrible anger against the British. Another was the trial of INA soldiers who had fought alongside Japanese forces to free India. The INA soldiers were tried for treason against the British Government, but had full public support and had to be released fearing wide scale rioting. Calcutta the home of INA leader Netaji erupted from 11 to 13 February 1946. The city was paralysed by a general strike; jute mills in Calcutta's suburbs remained closed for two days; suburban train services stopped; people fought bitter street battles with the armed police and the army units riding armored cars. A marked feature was the reluctance of the Indian police to stop the attacks against Europeans. The flare-up reached great heights and the anti-imperialist wave in Calcutta and the suburbs sent ripples throughout Bengal. The British were finding it very hard to control the incidents of violence that were on the increase

Another important incident and perhaps the turning point in the freedom struggle took place on February 19, 1946. On this day 78 ships of the Royal Indian Navy, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 ratings of the Royal Indian Navy (RIN) in Mumbai all rebelled against the British citing racial discrimination, poor pay and inadequate food as grievances and attacked a number of British officers. The revolt spread to major naval establishments in Mumbai, Karachi, Kolkata and other places, within 48 hours. The mutineers were in control of the flagship of British Vice-Admiral and had trained the ship guns on the city of Mumbai by February 22nd. Over a thousand men in the Royal Indian Air Force in Mumbai came out on a sympathy strike. When ordered, Indian soldiers refused to fire on the R.I.N. ratings in Bombay as well as in Karachi. Bombay's workers and youth also joined the struggle carrying food to the revolting Indian Navy men. Many even erected barricades and fought pitched battles with armed policemen and British battalions equipped with tanks and armored cars. Between the British army, the police and RIN strikers, there were pitched battles, leaving over thousand injured and 236 people dead in Mumbai alone. It was only Indian leaders urged the mutineers to surrender and assured them that their legitimate demands would be met, on February 23, the strike was called off.

One clear feature of these strikes was both the navy and air force used the slogan 'Jai Hind' and called themselves 'Azad Hindi'. A clear indication that this was not a mere strike against poor pay and discrimination, but that the loyalties of the soldiers had shifted and they longer saw themselves as soldiers of the British Empire but as soldiers of India. With 3 million armed Indian military men, the British did not have any choice but to grant freedom.

Judging from the above incidents and Lord Clement Atlee's words, it would suggest that, though Gandhi's role in the freedom struggle was conspicuous, his contribution was - 'MINIMAL'

====================

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plz stop being pseudosecularists

We need to propagate the cherished ideals of our religion

However, no fanaticism of the VHP type

Religious tolerance does not mean accepting the misdeeds of the minorities.......tolerance comes with strength not weakness.....remember what Vivekananda said "strength is life, weakness is death"......

 

Regarding Mr. Desai's post

* That Aryans are invaders

Misconception.....proved incorrect time and again......

The Aryan Invasion Theory is a myth.............

* That Hindus threw Buddhism out

Yes they did...

Buddha accepted the lower castes which included a majority of Huns and Shukas who were defeated invaders but due to the tolerance of Hinduism they were niether killer nor enslaved...however, acceptance by Buddha into their religion allowed them to start degrading both Hinduism and its offshoot buddhism by various superstitions.....

As Vivekananda has remarked "Its nonsense that buddhism demolished idolatory in India...it was a consequence of buddhism that idolatory came up in India......it was because the Shukas, Huns, and other subjuagted castes had no idea of the sanskrit language and hence their assimilation into the indian culture was incomplete......therefore it proved no purpose...and when buddhism returned from the foreign lands....it became NIHILISTIC.....orignal buddhism is NOT NIHILISTIC....buddha denouced the karma kanda of the vedas....NOT THE GYANA KANDA......he negated only the PHENOMENAL EXISTENCE....thus this pseduo buddhism had to driven away from our land which was a natural consequence....

 

* The upliftment of lower castes will take place though education not by positive discrimination or by fighting brahmins.............the brahmins deserve their credit ...they were the first to find all the metaphyscial truths and thus society bestowed some special privileges on them.......however with time, absolute power degraded brahmins and all those abbhorent crimes against the lower castes took place.......

 

*. Gandhi was NOT a realized man....refer to his autobiography.....he was a confused man........to recount some of his mistakes

1. Appeasement of MUSLIMS....we are paying for it till today

2. Promotion of Nehru instead of more able leaders like Patel

3. Blackmailing the nation by going on fasts to make the nation toe his line even when it was detrimental to the nation.

4.Calling the dalits as Harijans and thus glorifying the lower castes instead of trying to uplift them via education....beginning of caste strife...since then lower castes fighting the upper castes....

5.Charkha chalao movement......what .....even tagore criticized gandhi on this issue......gandhi had no belief in science and industries which were the crying need of india at that time rather than charkha.

 

Sri Aurobindo (The founder of Integral Yoga) became the first extemist president of INC in 1910....he was a staunch critic of Gandhi and his foolish policies.....we are paying for his policies till today....no doubt he was the greatest votary of the truth....and inspite of his many mistakes was a great man........but his principles stood in line of his country........he followed his principles till the end ...even when they were proving damaging for the country...........and thus when he died all one can say "he was killed because of his principles" by a patriot who "died for his country"

 

But the BJP is the best alternative we have....all of the other parties are anti hindu muslim appeasers anti national

If u have differences regarding my opinion, i am ready for any debate

To save the country, we need to save our religion and remember

"Hindusim is the identity of India"

 

I will request all unbiased readers to refer to the lecture by Swami Vivekananda "the future of India" in volume 3 collected works.....also available online at

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/complete_works.htm

 

regards,

Saurav

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read your article, but I see, if I may say so, M-I-N-I-M-A-L academic merit to it. The author cites NO sources. I'm just to take his word for it? This is how ignorance is propagated.

 

If Gandhi's efforts to the independence were "minimal," at best, would the British have given up control if Gandhi never existed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{{{ *. Gandhi was NOT a realized man....refer to his autobiography.....he was a confused man........}}}

 

I hope that you are not saying that because Gandhi was not a realized man, he therefore was a confused man. That would just be stupidity.

 

Gandhi knew he wasn't "realized" and never claimed to be so. No one is claiming he is, either. He even discounted the title "Mahatma" which was given to him by Tagore.

 

{{{ 5.Charkha chalao movement......what .....even tagore criticized gandhi on this issue......gandhi had no belief in science and industries which were the crying need of india at that time rather than charkha. }}}

 

Oh my! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif If even Tagore criticized Gandhi on this issue, your argument must be right! How fallicious.

 

{{{ 3. Blackmailing the nation by going on fasts to make the nation toe his line even when it was detrimental to the nation.}}}

 

So you're saying whenever someone fasts for religious holidays, they're blackmailing God? Gandhi fasted in protest. I think everyone has a right to protest, but I'm sure you and your BJP goons wouldn't agree. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

{{{ 1. Appeasement of MUSLIMS....we are paying for it till today}}}

 

{{{* The upliftment of lower castes will take place though education not by positive discrimination or by fighting brahmins.............the brahmins deserve their credit ...they were the first to find all the metaphyscial truths and thus society bestowed some special privileges on them.......however with time, absolute power degraded brahmins and all those abbhorent crimes against the lower castes took place.......}}}

 

Are you kidding me? The upliftment of lower castes? The goal isn't to "uplift" the lower castes, the goal is to make the modern incarnation of the caste system gone. The modern system is one that assigns caste based on birth, but this was not the original intention of the system. We should be looking at ways to remove the very fabric of this birth-based caste system, and the only way to do that is to create the social disorder made by the direct interaction of all castes alike.

 

Sure, education would help--but not just the education of the lower castes. Our "friendly" upper castes need a lesson in their own scriptures and their own history. They need to stop being such bigots and prejudiced, malicious fanatics toward anyone "lower" than them.

 

Once you see Indians of all castes living harmoniously in foreign countries, you realize how pointlessly flawed the system really is. The goal of "positive discrimination" is to synthetically create the enviornment necessary to remove caste barriers.

 

{{{But the BJP is the best alternative we have....all of the other parties are anti hindu muslim appeasers anti national}}}

 

All the other parties are anti-Hindu? Answer me this:

1. First of all, what does it mean to be anti-Hindu?

2. Second of all, how do these other parties exhibit these qualities of being anti-Hindu?

3. And third, how does the BJP exibit the qualities of being pro-Hindu?

 

The ultimate question I must ask is this: being of such marked Hindu faith that you are, how can you tolerate political hatred toward religions you do not believe in? The government is a government of the whole NATION, and the nation--whether you like it or not--is not entirely Hindu. Hell, it's not entirely Indian. It is the goal of the RSS and Bajrang Dal and VHP to make the nation of diverse peoples one which only is tolerant of Hindus, and I believe that is fundamentally wrong. Hindus and Muslims live peacefully ALL OVER THE WORLD, except for certain areas in India and Pakistan. India was born secular and must remain so to ensure the government's neutrality toward religious practice and freedom. If you go around forcibly oppressing your religion on others, how different does that make you from Christian and Muslim missionaries (which I'm sure you detest)? As so, the government must not become some sort of domineering Hindu missionary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By Anti national i mean acts which are against India;s masses....and hinduism has been india;s identity.....it is becoming weaker day by day by casteist policies being played which are further dividing hindu society and the blatant appeasement of the minorties by the pseudsecularists.

Firstly i assert that gandhi;s charkha movement was a farce....not solely because tagore said so but simply because it was taking India back to the stoneage.....u cannot refute that industrialization and education for all, was what India seeked and NOT a primtive charkha........

 

Secondly, gandhi blackmailed everyone by going on those falsified fastes.....no going on a fast for religious purposes is NOT wrong but going on a fast solely to make people TOE your line...TO EXPLOIT THE GOODWILL THE NATION HAS BESTOWED ON U....is a crime.....

 

 

Secondly, about the caste system.......it needs upliftment....abolish caste u say? When will caste system be truely abolished? By LAWS>..can laws change anything...we have enough laws prevailing in this land for 50 yrs.......The caste system would naturally have eliminated with time but for the short sightedness of B R AMBEDKAR and others who introduced the element of positive discrimination which solely benifits 1% of these lowers castes and produces substandard professionals and educators which is highly detrimental to our society, our educational system and our country

Now let me give u an allegory.....would an educated man marry an illiterate woman....or vice versa....NOPE.....

Now it is quite clear that unless the illiterate lower castes are educated, no progress can be made.....because only then will MORE INTER_CASTE MARRIAGES TAKE PLACE, and as more such marriages take place, naturally the progeny of such marriages will be of mixed caste.....and naturally they would never think of caste anyway.....inter caste marriages are a reality in Urban India and with further spread of education among the masses, the trend will be further towards intercaste marriaes

 

I REPEAT HINDUISM IS THE IDENTITY OF INDIA....for a person sitting in Chicago it is easy to make vile arguments regarding this statement........my friend u are not aware with the ground realities....ISLAM IS AN ALIEN RELIGION....a religion of PLUNDER, FANTICISM AND MAYHEM

ALL MUSLIMS IN INDIA ARE CONVERTED HINDUS WHO WERE IN A MAJORITY CONVERTED BY THE SWORD.....i admit some lower castes did convert willingly and some under the influence of the sufi mystics but they were in a minority

For long this argument has been made that "islam is a beautiful religion of peace but it has been made corrupt by its followers who have misinterpreted it. The time has come for the world to know at large that although it has few of the greatest truths, it has too many passages inciting violence in allahs name....and PROMISING THE SENSUOUS HEAVEN TO THOSE WHO DIE IN THE CAUSE OF ISLAM....Look at their conception of heaven...."beautiful horis dancing to the tunes of lecherous men and all women turning into horis (Read whores) to satisfy the lust of these men....the only saving grace is her youth is eternal"....such hedonism....and u call it a pure religion???

Nowhere have MUSLIMS LIVED IN PEACE.....the incidents at WTC, NY, London, Egypt, Kashmir......prove otherwise.....

 

Regarding NON VIOLENCE......the DISCOURSE OF GEETA came in the battlefield.......SRI KRISHNA always asked Arjuna to fight and uphold RIGHTEOUSNESS..............

nowhere did he ask to blindly perform Non Violence......infact in the 2nd chapter Krishna calls Arjuna a coward because Krishna realises that Arjuna has become afraid on seeing the mighty Kaurava Army and was thus taking refuge under the ideal of universal brotherhood.

The geeta asks to fight but only as a LAST RESORT......never does it asks to APPEASE the enemy

 

As Vivekananda said "Resistance for the householder, non resistance for the sanyasin"...and since the majority are householders including the government we have the right to resistance.....

 

Do u think it is fair to teach non violence to the kashmiri pandits or other victims of terrorism? It is like rubbing salt in their wounds.......is this the idea of a practical religon...the serenity of sanatana dharma is in its practicality....It can be the religion of the atheist, the agnostic, the saint and the sinner and lastly the believer........

To FIGHT to uphold righteousness is allowed by our religion as a last resort.......otherwise our religion would have been sheer hypocrisy, since an absolute religion of non violence is IMPRACTICAL....like true buddhism is almost an impractical religion...

Absolute non violence can be followed only by the realized like the sanyasin in 1857 who was stabbed by a muslim mutineer and when the hindus caught and brought the mutineer to him he replied "but it is thee, it is thee"...he had realized advaita...the divinity of man.....that everything was brahmana....but this ultimate ideal cannot be followed by the unrealized.......

The IDEAL IS ACCEPTANCE OF ALL, but not acceptance of INJUSTICE against our hallowed land.

 

If we had been strong could the islamic barbarians conquered our motherland since the battle of tarain in 1192? Could they have raped and mamed millions of our women and children? could they have killed thousands of our ancestors? could they have destroyed EVERY TEMPLE IN NORTH INDIA UNDER THE SUN? LASTLY Could we have been subjuated by 3000 Odd britishers for 200 yrs?

 

The BJP IS AGAINST APPEASEMENT OF MUSLIMS AND FOR RIGHT REASON....why dont the muslims give up their ante regarding the ayodhya issue....everyone knows from time immemorial that the muslims invaders destroyed the temples and idols and used the material for the construction of mosques........that is why there is NOT EVEN 1 ancient hindu temple in INDIA....except those in Khajuraho which were inaccessible otherwise they too would have been destroyed......

The muslims insist on a BABRI MASJID inspite of knowing that babar was a BARBARIAN...i feel it is blasphemy to have a holy place associated with his name but these fanatic muslims wont understand that........

 

THe muslims wont take up family planning because it is against their religion

Sometimes, THey wont take polio drops, because of their DELUSION OF PERSECUTION.....they thought those drops would make them impotent...i am not kidding, it really happened....:)

 

Niether is their ghetto mentality worth appreciating either....

 

Finally, in the name of secularism we are KILLING ourown religion.....the muslims can teach all about their prophet and anti hindu brainwashing agenda in the madardas (which btw dont teach any science subjects either......i have concrete information regarding this for islam is ANTI SCIENCE) but hindus cannot teach about their religion, about the geeta, about the Vedanta in our schools for according to the congress and the communists (leftists) it is COMMUNALISM....if teaching hindu religion is a crime, then all true hindus should embrace this crime......to die for this cause if need be....to renunciate our lives for this cause if need be....u petty people sitting in the west, can make all these . crappy comments on secularism without knowing any ground realities......ur attitude is entirely anti national......do u have the courage to PREACH SECULARISM TO UNCLE SAM......recenty america gave life sentence to an islamic cleric who advocated jihad on america......WHY DONT U GO AND FIGHT FOR THAT CLERIC...and others like him in USA....but how can u for america is your karta-dharta....u have already sold your souls to materialism and hence u dont have the right to impede in our affairs....we have to think of OUR ONLY COUNTRY....of our 5000 yr old civilization which today is at its NADIR...thanks to the Congress + the communists + the casteists and its votaries like u guys.....

Hinduism is India;s soul....it is only religion which can unite INDIA;s fractured masses......it is only by religion through which INDIAN's got their self respect a 100 yrs back when Vivekananda preached the greatness of our religion, our ideals, our family values, of the chastity of our women in the West.......

But all the great work of his and other great teachers has been undone by these anti natioanal pseudosecularists....but

remember the passion of nationalism is still ignited in millions of Indians, and it is their renunciation which will take India and her religion of santana dharma to the ZENITH once again in the time to come......

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

{As Vivekananda said "Resistance for the householder, non resistance for the sanyasin"}

 

But Madhvacharya had stressed that monks should be physically fit and strong as he was, to be able to defend themselves should anyone attack them.

 

{Absolute non violence can be followed only by the realized like the sanyasin in 1857 who was stabbed by a muslim mutineer and when the hindus caught and brought the mutineer to him he replied "but it is thee, it is thee"...he had realized advaita...the divinity of man.....that everything was brahmana....but this ultimate ideal cannot be followed by the unrealized.......}

 

There are Shaivite Sanyassis who do not follow this and fight back if under attack. It seems not all Hindu groups agree on this non-resistance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -Mahatma Gandhi.

 

Mahatma Gandhi speaks of Revenge, not fighting back as I said. Ignorance is fought by providing wisdom, blind faith by true faith and such. Gandhi fought back violence with the opposite element - Peace and Non-Violence and therefore, won.

 

Why is it wrong to question Hinduism? I'll agree that it may be wrong to riddicule it, I agree with that, but certainly it cannot be wrong to question it. Questioning it is one of the freedoms that even we as Hindus are alloted.

 

Nothing wrong with questioning what is written, as long as you know how to accept logical answers. If you do not have capability to accept logical answers to your question and decide to ignore the answer and dwell in the question instead (like what some atheists are doing), than you shouldn't have wasted other people's time questioning them, do you?

 

In fact, religion is anything but a battle for Hinduism--it's a journey that everyone takes toward the truth. Your use of words like "attacking" and "cowardice" should have no place in religious discussions. And I know what your reply is going to be--"But those Muslims! They attack! They hate!"

 

When you going to grow a backbone? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

Do you know what is the diffence between a Soldier and a commoner? A soldier fights without hatred of his enemy, simply because he is order to fight, while a commoner fights with hatred because he was brainwashed to fight.

 

Gita teachs you how to become a Soldier, Koran (and the Bible) teachs you how to become a Commoner. Know the difference and act accordingly or you are no better than a Muslim. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

There are 120 million or more Muslims living in India, and have been living for quite some time. Have the vast majority not shown that they are willing to live in peace?

 

Just wait a few more years and Muslims will show their true color. Right now, Pakistan is eyeing Kashmir and Indian police is making sure terrorism is kept under control. So don't fool yourself thinking that they are peaceful. Islam was NOT designed to bring peace, it was designed to bring chaos and destruction needed for the Final Days.

 

I tend to disagree. There are millions of Muslims and Hindus living today in peace and tolerance of each other all over India. Only fundamentalist factions on either side go about screaming for each others' blood.

 

Go and read the history. They are peaceful now because they have no advantage of fighting and winning. Muhammad is a good tactician, he taught them not to attack blindly and lose, like what Taliban and Saddam did.

 

Wow, I could not have seen a more Christian viewpoint at some church gathering. Enlighten us, Sephiroth, what is dharma? What are adharmic activities?

 

IF you are a Hindu, you will know what is Dharma and what is Adharmic.

 

Does meat-eating count as adharmic? If so, then the vast majority of Hindus are guilty.

 

Meat eating is sin against yourself (and your victim), killing and betraying your country for sake of 72 virgins are sin against God. Know what is Lesser Evil of Two.

 

Like Krishna said, inaction is also a source of karma. I'm not saying we do not act. I'm saying we act with peace and tolerance, and that means we do so even in the face of violence and intolerance. Making yourself above your opposition is honorable and noble, in every sense of the word. Of course if you're under violent attack from anyone, you have the right to defend yourself, but this defense is in no way in opposition to LIVING in peace and tolerance.

 

Wrong ... when a person attacks your faith, you have no choice but to defend it. You cannot shy away from the battle with excuse such as "I love Peace" and such.

 

Same goes if he attacks your country, your religion, beliefs etc. Only difference here is, how are you attend to fight?

 

I fight with Knowledge, Logic and Wisdom for it is not yet time for me to draw the sword (maybe in my next lifetime). I will not shy away from the battle with nonsense such as "I cannot do or say this because it will offend Muslims or Christians and that will be adharmic" kind of excuse. Saying such IS adharmic in the first place, just like when Arjuna dropped Gandava onto the floor and refused to fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vivekananda has time again stressed physical fitness

for everyone who wants to follow a spiritual path

because a weak body cannot undergo the spiritual

transformation.....havent u heard of the old maxim,

"a healthy body beholds a healthy mind"

 

But a Sanyasin, has to undergo complete renunciation

to god........thus, for a sanyasin cannot defend himself,

if the divine wills, then he will be protected or else not.

Madhavcharya also was a dualistic....naturally his

realizations were NOT at par with an advaitist, like

Vivekananda who went on prove that dvaita, visitadvaita

and advaita were all true and were complementary to

each other with advaita being the final conclusion of

Vedanta

 

In the novel Ananda Math by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee

the sanyasins fight the British forces.......so i agree

that some sanyasins are not against resistance either

However, a violent sanyasin is against the ethos

of the institution itself, and for such a sanyasin

to realize the highest will be a herculean task indeed.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azygos, my questions directed to you were numbered as such:

 

"1. First of all, what does it mean to be anti-Hindu?

2. Second of all, how do these other parties exhibit these qualities of being anti-Hindu?

3. And third, how does the BJP exibit the qualities of being pro-Hindu?"

 

Let's see if you answered them in your post.

 

-->My first question was, "What does it mean to be anti-Hindu?" Your answer(s):

{{{ By Anti national i mean acts which are against India;s masses....and hinduism has been india;s identity.....it is becoming weaker day by day by casteist policies being played which are further dividing hindu society and the blatant appeasement of the minorties by the pseudsecularists. }}}

 

The blatant appeasement of the minorities? Are you kidding me? Democratic government is DESIGNED so as to appease the minorities, BLATANTLY. Democratic government is designed so that the majority cannot just strip the minority of rights and protection. Whites in America were made "weaker" when the blacks were given full rights by the efforts of Martin Luther King Jr. By your logic, this would have been a bad thing--how dare the minorities make the majority weaker!!

 

-->My second question was, "How do parties other than the BJP exhibit the qualities of being anti-Hindu?" Your answer(s): NONE.

 

-->My third question was, "How does the BJP exhibit the qualities of being pro-Hindu?" Your answer(s): NOT VERY CLEAR, but here they are--

 

{{{The BJP IS AGAINST APPEASEMENT OF MUSLIMS AND FOR RIGHT REASON....why dont the muslims give up their ante regarding the ayodhya issue....everyone knows from time immemorial that the muslims invaders destroyed the temples and idols and used the material for the construction of mosques........that is why there is NOT EVEN 1 ancient hindu temple in INDIA....except those in Khajuraho which were inaccessible otherwise they too would have been destroyed......

The muslims insist on a BABRI MASJID inspite of knowing that babar was a BARBARIAN...i feel it is blasphemy to have a holy place associated with his name but these fanatic muslims wont understand that........}}}

You make the following relevant claims:

(A) the BJP is agains the appeasement of Muslims

(B) Muslims should give up the Ayodhya issue because Muslim invaders destroyed temples and idols & used the materials to make Mosques

© You feel that holy place associated with the name of a barbarian is blasphemy, but

(C.1) Muslims do not understand that you feel the association of a holy place with a barbarian is blasphemy

 

Let's begin with (A): Is this your only claim for why the BJP is pro-Hindu? So you're saying that because the BJP hates people that aren't Hindu, they therefore should be voted in to rule the country?

Your claim (B) is very flawed. You only say Muslims should give up this issue because in the past Muslims destroyed Hindu temples and idols and built Mosques over them. So does this mean that every Mosque built before the British came should be torn down and a mandir built in its place? That's simply absurd. History happened. Live with it. You can't turn back time. All you can do is make things better in the present, and violently creating more distance between Hindus and Muslims isn't something that is making the country a better place to live in.

Your statement © is very interesting. By 'a holy place' I'm sure you mean Ayodhya. But my disagreement comes in when you say, "I feel" it is blasphemy to associate Ayodhya with a barbarian. Hm. Just because you feel this, it must be true. Very interesting. Can you please provide me some scriptural documentation that says, "it is wrong to have a barbarian's mosque in the same city that birthed an avatar of Vishnu"? The claim (C.1) is even more interesting. Muslims do not understand that you feel ©. That has nothing to do with anything. Forget Muslims, I do not understand why you feel this. Please elaborate. Why is it wrong to have a mosque built by an invading barbarian in the same town that birtned Rama? Would it be okay if the mosque was on the city limits? How about if it was 5 miles out, is that okay?

 

Lets continue, though. By the way, going on tangents is fine, but please do answer the questiones I posed to you in my earlier post (that is, the 3 questions I repeated above) fully and clearly.

 

 

The other things, not dealing with these above questions are addressed with the following:

 

{{{ Secondly, gandhi blackmailed everyone by going on those falsified fastes.....no going on a fast for religious purposes is NOT wrong but going on a fast solely to make people TOE your line...TO EXPLOIT THE GOODWILL THE NATION HAS BESTOWED ON U....is a crime..... }}}

 

You make three assertions with this comment:

(A) First you say that Gandhi's fasts were "falsified," (B) then you declare that going on a fast for religious purposes is "NOT wrong," and © lastly you conclude that Gandhi's "falsified" fasts were done to "EXPLOIT" the nation's goodwill. I disagree with you on both (A) and ©. Your first statement, (A), Gandhi's fasts were fake, has no solid proof behind the statement. Your statement ©, that these "falsified" fasts were done to exploit the goodwill of the nation, also does not hold ground. Gandhi equated his religion with nonviolence. So much so that the withdrew his participation in leading the Indian National Congress when he realized that the party viewed nonviolence not nearly as universally-applicibale as he did. If a man equates nonviolence with his religion, his way of fighting, I see nothing wrong with it because he hurts no one in doing this. If a riot breaks out in the middle of any city in the world, the government of that city comes in and stops the riot by FORCE. Has the government exploited the goodwill bestowed upon it by its constituency by using force against a rioting crowd of tax-paying citizens? No, of course not. As a government or individual in general may use violence to curb a riot, Gandhi (who detested violence in any use) used nonviolent fasting to curb the riots all about him. And he had every right to protest what was going on around him, for the senseless killing that occurs in riots has no place in civilized society.

 

{{{ The caste system would naturally have eliminated with time but for the short sightedness of B R AMBEDKAR and others who introduced the element of positive discrimination which solely benifits 1% of these lowers castes and produces substandard professionals and educators which is highly detrimental to our society, our educational system and our country[.]}}}

 

You make the claim that B.R. Ambedkar and others who advocated the positive discrimination system were shortsighted because (A) that their system benifits 1% of the lower castes, and (B) that their system hurts society in general by producing substandard graduates, and finally you assert © that all this could have been avoided because "caste system would naturally have eliminated [itself] with time."

 

Regarding your statements (A) & (B), you are contradicting yourself. If this system benefits only 1% of lower castes as stated in (A), how can society be hurt to a very great extent as you imply in (B)? You cannot claim both that the system is "highly detrimental to our society, educational system, and country" while also claiming that it only effects 1% of lower castes. How much damage to society can these 1% effected by the system do to the country?

Your statement © holds no ground whatsoever. What would have happened if history did not take the course it took to the present is anybody's guess, and nothing more than a guess.

 

{{{ Now it is quite clear that unless the illiterate lower castes are educated, no progress can be made.....because only then will MORE INTER_CASTE MARRIAGES TAKE PLACE, and as more such marriages take place, naturally the progeny of such marriages will be of mixed caste.....and naturally they would never think of caste anyway.....inter caste marriages are a reality in Urban India and with further spread of education among the masses, the trend will be further towards intercaste marriaes }}}

I agree with you that education is necessary. But this statement in no way denies that the current system is ALSO benificial toward a casteless India.

 

 

{{{I REPEAT HINDUISM IS THE IDENTITY OF INDIA....for a person sitting in Chicago it is easy to make vile arguments regarding this statement........}}}

 

You claim that (A) Hinduism is the identity of India, and that (B) someone sitting in Chicago can easily make vile arguments trying to discount (A) and claim that Hinduism is not the identity of India.

 

As for (A):

Hinduism is not the identity of India neither by law nor by population. Just because 80% of the people are Hindu does not mean the country must be a Hindu nation. India was founded as a secular nation, a land of freedom and free of religious persecution. India is a DEMOCRACY first, and democracies do not have their identities based on religion. By claiming that Hinduism is the identity of India, you are effectively contending that the nation ought to be viewed as a Hindu nation first, a democracy second. It doesn't work that way, buddy. If you identify a nation with a religion, what you've got yourself there is a theocracy or another sort of non-democratic form of government.

 

As for your claim (B), that "a person sitting in Chicago" cannot see Hinduism as the identity of India, I do not see the logic. I will address this concern nonetheless in the response to your following claims:

 

{{{my friend u are not aware with the ground realities....ISLAM IS AN ALIEN RELIGION....a religion of PLUNDER, FANTICISM AND MAYHEM....ALL MUSLIMS IN INDIA ARE CONVERTED HINDUS WHO WERE IN A MAJORITY CONVERTED BY THE SWORD.....i admit some lower castes did convert willingly and some under the influence of the sufi mystics but they were in a minority

}}}

Here, you make the following claims:

(A) I am not aware of the ground realities [presumably because I am sitting in Chicago and you are in India]

(B) the ground realities include

(B.1) Islam is an alien religion,

(B.2) Islam is a religion of plunder, fanaticism, and mayhem,

(B.3) All Muslims in India are converted Hindus

(B.3.a) The majority of the Hindus that converted were done so by the sword

(B.3.b) Some low-caste Hindus converted willingly to Islam

(B.3.c) Some Hindus converted under the influence of Sufi mystics

 

First, let us address your claim (A) continued from above, that I am not aware of what is going on at ground zero: this statement has nothing to do with this discussion. I do not have to physically be at a location to have the right to debate that location's goings-on. If that were the case, then this entire forum, and many others on the internet, would become useless in the fact that discussions rage across the web by people from all over the world concerning issues from all across the planet. Perhaps hundreds of years ago physical location was a necessary component to hold an academic debate on a subject, but the modern age has relieved us of that necessity.

 

Moving on to your other claims:

(B.1): I agree with (B.1). Islam is an alien religion to India. This is a fact.

(B.2): I do not agree with (B.2). You are being prejudiced, ignorant, and hypocritical when asserting that Islam is entirely violent. There are 120 million Muslims living in India, are you claiming that every single one of these individuals is a plundering war monger? Islam is not a monolithic entity. The Koran's different interpretations bring different Muslims to different conclusions in life. It is unfortunate that an interpretation could arise that is used to religiously justify the violent killing of others, but this happens in every religion. Hinduism included. For example, I look at the Gita in context as Krishna having used up all attempts at peace and finally giving Arjuna the go to violently destroy his enemies. Thus, peaceful means to resolution must be sought before resorting to violence. Others, view the Gita as Krishna saying to Arjuna to destroy the enemy violently at all times because dharma calls for it. Interpretation results in fundamentalism, and fundamentalism results in violence.

(B.3), (B.3.a, b, c):I see no point to these claims. Who cares if Muslims are converted Hindus? That has nothing of importance to do with your "ground realities" that you claim I am not aware of.

 

Another one of your claims, similar to (B.2) above, is:

{{{For long this argument has been made that "islam is a beautiful religion of peace but it has been made corrupt by its followers who have misinterpreted it. The time has come for the world to know at large that although it has few of the greatest truths, it has too many passages inciting violence in allahs name....and PROMISING THE SENSUOUS HEAVEN TO THOSE WHO DIE IN THE CAUSE OF ISLAM....Look at their conception of heaven...."beautiful horis dancing to the tunes of lecherous men and all women turning into horis (Read whores) to satisfy the lust of these men....the only saving grace is her youth is eternal"....such hedonism....and u call it a pure religion???}}}

 

Again, my response is simply this: fundamentalism exists in all religions.

 

{{{Nowhere have MUSLIMS LIVED IN PEACE.....the incidents at WTC, NY, London, Egypt, Kashmir......prove otherwise.....}}}

To begin with, I offer 120 million Muslims living in peace with their neighboring Hindus, Parsis, Shiks, Jews, and Christians in India. You cannot be seriously claiming that every single Muslim in the world is a bloodthristy human being. That's just absurd.

 

{{{As Vivekananda said "Resistance for the householder, non resistance for the sanyasin"...and since the majority are householders including the government we have the right to resistance.....}}}

 

May I ask, WHO ARE YOU RESISTING? Are the whole throngs of the 120 million Muslims in India running after you at this very moment with spears and clubs and bombs and weapons? I think you're inventing your own "ground realities" now.

 

{{{Do u think it is fair to teach non violence to the kashmiri pandits or other victims of terrorism? It is like rubbing salt in their wounds.......is this the idea of a practical religon...the serenity of sanatana dharma is in its practicality....It can be the religion of the atheist, the agnostic, the saint and the sinner and lastly the believer........

To FIGHT to uphold righteousness is allowed by our religion as a last resort.......otherwise our religion would have been sheer hypocrisy, since an absolute religion of non violence is IMPRACTICAL....like true buddhism is almost an impractical religion...}}}

I'm not asking them to be nonviolent towards the men attacking them, I am contending that they ought to LIVE in nonviolence, toleration, and peace. If an enemy attacks them, they have the right to self-defense. And they are defending themselves via the army. Nonviolence means that they personally do not go around killing their Muslim neighbors, as what occured in the 2002 Gujarat riots and many other riots in these last 50 years.

 

{{{If we had been strong could the islamic barbarians conquered our motherland since the battle of tarain in 1192? Could they have raped and mamed millions of our women and children? could they have killed thousands of our ancestors? could they have destroyed EVERY TEMPLE IN NORTH INDIA UNDER THE SUN? LASTLY Could we have been subjuated by 3000 Odd britishers for 200 yrs?}}}

 

This statement has no relevence to the present. Hindus in India are not under attack by anything but their own misconceptions. Look around you, there are foreigners in India and they are not going to go away. Stop complaining and live with it. If they violate the law, punish them. They're regular citizens living in a democracy just like you are.

 

Let's go on:

 

{{{Finally, in the name of secularism we are KILLING ourown religion.....the muslims can teach all about their prophet and anti hindu brainwashing agenda in the madardas (which btw dont teach any science subjects either......i have concrete information regarding this for islam is ANTI SCIENCE) but hindus cannot teach about their religion, about the geeta, about the Vedanta in our schools for according to the congress and the communists (leftists) it is COMMUNALISM....if teaching hindu religion is a crime, then all true hindus should embrace this crime......to die for this cause if need be....to renunciate our lives for this cause if need be....}}}

 

I cannot help but simply laugh at your statement "i have concrete information regarding this for islam is ANTI SCIENCE." Islam is anti-science! Oh my oh my. Do provide us this "concrete information" you possess, good sir. I would have never thought that a religion could be anti-science! How simply shocking!

 

Public schools are not Hindu temples. Madraasas are private institutions. If you want your kids to learn Hinduism at school, send them to a private Hindu school. For those of us that are not xenophobic, we are happy with our kids learning in an enviornment where they can learn to appreciate others' differences and rejoice in the similarities. A democratic society requires cooperation.

 

{{{u petty people sitting in the west, can make all these . crappy comments on secularism without knowing any ground realities......ur attitude is entirely anti national......do u have the courage to PREACH SECULARISM TO UNCLE SAM......recenty america gave life sentence to an islamic cleric who advocated jihad on america......WHY DONT U GO AND FIGHT FOR THAT CLERIC...and others like him in USA....but how can u for america is your karta-dharta....u have already sold your souls to materialism and hence u dont have the right to impede in our affairs....we have to think of OUR ONLY COUNTRY....of our 5000 yr old civilization which today is at its NADIR...thanks to the Congress + the communists + the casteists and its votaries like u guys.....}}}

Hm. There's so much bigotry, prejudice, and stupidity in these lines of yours that I am having a hard time keeping this an academic debate and not reverting to childish name-calling like you have already done /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Let's examine this; your relevant claims include the following:

(A) I and other NRI's in the West are "petty people"

(A.1) Because we are petty NRI's, we do not know the "ground realities"

(A.1.a) Because we do not know the ground realities, we can make these "crappy comments" about secularism

(B) Mine and other NRIs' attitudes are wholly "anti-national"

© We NRIs do not have the courage to preach secularism to the US government

(D) NRIs should go fight so that America does not jail an Islamic cleric preaching jihad

(E) NRIs have "sold [our] souls to materialism"

(E.1) Because we NRIs have "sold our souls to materialism" we have no right to interfere in Indians' affairs

(F) Indians must think only of their own nation

(G) Indian civilization is today at its nadir because of Congress, communists, casteists, and the supporters of these three such as the NRI community

 

Let's go ahead and discount these, shall we?

First, for your statement (A)--it shows how petty YOU are by even resorting to childish name-calling. Without the NRI community, India would be in more shambles than it is. This statement you cannot deny. For a simple example, look at the recent tsunami disaster. British NRIs alone raised 16.5 million British pounds in 24 hours of the disaster to give to various charities throughout India. Read the full article at http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/dec312004/f3.asp. This is just one example of countless many.

As for (A.1), we already discussed this point in another one of your comments above.

As for (A.1.a), if you have no real argument against my comments besides all of the above which I have individually addressed, then shut your mouth and get back to work instead of resorting to name-calling.

Are you claiming in (B) that all NRIs want to see the destruction of India? That all NRIs are "anti-national"?

As for ©, many of the the American NRI community's organizations are actively involved in making American laws more secular, and many organizations are not. Just like resident Indians do not share the same opinion on issues, non-resident Indians do as well. I can't believe I just said that, I feel like a teacher in elementary school. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

As for (D), I think my reply to © addressed this--NRIs aren't some sort of monolithic body sharing the same opinions on every matter. I'm not going to go fight for someone preaching hatred, and I am not doing so right now when I disagree with you.

Moving on to (E) & (E.1), are you actually claiming that all NRIs are materialistic and all resident Indians are not? Your statement (E.1) implies that because NRIs have "sold" their souls to materialism, resident Indians are not materialistic. The fact of the matter is that neither are all NRIs materialistic and neither are all Indians non-materialistic. So stop claiming one or the other. NRIs have left India to give more opportunities to themselves and their children. It's as simple as that. And most, if not all, of them feel a strong connection to their motherland. As the old saying goes, "you can take a man out of India but you cannot take India out of man." We have every right to interfere in our homeland, just as much a right you do. Especially the dual-citizens among us.

I agree with you about (F). Realize, though, that "India" does not mean "Hindus;" the fact of the matter is that India is a diverse land of diverse peoples who must learn to live in cooperation as many nations throughout the world have.

Your claim (G) is another statement which you just throw out there without any basis of logical debate or argument whatsoever. I asked you to answer three questions in my last post, and you failed to thoroughly and consecutively and clearly and logically answer all three. Only after you answer these three questions from the previous post can your claim (G) be properly debated.

 

{{{Hinduism is India;s soul....it is only religion which can unite INDIA;s fractured masses......it is only by religion through which INDIAN's got their self respect a 100 yrs back when Vivekananda preached the greatness of our religion, our ideals, our family values, of the chastity of our women in the West.......}}}

 

Ground realities, my friend, ground realities. India is a democracy, not a theocracy. This issue was discussed above.

 

{{{remember the passion of nationalism is still ignited in millions of Indians, and it is their renunciation which will take India and her religion of santana dharma to the ZENITH once again in the time to come......}}}

 

You sound like a Nazi when you say that. BUt that's not surprising; the RSS does openly claim its appreciation and admiration of Hitler and his policies. Fierce nationalism lead to World War I, World War II, and other great catastrophes in history. Nationalism doesn't have to mean "lets hate everything not Indian, espeically anything non-Hindu which is in India or the world." Nationalism can easily mean "lets try to do everything we can to make ours a nation of peace and harmony and prosperity for all living here."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Once again i will clarify myself:

 

1. How BJP is Pro Hindu

 

* It supports the propagation of the Hindu religion

and culture in schools.

* Refuses to yield to the fanatical demands of

the muslims

* Refuse to appease MUSLIMS

1. Banning the book "satanic verses" by Rushie

This book for that matter has been banned nowhere in the world including some Islamic countries

2. Banning the book "sufis of bijapur" by Eaton

This book depicts the true fanatical nature of some of the

sufi saints.

Logic: These books hurt the sentiments of the muslims

although they are true

3. Allowing M F Hussain to paint hindu goddesses in the nude

Logic: Hindu sentiments are of no consequence because they

are in a majority. But M F HUssain is a muslim so he can have his way

 

* Recently In Andhra Pradesh, The congress government

under Y S R Reddy approved of 5% reservations in

govt. jobs and educational institutions for Muslims

THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED. RESERVATION IN THE NAME

OF RELIGION. The Problem with people like u, is u

lack foresight....which i possess in plenty....

sorry....but i know i am right even at the risk

of being called self righteuous

 

*. BJP Supports abolition of ARTICLE 370

It is only because of the lopsided article 370

that we were not able to change the demography

of kashmir after partition. And till date,

this blunder by Nehru is haunting us along

with his decision to drag the kashmir imbroglio

to the U N

 

* BJP supports A Uniform Civil Code

The UCC is a necessity that has been conveniniently

ignored by the pseudosecularists .

1. Muslims are NOT OVER THE LAW OF THE LAND

why do muslims have a personal law board guided

by the archaic laws of the quran. We have NO

PLACE FOR THE ULEMA and there primitive laws

As a hypothetical question, if hindus feel

the laws of manu are apt for today, will that

be allowed? NO...so why this disparity

2. THe subject of polygamy. A civilized society

and polygamy are poles apart

3. TRIPLE TALAQ a deplorable

concept still holds

4. Miniscule property rights for muslim women

5. The Shah Bano case and a recent case

in which a woman raped by her father in law

was ordered by the deoband clerics

to leave her husband and live with her

father in law, are testimonies to

the lawlessness that prevails within

the muslim community

 

* BJP against the influx of Bangladeshi immigrants

who are committing heinous crimes and yet being

given citizenship by the communists in west bengal

and the congress in delhi....so that they serve as

effective vote banks....

* In Assam, the IMDT act has been scrapped by the

HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.....the court

has stated that this act by which deportation

of illegal bangladeshi muslims from assam was

hampered is deplorable and atleast 3 crore bangladeshi

immigrants have been given ration cards and voting

cards by the congress government in ASSAM led

by Tarun Gogoi....another instance of gross

anti nationalism.....for i dont need to tell u

that bangladesh at this moment has large number

of ISI camps planning terrorist activities against

India.

 

 

SINCE ALL PSEUDOSECULARISTS ARE AGAINST

THE IMPOSITION OF UCC, ABOLITION OF

ARTICLE 370, so naturally it proves

they are against the hindu community

ALL THEY WANT IS A MUSLIM VOTE BANK

 

 

U cannot equate the whites and blacks question

Blacks were being discrimination

IN India, the ground realities are different.

Moreover, blacks were always nationalistic

Muslims are mostly antinationals.....they

have been sympathsing with the kashmir

militants, have openly sympathises with mass

murderers like Osama Bin Lader.....and hence,

i must tag the majority of muslims as

anti nationals.....

 

A DEMOCRACY IS NOT MEANT FOR APPEASEMENT OF MINORITIES.......THE Laws of the land are same

for all.....u cannot provide minorities with

seperate provisons....we have the judiciary

to look into matters of violation of human

rights....

 

 

BJP DOESNT HATE NON HINDUS but it only

asks for equality for all......no

special priveleges or appeasement

of muslims....U FORGOT THE BASIC

TENENT OF A DEMOCRACY is MAJORITY RULES:)

 

 

U said "HISTORY HAPPENED, LIVE WITH IT!"

So let me tell u "People who dont read history

are destined to suffer for the repetition of its

mistakes"....all the wrongs of the medieval past

cannot be corrected, but some must be corrected

to avoid repetition of them in future.

 

 

The question is a temple stood there in a city

which is considered as the birthplace of Rama,

and hence it is one of the most sacred of

places for hindus.....Would, a temple built

in Mecca, Medina or Jerusalem be acceptable

to the people there??? NO....

Why dont the muslims realise the sentiments

of the hindus......dont u think, that a

sacrifice on their part, would build

bridges between the 2 communities and unite

he country........

 

U SAY GANDHI CURBED RIOTS.....

he did ONLY in a relative sense....he used his

goodwill among hindu masses to preach them

non violence but his sermons HAD NO EFFECTS

on the Muslims....who killed trainloads of

hindus.....and when hindus tried to retaliate

Gandhi came up preaching Non Violence and then

going of fasts....thus blatantly exploting

his goodwill among the hindu masses..........

If the hindus had also become violent, the muslims

who were in a minority would NOT have dared to

commit those atrocities..........

 

II. A 2nd point of gandhi;s antinational attitude

was when during 1948, Pak. Rangers attacked Kashmir

India decided to suspend the transfer of 500 crore

rupees to Pakistan which was due to it....but again

Gandhi went on a fast, and to pacify him the govt.

transferred the money to Pakistan.

 

Regarding your statement

you are

contradicting yourself. If this system benefits only 1% of

lower castes as stated in (A), how can society be hurt to

a very great extent as you imply in (B)? You cannot claim both

that the system is "highly detrimental to our society,

educational system, and country" while also claiming that

it only effects 1% of lower castes.

How much damage to society can these 1% effected by the system

do to the country?

 

U have not understood my viewpoint.......

A. Reservations are 22% in all states and in certain

states like UP it is upto 50%

So, the provisions are there....

But the awareness of these benifits is only among 1% of the

lower castes in the cities....who are exploiting these benifits

generation after generation....these people are lower

castes only in name, as they are economically and socially

at par with the upper castes.

*** U have conveniently ignored my position that

reservation produces sub standard doctors, engineers,bureaucrats,

educationalists, etc. Thus, i repeat when a quarter of our

professionals will be of substandrad quality if will naturally

be detrimental to our society and country

*** The uneducated lower castes will never be able to make

use of these benifits.....thus, my stance that education and

only education will uplift the lower castes stands vindicated.

 

U SAID

Hinduism is not the identity of India neither by law nor

by population. Just because 80% of the people are Hindu

does not mean the country must be a Hindu nation.

India was founded as a secular nation, a land of freedom

and free of religious persecution. India is a DEMOCRACY first,

and democracies do not have their identities based on religion.

 

*** Firstly, the laws of the land have been framed just 50 yrs back

by these same pseudosecularists of the INC. So they dont hold

much water.

*** India WAS NOT FOUNDED AS A SECULAR NATION.....India in the

past 5000 yrs was NOT SECULAR.....secularism means

NOT CONCERNED WITH RELIGION......but the land of India has

always been concerned with religion.......In 50 yrs, u cannot change

5000 yrs of our history......

*** Even without being secular in the conventional sense,

our religion is the all embracing one and hence, it never

persecuted anyone in the name of religion......so we dont

need a tag of secularism from anyone

when the tenets of our religion are based on acceptance,

tolerance and respect, then WHY THE HELL DO U NEED TO

INTRODUCE THE ALIEN TERM SECULARISM???

 

 

U SAID

You are being prejudiced, ignorant, and hypocritical when asserting

that Islam is entirely violent. There are 120 million Muslims living in India,

are you claiming that every single one of these individuals is a plundering war monger?

Islam is not a monolithic entity. The Koran's different interpretations bring different

Muslims to different conclusions in life.

 

My reply...

Indian Muslims have always actively sympathised with terrorists.....whether

in Kashmir or America....so i have no sympathy for them....if they are

NOT war mongers, then why dont they come forward and publicly denouce

these terrorists.....SILENCE MEANS TACIT APPROVAL OF THEIR ACTIVITIES

 

ISLAM NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE

http://www.integralworld.net/harris20.html

The fundamental intolerance and fanaticism of Islam are an undeniable fact.

They can readily be proven from a large number of Quranic verses.

I will merely give the verse numbers, so you can check it for yourself.

Islam promises hell to the Kafirs in Quran 3:85, 4:56, 5:37, 5:72, 8:55, 9:28, 15:2,

21:98-100, 22:19-22, 22:56-57, 25:17-19, 25:55, 29:53-55, 31:13, 66:9, 68:10-13, 72:14- 15,

98-51.

Islam warms against mixing with Kafirs in Quran 2:21, 3:28, 3:118, 5:51, 5:144, 9:7, 9:28,

58:23, 60:4.

Islam calls on Muslims to wage war against the Kafirs in Quran 2:191, 2:193, 4:66, 4:84,5:33,

8:12, 8:15-18, 8:39, 8:59-60, 8:65, 9:2-3, 9:5, 9:14, 9:29, 9:39, 9:73,9:111, 9:123, 25:52,

37:22-23, 47:4-5, 48:29, 69:30-37.

Islam encourages the war against the Kafirs by glorifying it in Quran

2:216, 9:41, 49:15,

or by promising lust in paradise to the Shaheeds who die in such a war,

in Quran 3:142, 3:157-158, 9:20--21. The Hadis is also explicit enough,

and proves that Prophet put the Quranic injunctions into practice.

 

ALSO YOUR ASSERTION THAT FUNDAMENTALISM EXISTS IN EVERY RELIGION

IS FALSE....Show me one hindu scripture which asks people to defend their

religion by means of violence and any scripture which promises a lustful

paradise to the shaheeds who die in the cause of religion...............

 

 

KASHMIRI PANDITS DEFENDING THEMSELVES VIA ARMY?

Your statement is Ludicrous...

Do u mean each armyman will protect one pandit apiece???

Where were the pseudosecularists when the ethnic cleansing was being

carried out in Kashmir....why do the kashmiri muslims actively

sympathise with the militants......WHY? In Kashmir, the pandits

are minorities...why doesnt the govt. take care of them..........

DO U HAVE ANY ANSWERS???

 

Again Your statement

This statement has no relevence to the present.

Hindus in India are not under attack by anything but their own misconceptions.

Look around you, there are foreigners in India and they are not going to go away.

Stop complaining and live with it. If they violate the law, punish them.

They're regular citizens living in a democracy just like you are.

 

** India is under constant attack...if we were not, then why did we have to

fight 4 wars with Pakistan including the recent one in Kargil

** Terrorism is a ground reality...In India.....

** The ISI is plotting against the country....the recent attacks on Ayodhya

and at Akashdham are testimony to this fact. ISI building terror camps

in Bangladesh and Nepal.

 

 

You SAID:

I Cannot help but simply laugh at your statement

"i have concrete information regarding this for islam is ANTI SCIENCE."

Islam is anti-science! Oh my oh my. Do provide us this "concrete information"

you possess, good sir.

I would have never thought that a religion could be anti-science!

How simply shocking!

 

My friend, u should do a study of the abrahamic faiths which will

prove that all these religions are anti science

Wasnt galileo persecuted by the christian church......and wasnt there

such a hue and cry about darwin;s theory of evolution....

THat is why ISLAM DOESNT BELIEVE MODERN SCIENCE because it knows that

all the theories in QUran would crumble like a pack of cards

 

I have been to madarsas and asked the children whether they receive

any scientific education....the answer was a unanimous "NO"

 

Your STATEMENT

"Public schools are not hindu temples"

I agree wholeheartedly.......And religion is NOT TAUGHT IN TEMPLES EITHER

Where will children learn about religion but in SCHOOLS....

U can teach children any subject under the sun, but when it comes

to religion....it becomes xenophobia???

TEACHING VEDANTA WOULD MAKE PEOPLE XENOPHOBIACS, U ASK ME TO BELIEVE SUCH

.!

IF someone doesnt want to learn of our democractic process, because he says

he believes in anarchy.......can that be allowed

Therefore compulsory religious education is a MUST......whether u believe

in religion, a god or not is secondary.....

 

*** U ARE GENERALIZING MY STATEMENTS WHICH I MADE IN REFERENCE WITH U and possibly

NRIs who agree with U....

*** NRIS have made hefty contribution to our forex reserves and at time of

calamities they have contributed handsomely....agreed!

*** I am against all people who agree with the pseudosecularists irrespective

of caste, creed, religion, nationality, residence

 

*** U Said "India is NOT FOR HINDUS".....i disagree....INdia, was, is, and will be

the land of sanatana dharma and its followers.....muslims should either behave themselves

or find some other suitable accomodation......

U have forgotten that the partition of India was solely on the basis

of religion......Hence, millions of Hindus had to leave their homes in

Pakistan....and become refugees in their own country........but again

it was muslim appeasement by INC which allowed the muslims to stay back in such

large numbers.........sheer hypocrisy of the highest degree

 

*** Finally u say "ground realities my friend...India is a democracy"

WIth all due respect, Democracy is NOT ANTI RELIGION..............

COMMUNISM IS ANTI RELIGION........................................

IN A DEMOCRACY>>> Majority rules

 

 

U Said

You sound like a Nazi when you say that.

BUt that's not surprising; the RSS does openly claim its appreciation and admiration of

Hitler and his policies. Fierce nationalism lead to World War I, World War II, and other

great catastrophes in history.

 

*** U associate nationalism with jingoism...... Again shows your

petty mindedness..... The RSS appreciated hitler;s organization skills

which revived german industries after WWI......They dont appreciate

his persecution of jews, either.....

Nationalism doesnt lead to xenophobia..........

If qualities like self sacrifice, and renunciation make a man a fascist

then vivekananda and aurobindo would be fascists in your view.

*** A person must first think about his mother.....For every Indian,

India is his mother......his motherland....thus, we are committed

to our duties of sacrifice and renunciation of the highest degree

for her and her alone........and the religion of sanatana dharma

is the lifeblood of our motherland....and we have to protect its

pristine purities at all costs......

 

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so let’s look at what we have here;

 

<u>1. How the BJP is pro-Hindu; your replies:</u>

(A)The BJP supports the “propagation of the Hindu religion and culture in schools”.

I have several objections to this statement. First and foremost, religion has no place in public schools whatsoever. Democratic practice throughout the world is yet to live up to this principle, I agree, but that need not relieve India of this duty. Teaching “Hindu religion and culture” to non-Hindu children would most certainly alienate them and create more separation by religion. Secondly, I absolutely believe that Hindu religion and culture is not something to be taught systematically but is something to be experienced. Of course a study of scriptures will enlighten the curiously-minded toward the specificiteis of the religion, and a guru can assist one more so toward that end; but institutional propagation of Hindu culture seems almost impossible. As such, the propagation of Hindu religion and culture necessarily falls on the parents and the family enviornment in general, and also to temples and other exclusively Hindu organizations—not public schools. Third, I would like to ask what exactly in terms of “Hindu religion and culture” the BJP plans to teach to the ever-susceptible population of pre-pubescent children. If the BJP supports the saffron flag wavers in their efforts to make Hindutva the rule of the land, then the debate of rewriting textbooks is absolutely absurd. Hindutva fanatics claim the textbooks have been whitewashed with false concepts and ideas. With that in mind, they have embarked to present their version of history: that Jesus Christ wandered the Himalayas and drew his inspiration from Hinduism; that a Hindu named Samundragupta built the Qutb Minar, originally known as Vishnu Sthambha; that the Taj Mahal was really a Hindu Temple known as Tejo-Mahalaya; that the Red Fort in Delhi was a Brahmin palace. Such absurdities are being taught at thousands of Vidhya Bharti schools run by the Hindutva cadres of the BJP and RSS. The RSS will not give up its zeal to rewrite history; as such, its political wing, the BJP, cannot be trusted to remain free of that zeal. In fact, the 1991 BJP victory in four states resulted in the government itself going out to stock books promoting such ideas into colleges and libraries. This is the Hindu “religion and culture” the BJP propagates?—to distort history and alienate foreigners so they can then destroy their mosques and burn their communities? My problem here isn’t that the BJP wants to clear up historical matters (for even Nehru funded research to re-examine Indian history in 1951), my problem is that in the process they are actively saffronizing Indian history with the obvious intention of glorifying Hinduism. Hinduism doesn’t need falsified history to be glorified. The fact is the that the vast bulk of historical evidence is in clear disagreement to the claims of these supposed historians; neither should their ideas be publicized into textbooks nor should they be accepted as definitively correct by the general community. But the debate over their claims need not even arise in the eyes of the hardline Hindutva propagandists—why even allow debate to exist when anyone suggesting disagreement can be automatically labled as “anti-Hindu,” “anti-nationalist,” “communist,” “Marxist,” etc?

(B) The BJP refuses to “yield to the fanatical demands of the Muslims”.

What fanatical demands is the BJP refusing to yield to, specifically (besides the moderately-important book-banning fiasco)? The implication is that you speak of the UCC, the AIMPLB’s connection with the Shah Bano case, etc. You must understand that the Muslim community is, once again, not a monolithic entity with one thought and one opinion. Women, especially, are all for discounting the influence the AIMPLB has on Muslim affairs.

But the fanatical demands of Muslims aside, the BJP not only yields to but wholeheartedly embraces the fanatical demands of extremist Hindus, no? Why else would it’s current president, Advani, have been actively participating toward the destruction of the Babri masjid in 1992? Why else would its Election Manifesto of 1998 gloriously proclaim, “The BJP will explore all consensual, legal and constitutional means to facilitate the construction of Shri Ram Mandir at Ayodhya”? Just as the “pseudo-secularists” apparently “appease” Muslims for their votes, as you claim, the BJP seems to be appeasing Hindus for their votes—why else would they have so vigorously downplayed the Hindutva and Ayodhya agenda in the 2004 election? They used the bandwagon of Hindutva to sweep power and abandoned it when they no longer felt it was needed. But now, suddenly, in their time of need once again comes the hardline Hindutva votebank to leech off of until the next election victory.

Another problem I have with this statement: how does not “appeasing Muslim demands” constitute a pro-Hindu attitude? It seems as if your philosophy is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

 

© The BJP refuses to “appease Muslims” since they don’t agree to the ban of certain anti-Muslim books.

Appeasing Muslim extremists is wrong, but appeasing Hindu extremists is okay? I feel that the appeasement of extremism in general is wrong—Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or any other type.

Again, how does being anti-Muslim make the BJP pro-Hindu?

 

(D) The BJP supports Article 370.

So you’re saying that the BJP is pro-Hindu because they want to allow non-Kashmiris to move in and own land in Kashmir? I don’t see the logic. Supporting Article 370 may or may not be the best thing for India to do, but it certainly isn’t something that points to the BJP as pro-Hindu.

 

(E) The BJP supports the UCC.

The debate over the UCC is interesting. I agree with the BJP’s position that the UCC needs to be implemented, but not for the same reasons they do.

What I find astonishing is the ever-apparent contradiction in the BJP’s support of both the UCC and the Ayodhya issue. They claim to want equality for all with the UCC, yet they support the destruction of Muslim masjids to build Hindu temples. They claim to want a truly secular nation with the implemenation of the UCC, yet at the same time promote the “propagation of Hindu religion and culture in schools” (not Muslim or Christian culture and religion?). This direct contradiction suggests that the BJP only supports implementing the UCC because it would further alienate the minority communities by making them “on their own” so to speak to deal with living in a Hindu-dominated nation. I support the UCC not because of religious and nationalistic ideology but because of a liberal commitment of equality of law for all.

 

(F) The BJP is against giving citizenship to & supporting criminal Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants.

This, again, shows nothing of how the BJP is pro-Hindu.

 

The overall conclusion to your reply directed to my first question, “how is the BJP pro-Hindu” seems to point to one thing and one thing only: the BJP is pro-Hindutva. Why shouldn’t it be? Its foundation is rooted in the Hindutva ideology of the RSS; its existance, in fact, is directed as a mere puppet-organization for the RSS. Does being pro-Hindutva necessarily make them pro-Hindu? I don’t think so. The Hindutva movement should not be associated with Hinduism. It should be more properly termed a political tool; an ideology with which millions can be brainwashed and effectively be made into pawns for the sick recreation of the RSS. That’s not Hinduism. The Hinduism that I know doesn’t encourage me to go around bashing on other peoples’ religion and beliefs and heritage simply because they are different than me or because their ancestors abused my ancestors. The Hindusim I know doesn’t tell me to take pilgrimages to Ayodhya in order that I desecrate someone else’s place of worship and build my own on top. It doesn’t encourage me to arm myself with swords and tridents and kerosene bombs in order that I punish my Muslim neighbors for the wrongs their ancestors committed.

 

Another issue I’d like to address is your constant use of the term “pseudo-secularist”. I agree with you in that the Congress is not being secularist by sticking to the UCC. But let it be clear that I am no pseudo-secularist. I do not see the Congress and its secular ideology as the ultimate hope of the Indian nation, but I do see it as the only comparable competitor for that title. As such, I do not see the RSS and its Hindutva ideology as the bane of Indian civilization, but I do see it as the only comparable competitor for that title. (And by RSS, I do mean all of the RSS—BJP, VHP, Bajrang Dal, etc.)

 

<u>2. How the non-BJP parties are anti-Hindu; your replies:</u>

(G) Congress allows for reservations in government & educational jobs for Muslims.

Holding seats for Muslims means the government is anti-Hindu? Does this mean that funding research for curing AIDS means the government hates cancer patients? Does making laws to benefit the handicapped mean the government hates the non-handicapped?

 

(H) All psuedo-secularists are against the BJP—they only want Muslim votebanks.

We discussed this earlier. Just as “pseudo-secularists” want Muslim votebanks, the saffron flag-wavers want Hindu votebanks. Politicians are politicians. You can’t claim the BJP doesn’t want a votebank. You just like them because they appease you by agreeing to hate Muslims.

 

The only thing you’ve proved with your answers to my questions it that the BJP hates Muslims: by (A) they want to have Hindu culture and religion be taught in schools, by (B) sure they don’t listen to Muslim extremists (which is good) but that’s only because they are too busy listening to Hindu extremists telling them to burn Muslim places of worship, by © they of course don’t appease Muslim extremists (which is also good) but this is only because they appease Hindu extremists, by (E) sure they support the UCC (which is good) but only because it distances Muslims away from the mainstream even more and makes it easier for them to listen to implement Hindu extremism as a national ideology, and by (F) sure they support deporting illegal immigrants who cause violence and wreak havoc in cities (which is good) but this is only because it’s a way to get rid of more Muslims (for Hindu rabble-rousers are freely roam the streets of Ayodhya knowing very well their very own BJP will come to their rescue and somehow get them their temple built).

 

<u>3. Other issues brought up:</u>

(A) You cannot equate the whites and blacks question since blacks were being discriminated & India’s ground realities are different

 

&

 

(B) A DEMOCRACY IS NOT MEANT FOR APPEASEMENT OF MINORITIES.......THE Laws of the land are same for all.....u cannot provide minorities with seperate provisons....we have the judiciary to look into matters of violation of human rights....

 

I’m not speaking of ground realities when I compare the discrimination of blacks in America to the “appeasement” of minorities in India—I’m speaking of principles. Democratic government is not simply the “rule of the majority” as you content. Majoritarian democracy is not the model of democracy with which are made most of the democracies in the world today, including India. Democracies tend to lean toward pluralist democratic theory: an interpretation of democracy in which government by the people is taken to mean government by people operating through competing interest groups. This necessarily requires the splitting of the duties of government into legislative, judicial, executive, etc, in order that people have more access to their government besides simple voting. Of course, no democracy is entirely pluralist or entirely majoritarian, and parliamentarian democracy is no expection. Note, however, that majoritarianism in democracy is notoriously recognized to be detrimental to minority rights. I’m sure you and hardline Hindutva supporters would be thrilled at the idea of discriminating against the minority and establishing a completely majoritarian democracy in India.

 

© Blacks were always nationalistic Muslims are mostly antinationals.....they have been sympathsing with the kashmir militants, have openly sympathises with mass murderers like Osama in Lader.....and hence, i must tag the majority of muslims as anti nationals.....

 

So you’re now claiming that most of the 120 million Muslim men, women, and children living in India sympathetically rejoice at terrorist attacks? You’ve managed, without explicit evidence, to automatically label the majority 120 million people to be against the nation they and their families live in. This is prejudiceness defined. Would you not agree that people everywhere in the world are always innocent until proven guilty? If you can’t label a single person “guilty before proven innocent,” you most necessarily cannot label 120 million people as so.

 

(D) BJP DOESNT HATE NON HINDUS but it only asks for equality for all......no special priveleges or appeasement of muslims....U FORGOT THE BASIC TENENT OF A DEMOCRACY is MAJORITY RULES:)

 

The BJP is the political wing of the RSS. The RSS hates non-Hindus. Therefore, the BJP is a tool for hating non-Hindus.

As for the “basic tenent” of democracy being “majority rules,” taking even a beginning-level political science course will prove to you just how much more there is beind that simple statement.

 

(E) U said "HISTORY HAPPENED, LIVE WITH IT!" So let me tell u "People who dont read history are destined to suffer for the repetition of its mistakes"....all the wrongs of the medieval past cannot be corrected, but some must be corrected to avoid repetition of them in future.

 

I’m not asking you not to read history. I’m asking you to specifically live with the fact that the presence of non-Hindus in India is not going to go away. For example, newly freed black slaves were completely discriminated against by the majority of whites in the US for almost one hundred years before they were recognized as equal citizens. Sure there were white organizations screaming all along to send the blacks back to Africa after having been thoroughly exploited (kind of like how the Hindutva-folk wants an “India for Hindus”), but the more practical solution was to live in cooperation with the foreigners.

 

(F) The question is a temple stood there in a city which is considered as the birthplace of Rama, and hence it is one of the most sacred of places for hindus.....Would, a temple built in Mecca, Medina or Jerusalem be acceptable to the people there??? NO.... Why dont the muslims realise the sentiments

of the hindus......dont u think, that a sacrifice on their part, would build bridges between the 2 communities and unite the country........

 

The question is not whether a temple stood at the Babri Masjid or not. The question is this: is the violent destruction of another’s place of worship something Rama would condone? Ayodhya is not going to be any more sacred than it is now with or without a temple built where the Babri masjid stood. The middle ages have come and gone, and in the modern world no civilized society can view the razing of another’s place of worship to raise one’s own as civilized or honorable, much less acceptable, to the general interests of the people. “Why don’t the Muslims realize the sentiments of Hindus”—what sentiments do you speak of? The sentiment that there needs to be the violent destruction of any Muslim place of worship built near and/or atop a former Hindu temple? You can’t change history. All you can do is find a way to live the present so the atrocities of the past cannot be repeated. Creating a free, open, strong, and tolerant society—as most civilized, modern nations have done—is the first step to ensuring the survival in the long run; advocating internal factionalism with violence aforethought is absolutely deplorable and an abominable outgrowth of the freedom of thought Hinduism offers to its followers.

 

(G) If the hindus had also become violent, the muslims who were in a minority would NOT have dared to commit those atrocities.

 

I can’t believe you are actually advocating making Hindus violent to counteract Muslim violence. Violence doesn’t solve violence. Peace solves violence. Peace requires that both sides let the disputes of their ancestors remain in the past.

 

(H) A 2nd point of gandhi;s antinational attitude was when during 1948, Pak. Rangers attacked Kashmir India decided to suspend the transfer of 500 crore rupees to Pakistan which was due to it....but again Gandhi went on a fast, and to pacify him the govt. transferred the money to Pakistan.

 

“Gandhi’s anti-national attitude” is an absurd phrase. You’re claiming the very man who devoted his life so that India can be a free nation is an anti-national? By the way, it was 50 crore rs., not 500 crore. But that is besides the point. The point is that Mahatma Gandhi in no way acted as an “anti-national” when he advocated the peaceful resolution of all the problems between the two newly-created nations. To that end, he would fast. Nothing wrong with that. Also, realize that the 50 crore owed to Pakistan was a legitimate transaction which was only halted when Pakistani guerilla forces attacked on the Kashmir lines; I agree that the suspension of the payment was a necessary reply to the use of violence on their part, but I cannot say that Gandhi was wrong in protesting the suspension because his intention was noble.

 

(I) *** U have conveniently ignored my position that reservation produces sub standard doctors, engineers,bureaucrats, educationalists, etc. Thus, i repeat when a quarter of our professionals will be of substandrad quality if will naturally be detrimental to our society and country *** The uneducated lower castes will never be able to make use of these benifits.....thus, my stance that education and only education will uplift the lower castes stands vindicated.

 

I “ignored” your position on that issue with it being understood that your claim of “1% benificiaries” and “detrimental effect on all of society” contradicted each other. But because I have “not under[stood] [your] viewpoint,” let us examine this issue further. The problem with the current system of uplifting the lower castes is not the principle behind it but the implementation of that principle. There is little or no political will to ensure the proper upliftment of the castes—judicial, executive, or legislative. Election Manifestos throughout the years have boasted of making equality for all and uplifting the Scheduled Castes & Tribes, but you’d have a hard time convincing a Rajasthani Dalit today that he is better off than he was 50 years ago. Providing education, as you propose, cannot be the sole method at upliftment because this is simply not enough. In the eyes of those that fervently support the caste system, a well-educated Dalit doctor is still a Dalit; by that very fact the Dalit has a lesser opportunity to find a job equivalent to his education. A Human Rights Watch report in March 1999 demonstrates just how big of a problem prejudice & discrimination based on caste is:

“Between 1994 and 1996, a total of 98,349 cases were registered with the police nationwide as crimes and atrocities against scheduled castes. Of these, 38,483 were registered under the Atrocities Act. A further 1,660 were for murder,2,814 for rape, and 13,671 for hurt. Given that Dalits are both reluctant and unable (for lack of police cooperation) to report crimes against themselves, the actual number of abuses is presumably much higher. While there are not yet official figures available on killings and attacks in 1997 and 1998, the latest wave of attacks described in this and other reports confirms that the violence has continued.”

 

Forget “undeducated lower castes” ability to “make use of these benefits”—the problem is that the very-much educated upper castes seem to be hindering the ability of the lower castes to climb the ladder to socioeconomic equality. An Allahabad High Court judge, in 1998, had his chambers “purified by Ganga jal” because it had been occupied earlier by a Dalit. This is absolutely dispicable. Caste upliftment must come from both sides, and education is as important as affirmitive action toward those being raised.

 

(J) *** Firstly, the laws of the land have been framed just 50 yrs back by these same pseudosecularists of the INC. So they dont hold much water.

 

Something has to be old to “hold much water”? I’m curious—how old, then do you take the laws should be before they should actually hold enough water for you to consider them worthy of being laws?

 

(K) India WAS NOT FOUNDED AS A SECULAR NATION....India in the past 5000 yrs was NOT SECULAR.....secularism means NOT CONCERNED WITH RELIGION......but the land of India has always been concerned with religion.......In 50 yrs, u cannot change 5000 yrs of our history......

 

First of all, India was founded as a secular nation because the Republic of India was only founded when the British left. India was not one nation in the “past 5000 years” but in fact was composed of various empires spanning various lengths of the subcontinent. Of course the “land of India has always been concerned with religion,” why would it not? It is even today, but not via a governmental body.

 

(L) *** Even without being secular in the conventional sense, our religion is the all embracing one and hence, it never persecuted anyone in the name of religion......so we don’t need a tag of secularism from anyone when the tenets of our religion are based on acceptance, tolerance and respect, then WHY THE HELL DO U NEED TO INTRODUCE THE ALIEN TERM SECULARISM???

 

The whole point of the term secular is to institute the belief that no religion is higher or more worthy of respect than another. To have made India into a Hindu nation would most necessarily have not been secular in the sense of the word, regardless of how all-embracing and tolerant Hinduism is. Because in the end, Hinduism is still a religion, a faith, a set of beliefs. What is wrong with making the nation secular?

 

(M) Indian Muslims have always actively sympathised with terrorists.....whether in Kashmir or America....so i have no sympathy for them....if they are NOT war mongers, then why dont they come forward and publicly denouce these terrorists.....SILENCE MEANS TACIT APPROVAL OF THEIR ACTIVITIES

 

“Indian Muslims have always actively sympathised with terrorists” you say, but in the same paragraph you say that they are “approving” the activities of terrorists by their silence. How are they actively supporting terrorists by being silent? Active support implies, at the very least, speaking in support. So you’re saying they’re both speaking in support of terrorist activities therefore making them terrorist-supporters, AND they’re being silent of terrorist activites therefore also making them terrorist-supporters? Should they be silent and talk at the same time? I don’t understand.

 

The fact that you parade around these labels of Indian Muslims “always actively sympath[izing] with terrorists” shows you are prejudiced. I need only ONE Indian Muslim who neither “actively” nor “always” nor “always actively” sympathizes with terrorists to disprove your statement, and I can supply you with dozens of people I know personally that do fit these categories. Due to your prejudiceness, you have single-handedly labled 120 million or more citizens of the Republic of India as traitors, conspirator, and silent terrorist-supporters.

 

(N) ISLAM NOT A RELIGION OF PEACEhttp://www.integralworld.net/harris20.html The fundamental intolerance and fanaticism of Islam are an undeniable fact. They can readily be proven from a large number of Quranic verses. I will merely give the verse numbers, so you can check it for yourself.

 

I don’t care for your opinion of Islam.

 

(O) ALSO YOUR ASSERTION THAT FUNDAMENTALISM EXISTS IN EVERY RELIGION IS FALSE....Show me one hindu scripture which asks people to defend their religion by means of violence and any scripture which promises a lustful paradise to the shaheeds who die in the cause of religion.....

 

My assertion that fundamentalism exists in every religion is not false. When I say “fundamentalism exists in every religion” I do not mean that it is condoned by the scriptures of every religion. As I explained earlier, fundamentalism and extremism results from the interpretation of scriptures. And as I explained earlier, an example of this is the Bhagavad Gita. Someone could easily interpret it as saying, “because it is your duty as a warrior, you should always defend your dharma by means of violence” and someone else can easily interpret it as saying, “one should always do their duty, even if it means doing violent acts you don’t want to do” etc. These two interpretations are only examples, and they would produce vastly different results if someone were to make it their day-to-day philosophy to follow one of these interpretations.

 

(P) KASHMIRI PANDITS DEFENDING THEMSELVES VIA ARMY? Your statement is Ludicrous...

Do u mean each armyman will protect one pandit apiece??? Where were the pseudosecularists when the ethnic cleansing was being carried out in Kashmir....why do the kashmiri muslims actively sympathise with the militants......WHY? In Kashmir, the pandits are minorities...why doesnt the govt. take care of them..........DO U HAVE ANY ANSWERS???

 

It is ludicrous that a civilized citizenry should defend itself by the army raised by its own government? You are implying that it is more civilized for the Kashmiri pandits to go out themselves to kill their Muslim neighbors just because the militants attacking them are also Muslim.

 

(Q) ** India is under constant attack...if we were not, then why did we have to fight 4 wars with Pakistan including the recent one in Kargil

 

My statement to which this response was directed implied that India is not under attack internally from its own Muslim community.

 

(S) ** The ISI is plotting against the country....the recent attacks on Ayodhya and at Akashdham are testimony to this fact. ISI building terror camps in Bangladesh and Nepal.

 

The ISI has nothing to do with India’s Muslims as far as I’m concerned. The ISI is a Pakistani body; operation of camps in Bangladesh and Nepal by the ISI does not imply anything about Indian Muslims.

 

(T) My friend, u should do a study of the abrahamic faiths which will prove that all these religions are anti science Wasnt galileo persecuted by the christian church......and wasnt there such a hue and cry about darwin;s theory of evolution....THat is why ISLAM DOESNT BELIEVE MODERN SCIENCE because it knows that all the theories in QUran would crumble like a pack of cards

 

I was being sarcastic, if you did not see so, when I said I was shocked to learn that a religion could be anti-science. Of course religion can be anti-science. Hinduism has lots of anti-scientific notions. Religion necessarily requires, to a certain extent, the belief in ideas beyond the scope of scientific investigation, so it is not surprising that Abrahamic faiths are notoriously in opposition to various scientific ideas. Galileo being persecuted by the Christian Church has nothing to do with Islam being “anti-science.” In fact, Islam being “anti-science” itself has nothing to do with this debate. What does it matter to you that someone’s beliefs discount science? Hinduism teaches you to accept that person’s belief as valid for him but maybe not valid for you.

 

(U) I have been to madarsas and asked the children whether they receive any scientific education....the answer was a unanimous "NO"

 

Again, what does it matter that Islam is anti-science or not anti-science? Do you go to Hindu temples with the clearcut intention of learning more in the field of biotechnology?

 

(V) religion is NOT TAUGHT IN TEMPLES EITHER Where will children learn about religion but in SCHOOLS....

 

So you’re saying that because religion is not taught in temples, it must be taught in schools? Here’s a radical concept: lets leave temples to be the teachers of religion and schools to be the teachers of non-religious applications of the human mind.

 

(W) U can teach children any subject under the sun, but when it comes to religion....it becomes xenophobia??? TEACHING VEDANTA WOULD MAKE PEOPLE XENOPHOBIACS, U ASK ME TO BELIEVE SUCH!

 

How would you feel if your Hindu son/daughter went to a school where everyone prayed to Allah, and everyone was taught to thank Allah, and everyone was required to recite verses from the Koran—all because you lived in a country where you were the minority and Muslims were the majority?

I’m not saying you’d be xenophobic to teach Vedanta in schools, I’m saying you’d be xenophobic to require non-Hindus to be learning Hindu ideals in their school.

 

(X) IF someone doesnt want to learn of our democractic process, because he says he believes in anarchy.......can that be allowed Therefore compulsory religious education is a MUST......whether u believe in religion, a god or not is secondary.....

 

The problem with “compulsary religious education” in public schools is that India’s minority population is sizable enough to matter.

 

(Y) *** U Said "India is NOT FOR HINDUS".....i disagree....INdia, was, is, and will be the land of sanatana dharma and its followers.....muslims should either behave themselves or find some other suitable accomodation......

 

I cannot find the exact phrase “India is not for Hindus” anywhere in my previous post. I don't believe I said it.

 

(Z) U have forgotten that the partition of India was solely on the basis of religion......Hence, millions of Hindus had to leave their homes in Pakistan....and become refugees in their own country........but again it was muslim appeasement by INC which allowed the muslims to stay back in such large numbers.........sheer hypocrisy of the highest degree

 

Are you saying it was hypocritical for people of the INC advocating religious tolerance and cooperation to say, “you don’t have to leave this country just because you are Muslim”? Sounds quite consistent to me, nothing hypocritical there.

 

(AA) WIth all due respect, Democracy is NOT ANTI RELIGION...COMMUNISM IS ANTI RELIGION......IN A DEMOCRACY>>> Majority rules

 

Majority rules. Again with the majoritarian democratic philosophy. I suppose you wouldn’t mind it if . passed a law that prohibited women in the workplace. Majority rules, of course, and men are the majority. I suppose you’d be okay with laws that punish Dalits for trying to overcome their low birth. Majority rules! And non-Dalits are the majority. The fact of the matter is that India and most other democracies are more pluralist in nature than they are majoritarian. Majority does NOT rule, per se. The interest groups with the greatest influence rule. That may or may not be inclusive of the majority.

 

(BB) *** U associate nationalism with jingoism...... Again shows your petty mindedness..... The RSS appreciated hitler;s organization skills which revived german industries after WWI......They dont appreciate his persecution of jews, either.....

I associate nationalism with jingoism because the latter is the extreme manifestation of the former. You cannot claim that there is no relationship between the two. The RSS appreciated Hitler’s organizational skills? That’s a laughable attempt to hide the fact that the RSS itself took Mr. Golwalkar’s book “We or Our Nationhood Defined” out of circulation. Here is an excerpt:

 

“German race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races-the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here.”

 

And Savarkar, the Hindu Mahasabha leader, declared that, “If we Hindus grow stronger in time Moslem friends ...will have to play the part of German Jews”.

 

Wow, they sure did love Hitler’s organizational skills.

 

(CC) *** A person must first think about his mother.....For every Indian, India is his mother......his motherland....thus, we are committed to our duties of sacrifice and renunciation of the highest degree for her and her alone........and the religion of sanatana dharma is the lifeblood of our motherland....and we have to protect its pristine purities at all costs......

 

And by “every Indian” you mean “every Hindu,” no? You’ve already declared 120 million Indians to be haters of their own “mother,” and I suppose the Christian & other minorities are headed in the same direction. Protecting Sanatana Dharma doesn’t mean you disassemble the presence of Islam and/or other religions in India. Protecting Sanatana Dharma means you make it live in peace alongside other faiths and show the world how tolerant and accepting and praiseworthy our ancient religion is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets analyze your replies;

 

I have several objections to this statement. First and foremost, religion has no place in public schools whatsoever

->> Sorry, but it’s the lack of a distant vision. I stand by my statement

 

 

Teaching “Hindu religion and culture” to non-Hindu children would most certainly alienate them and create more separation by religion

->> You are right; it indeed might be the case. And hence, non-Hindu children should be taught their own religion. I thought, it was very elementary. Hinduism was never a missionary religion; it does not seek to convert people of other faiths into its own fold. We believe everyone has to work for his own salvation. We believe not in conversion of faith, but in conversion of character.

 

 

Secondly, I absolutely believe that Hindu religion and culture is not something to be taught systematically but is something to be experienced

->> The difference between sanatana dharma and other prophetic creeds is Hinduism does not ask us to believe in God but to directly perceive God. Thus, you are again right when u say that religion has to be realized. Your wonderful footnote from the Bhagavad-Gita also mentions “all scriptures are unnecessary for the realized”. However, u err in the belief that religion is not to be taught systematically. All the scriptures are the guiding maps to the larger goal of realization. They are very important for the unrealized. Childhood is the period where all these questions about life and death first arise. Though a child is an eternal optimist, and nothing attracts him more than trivial sensualities, it is also the age when if given the highest moral, ethical and metaphysical thoughts will make the child stand up in good stead throughout his lifetime. In modern day society where we are witnessing the alarming rise in juvenile delinquency cases among adolscents, the phenomenal increase in stress among them, addictions and loss of ethics/morals, along with host of non-communicable diseases never seen before in children it is only religious nourishment that can conquer these ills plaguing modern day society.

 

->>Also, why teach Freud and Jung in psychology to the exclusion of Patanjali and the Upanishads? If we teach anything related to Hinduism in schools, it becomes communalism!

 

The propagation of Hindu religion and culture necessarily falls on the parents and the family environment in general, and also to temples and other exclusively Hindu organizations—not public schools. -

 

>> When parents themselves are unaware of the ideals of Hinduism, then the only hope is the coming generation. Remember, “Child is the father of a man”. 99 out of 100 Hindus are unaware of the tenets of their religion. They have no idea about the concept of eternity of soul, have foolishly started believing in alien concepts of heaven and hell, don’t know why they are worshipping these idols, and cant name 5 sages of yesteryear. Leave alone the Sruti scriptures; they have no idea about even the smritis. A few months a middle aged woman, our neighbour mentions to me that Maha Shivratri is celebrated because it is the birthday of Lord Shiva. Such a callous attitude towards religion does not augur well for the country, which from time immemorial has been the fountainhead of spirituality in this world.

 

->>Parents are ready to enroll their children in all kinds of extra curricular activities but when it comes to religion; they shirk off. This is because; they don’t know the value of religion, its importance in our lives. Moreover; they feel all religion is simply empty talk, a waste of time and energy.. Moreover, in this era of cutthroat competition, further intensified by caste-based reservations, the essence is on clearing exams rather than gain any spiritual knowledge. Thus, teaching of Vedanta in schools throughout the land is the need of the hour. And following the age-old adage “if Mohammed won’t go to the mountain, the mountain will come to Mohammed” can do this

 

So you’re saying that because religion is not taught in temples, it must be taught in schools? Here’s a radical concept: lets leave temples to be the teachers of religion and schools to be the teachers of non-religious applications of the human mind.

 

->> The schools run by the Ramakrishna Mission, The Arya Samaj have consistency achieved the highest scholastic accolades. And they impart religious education along with secular education. Thus, your concept is stereotypical and mine is revolutionary.

->> And this might come as a jolt to u, but in schools run by the RSS throughout the country, more than 15 students have cleared the IIT entrance examinations last year. And this yr, a muslim girl studying in a RSS aided school in Delhi secured 95% marks in her CBSE XII exams. And it’s your inherent folly to believe that the RSS tried to thrust Hindu religion upon non-Hindus.

However, the madarsas with their persistence on anti science, are enervating young Muslim boys and girl which is detrimental to the nation as a whole. More on that later

 

I’m saying you’d be xenophobic to require non-Hindus to be learning Hindu ideals in their school -

>>By now the confusion must be clear. Hindu ideals are for Hindus only. But if they cannot sing the Saraswati Vandana which is very secular to me or the Vande Mataram then they can walk out

 

If the BJP supports the saffron flag wavers in their efforts to make Hindutva the rule of the land, then the debate of rewriting textbooks is absolutely absurd. Hindutva fanatics claim the textbooks have been whitewashed with false concepts and ideas.

 

->>I was avoiding bringing this topic on history rewriting. However, u have now compelled me to debate this issue too

 

that Jesus Christ wandered the Himalayas and drew his inspiration from Hinduism

->>There is indeed some merit in this statement. According to Paramhansa Yogananada, author “Autobiography of a yogi”, Jesus came to India, and attained enlightenment here before going to preach in the west.

 

You have sited a paltry 3 instances of RSS history rewriting which are indeed deplorable. But nothing can be more deplorable and more denigrating than the blatant history rewriting of these antinational pseudosecularists. The destruction of any civilization is always done through distorting its history. A version of history is created to turn the victims into villains and the destroyers into heroes.

Some instances

1. Propagation of the myth of the Aryan invasion theory : the main forces behind the Aryan invasion theory, and of education policy in general, was the conversion of Hindus to Christianity to make them accept British rule. According to the Aryan invasion theory, the Vedas and Sanskrit language were brought by these Indo-European invaders and not native to India. (This is now demolished by science and also the decipherment of the Harappan writing.)

2. Aryans were barbaric: no self respecting Indian can adhere to such ludicrous statements

3. Aryans destroyed the Harappan civilization: conclusively disproved.

4. The atrocities and barbaric acts of terror and mayhem unleashed upon India by the forces of Islamic terror led by Md. Qasim, Ghuri, Ghazni, the slave dynasty, Alaudin Khilji, Timur are unparallel in the annals of human civilization. They came for JIHAD-> total war against all including civilians. These barbarians massacred millions of Hindus, raped Hindu mothers and daughters and made them their slaves, destroyed every single Hindu temple in north and east India, plundered all the wealth of India, and last but not the least forcibly converted millions of Hindus by the sword.

5. And yet, these leftist historians led by Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, P S Sharma have time and again distorted these truths. None of the history books authored by them (and followed by the CBSE board) mention these atrocities or wherever mentioned have been diluted beyond recognition by the naïve child. According to them the invaders came only for wealth and had nothing to do with the people, they converted none, they didn’t break idols, and they didn’t commit atrocities along with all kinds of nonsense. There is no mention that 75000 women committing mass sati along with Rani Padmini to escape the clutches of Alaudin Khilji! Their very motive of attainment of the sensual heaven was pleasing Allah through their wanton acts of destruction of the idols of non believers. The very writings of the court poets of these conquerors are testimony to the fact. But here is what Babar himself says in his autobiography, the Baburnama. "Chanderi had been in the daru'l-harb [Hindu rule] for some years and held by Sanga's highest-ranking officer Meidini Rao, with four or five thousand infidels, but in 934 [1527-28], through the grace of God, I took it by force within a ghari or two, massacred the infidels, and brought it into the bosom of Islam." And when in a particularly happy mood, he wrote the following poem: For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer; I battled infidels and Hindus. I determined to become a martyr. Thank God I became a holy warrior. And what did he find interesting in India? "Hindustan," he wrote, "is a place of little charm.

The one nice aspect of Hindustan is it is a large country with lots of gold and money .In other words, he came to India attracted by loot. Hence, I stand by my statement that any HOLY PLACED NAMED AFTER A BARBARIAN LIKE BABUR IS BLASPHEMY. AND THE HOLY PLACE I REFER TO IS A MOSQUE ITSELF. NO HOLY PLACE LIKE TEMPLE, MOSQUE, CHURCH should be named after a barbarian. If it is, then that place cannot be holy by any means

6. The advent of the Islamic fanaticism in India was the cause of introduction of social evils like child marriage, purdah, women illiteracy and sati. I need not repeat that such details have been shelved in these books.

7. Glorification of the Mughal Rule: No rule, not even the British did as much damage as the mughal rule. It was an era of dark ages of the Indian civilization, an age of nescience, decadence, superstition and fear. Yet, these historians have glorified this very age as the pinnacle of Indian civilization! The chapter on akbar is titled “Akbar the great”…akbar and great! To call a man great who had a harem of 5000 women, such hedonism of the highest degree and u call him great….The same Akbar who killed 50,000 unarmed Rajputs who had surrendered to him after the fall of Chittor….the same Akbar who forcibly married several Hindu princesses……his only saving grace was that he abolished the tax of jeziya on non muslims and founded the neutral religion of din-I-ilahi. Thus Akbar was more civilized when compared with his predecessors or successors but in no way was he great; neither in degree nor in kind.

8. Next the chapter on Jahangir and Shah Jahan is titled “The age of magnificence”. I would aptly rename it as “the age of decadence”

9. Great centers of learning like Nalanda, Vaishali, Sarnath, Vikramashila, Taksha-shila, and many more — they attracted students from all over Asia and the world. Following the Islamic invasion of India, all these centers were destroyed. In the centuries following, during the next eight hundred years, not a single university was established by any Muslim ruler. This was a Dark Age worse than what overtook Europe in the middle Ages.

10. Next the freedom struggle : The name of Sri Aurobindo who became the first extremist (read nationalist) president of the INC in 1910, Pune Session of the congress deleted. Why? Because Sri Aurobindo was a staunch critic of Gandhi;s philosophies. And I will prefer to believe a realized man than a man who was perennially confused.

11. Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad method;s were morally weak. What right do these third rate historians have to rate patriots who renounced their life for the cause of their motherland. Subhas Bose whom Clement Attlee described as the root cause of India;s independence was sidelined in favour of Nehru by who else, but these very false historians.

12. To the victor belong the spoils it is said. So does history. In more homely language, President Harry Truman said: "History is always written by the winner." By this he meant that the victorious side invariably seeks to impose a version of history that shows itself and its leaders in the most favorable light. The truth of this is reflected in the way history books were written after India gained independence. They dinned into the heads of impressionable young students that the Congress party and its leaders fought long and hard to free the country from European domination. In particular, our history books told us of the Herculean struggles of Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru without which India would have remained a British colony.

13. Just as ancient and medieval history have been distorted under Congress patronage, history of the Freedom Movement has also been dressed up to favor the Congress and the Communists. This distortion has the following three parts: (1) Building up the role of Gandhi and Nehru while suppressing the contribution of others, notably Subhas Bose. (2) Whitewashing Gandhi’s terrible blunder of supporting the Khilafat Movement and the atrocities of the Mopla Rebellion that followed. (3) Whitewashing the treachery of the Communists

 

->>But what else can be expected from these Marxist Historians whose deification of Marx, Stalin and Mao will put the counterparts of any theosophical religion to shame. And these very communists supported China against India during the 1962 war!

 

->>I admit the RSS is not the ideal for propagating Hindu ideology. Like u mentioned, those instances of mentioning Taj Mahal as a Hindu temple of yore are gratuitous indeed. The need of the hour is portrayal of truth and the only truth. There is no scope for fantasy in History of any kind.

 

You must understand that the Muslim community is, once again, not a monolithic entity with one thought and one opinion. Women, especially, are all for discounting the influence the AIMPLB has on Muslim affairs .

 

->>But indeed my friend, Islam is monolithic in character. The religion is based on one book which further supplements as a law book. Any religion, which brings laws into its fold, is destined to be doomed. Laws are made by men, not by GOD. Further, they change with the vicissitudes of time.

 

->>Ahh…women in Islam? The very nature of the religion of Islam is ANTI WOMAN. Mohammed himself mentions that there are very few women in paradise and to always beware of women. No self-respecting woman in this civilized world should be Muslim.

 

->>Instead of admitting that the religion of Islam is in need of drastic reform, u are instead trying to circumvent this very question!. Remember, the question of women empowerment will not arise, until the laws to protect their rights of living with honour and dignity are already present. The very woman who are subject to discrimination accept their fate meekly by surrendering to the will of almighty Allah who made men to master women. When majority of muslim women in India are illiterate (much more than their Hindu counterparts) how on earth do u expect them to fight for their rights. There might be a few exceptions…but they will always remain exceptions rather than the rule

 

Advani, have been actively participating toward the destruction of the Babri masjid in 1992? Why else would its Election Manifesto of 1998 gloriously proclaim, “The BJP will explore all consensual, legal and constitutional means to facilitate the construction of Shri Ram Mandir at Ayodhya

 

->>Consensual, legal, constitution: all 3 words are very much within the domain of a democracy (of any kind!)

Cannot find anything wrong with that..

->>This very man, Advani had the courage to highlight the secularist nature of Jinnah;s speech in Pakistan for which his own position among the Sangh parivar and the BJP reached its nadir. Yet, like any true follower of the Geeta, he stood by his statements and was prepared to resign over the matter. Hats off to him!

 

They used the bandwagon of Hindutva to sweep power and abandoned it when they no longer felt it was needed.

 

->>The ideology of Hindutva was never abandoned. But in a coalition government, the controversial issues of Ayodhya, Article 370 and UCC had to be sidelined. Moreover; the BJP never had a simple majority of its own; leave alone a 2/3rd majority, which is required for the necessary amendments to the constitution. Hence, these policies had to be put in the backburner for the greater good of the country. And the NDA led government was able to provide a first class government whose foreign policies (especially regarding Israel, USA and Pakistan), economic policies (of liberalization) were indeed nonpareil.

 

how does not “appeasing Muslim demands” constitute a pro-Hindu attitude

 

->>The only reason u cannot visualize it, is your lack of insight. All acts of minority appeasement are inherently Anti National. Since 82% Hindus constitute India, therefore all nationalistic policies are Indirectly Pro Hindu and all anti nationalistic policies are Anti Hindu

 

Again, how does being anti-Muslim make the BJP pro-Hindu?

 

->>The BJP is not Anti Muslim. It is against appeasement of Muslims. And since the appeasement policies hinder the growth of the country spiritually, economically, educationally, from the point of human rights these policies deserve to be dumped into the pits of hell from which they arose. May they return from whence they came!!!

ANYTHING NATIOANLISTIC -> PRO NATION -> PRO INDIA -> PRO Hindu

 

The Hinduism that I know doesn’t encourage me to go around bashing on other peoples’ religion and beliefs and heritage simply because they are different than me or because their ancestors abused my ancestors. The Hindusim I know doesn’t tell me to take pilgrimages to Ayodhya in order that I desecrate someone else’s place of worship and build my own on top. It doesn’t encourage me to arm myself with swords and tridents and kerosene bombs in order that I punish my Muslim neighbors for the wrongs their ancestors committed.

 

->>Oh, the shibboleths of you self-acclaimed messiahs of peace are so alike.

Your statements don’t make sense to me, and this is why;

1. Hinduism does not ask people to break mosques but it doesn’t say not to defend its places of worship. And all the time, the cacophony all pseudosecularists and u too emit is the BJP destroys mosques. Apart from one mosque in Ayodhya, built by a Barbarian, not having any religious sanctity, was any other mosque touched during the BJP Regime? I will quote what u said “History happened. Live with it!” And Mark my words “Never will another temple be razed, in our hallowed land because the Muslims will have realized that such acts of terror will be returned in kind”

2. The only other evidence u can present to me about BJP’s Anti Muslim leanings are the Gujarat Riots. But those very riots were triggered by the mass murder of 100 train bound innocent Hindus by some fanatical Muslims. And more than 300 Hindus were themselves killed in these riots during crossfire. True, around 1000 muslims were killed, the majority of them being innocent of the crime. But let me remind u that Hindu Muslim riots have taken place earlier also…..in Bhagalpur in Bihar under a congress regime. And they were incited by Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. This is evident from Mrs. Sonia Gandhi;s conduct in Bihar, where her reversal of stand over President’s Rule led to massacres of innocent people about which she had nothing to say.. I do not know what made her change her stand on Bihar overnight. I don’t know why she and her followers never bothered to visit the victims of the tragedy And this very man called Rajiv Gandhi incited the 1984 Sikh Riots against which the Gujarat Riots will pale in comparison. So, if the BJP is communal the congress is 100 times more communal. And because you don’t agree you are also communal in a broader sense. The difference between the fanatics of VHP and you is only in degree and not in kind.

3. Arming yourself with tridents and kerosene bombs? ->>The idea is so laughable. Why not arm oneself with revolvers, AK 47 and rocket launchers. They are more reliable to say the least

 

Question on Hindu appeasement : The BJP has never appeased Hindus. If its policy on the Rama Janambhoomi issue has popular sentiment it cannot be helped. But the congress has gone against fundamental principles; of “Freedom of speech and expression” by banning anti muslim books which have been written by creditable authors. If Islam cannot see constructive criticism then is it the fault of the Hindus?

 

 

The BJP is against giving citizenship to & supporting criminal Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants.

 

->>But it does depict the anti national character of the congress party. To put the security of the entire country in peril at the cost of maintaining its Muslim vote bank! An insecure and unstable nation is a bane for all Hindus of India. And I have proved that nationalism is pro Hindu.

 

Holding seats for Muslims means the government is anti-Hindu? Does this mean that funding research for curing AIDS means the government hates cancer patients? Does making laws to benefit the handicapped mean the government hates the non-handicapped?

 

->>All your sophistry is in vain. If the same reservation was made for Brahmins below poverty line it would have decried by the congress and its votaries like you as communalization of politics.

There is no place for religious reservation is a secular country.

 

I support the UCC not because of religious and nationalistic ideology but because of a liberal commitment of equality of law for all .

 

->>Again, depicts your lack of insight into the need for UCC. You have contradicted yourself time and again and this statement is no exception. Don’t u realize that India is a country of massive cultural and regional diversity. Among Hindus, there are innumerable castes, and subcastes, and regional diversities. Naturally, the customs, the mores and the laws vary from region to region. Hence, a UCC will result in egalitarianism of the Indian society as a whole; not particularly Hindu or Muslim society. Hindu extremism can never be a national ideology via the UCC. There is no place for extremism in UCC. If someone believes in such pipedreams let him do so

 

Note, however, that majoritarianism in democracy is notoriously recognized to be detrimental to minority rights

->>It is not. The fundamental rights are the same for all citizens irrespective of caste, creed, and religion in any democracy.

 

 

So you’re now claiming that most of the 120 million Muslim men, women, and children living in India sympathetically rejoice at terrorist attacks

 

->>I Never used the word rejoice. And these people always criticize terrorists onditionally. WHen Osama killed millions the most liberal of them would say "yes he is bad but look at the cause of this! the cause is US support for ISRAEL;s actions on palestine"... Terrorists have no cause; they kill to acheive their lustful paradise with abundant beautiful horis that allah made for those who die in the cause of Islam as explained by Mohammed in the Quran.

->>Hence, such conditional apologies hold no water. The denouncement of such acts of inhuman terror has to be UNCONDITIONAL.

 

Would you not agree that people everywhere in the world are always innocent until proven guilty

 

->>You can prove guilty via two counts. One through direct evidence. The other via circumstantial evidence, which is whopping

 

BUT NOW LET ME COME TO THE BROADER QUESTION OF WHY ISLAM AND NATIONALISM ARE POLES APART

Islam has often been glorified as advocating the brotherhood of man. Yes, it does but in a very narrow sense of the word. It advocates brotherhood among all Muslims, but all non muslims are labeled Kafirs or Non believers who are destined to rot in hell. Dogma divides and nationalism unites. Since, there is no concept of country in Islam, there can be no nationalism either. Instead, we find Indian muslims shrieking hoarse for the rights of fellow muslims in Palestine, Europe, USA and defending their grotesque acts of terror. Hence, the Muslim is always in a catch-22 situation; his dilemma of whether to be loyal to his country or to his religion.

 

 

The more practical solution was to live in cooperation with the foreigners

 

->>Sorry, I have to rephrase this statement of yours. “The more practical solution is for foreigners to live in co-operation with the natives”.

 

Why don’t the Muslims realize the sentiments of Hindus”—what sentiments do you speak of?

 

->>I speak of the sentiments of persecution and intolerance which the ancestors of the these very muslims inflicted on our Hindu forefathers. By agreeing to a temple in the disputed site of Ayodhya, it might ingite a fire of brotherhood among Hindus and Muslims alike. But that seems like a distant dream.

 

All you can do is find a way to live the present so the atrocities of the past cannot be repeated

 

->>Indeed, that is what the BJP has done. Strength is life, weakness is death. Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly! Just like the story of the snake and the sage. “A snake comes in contact with a sage. The sage asks the snake to follow a life of ahimsa. The snake agrees and the sage departs. But when the sage returns after few days he finds the snake battered by the villagers and close to death. The snake said he followed his principle. The sage replied ‘But u could have always hissed!” And never will anyone mistake our ahimsa for weakness. Remember, it was the question of one mosque and for the greater good of the country it had to be brought down. It was a necessary act of evil. It was a natural consequence of the Muslim appeasement policies being carried out by the INC for 45 yrs (nay 90 if u take into consideration the pre-partition era) , and Hindus had lost all their reserves of patience

 

To have made India into a Hindu nation would most necessarily have not been secular in the sense of the word, regardless of how all-embracing and tolerant Hinduism is. Because in the end, Hinduism is still a religion, a faith, a set of beliefs. What is wrong with making the nation secular

 

->>I don’t care about sense of the word as secularism is a western term with no Indian counterpart. And let me remind you, that the word secularism was NOT there in our original preamble but was later inserted by the Ex-Pm Indira Gandhi. What else can u expect from a bird-brained woman who signed the dubious Simla Accord.

 

->>Making the nation secular, means weakening religion. The countries of the west are not moved by religion but by Science and politics. But India has from time immemorial been moved by religion and only religion and so shall it be. Hence, the ideas of religion merit a special place in India unlike the west and hence the concepts of western secularism cannot be applied to us. We were not secular ever and never shall we be……

 

Here I quote Sri Aurobindo ;

 

When therefore it is said that India shall rise,

it is Sanatana Dharma that shall rise.

When it is said that India shall be great,

it is Sanatana Dharma that shall be great.

When it is said that India shall expand and extend itself,

it is Sanatana Dharma that shall expand and extend itself

all over the world.

It is for the Dharma and by the Dharma that India exists

 

THE QUESTION OF GANDHI

 

As Karl Popper once observed: "If our civilization is to survive, we must break with the habit of deference to great men. Great men make great mistakes”

 

Instead of leading a national movement, Gandhi started a gigantic non-cooperation movement in support of something called the Khilafat.

 

Most history books today mention the 1920 Non-Cooperation Movement, but barely note what gave rise to it — the Khilafat. As a result, most Indians believe that the Non-Cooperation Movement was the first great struggle for freedom launched by the Congress under Gandhi’s leadership. It was nothing of the sort. It was a movement in support of the theocratic goals of the Khilafat: in fact, it was called the ‘ Khilafat Non-Cooperation Movement’ . Its aim was to persuade the British to restore the Sultan of Turkey who had lost his empire following the First World War. This is an important point: the Khilafat Non-Cooperation Movement had no national goals. Its demand was not freedom for India, but the restoration of a discredited theocratic ruler in far away Turkey whom the Turks themselves didn’t want. And strangely, Gandhi and the Congress supported this irrelevant goal to the extent even of suspending Swaraj! If anything, it was anti-national.. The Turks themselves under Kemal Ataturk eventually drove their Sultan into exile..

 

By no stretch of the imagination can the Khilafat be regarded an issue affecting the nation or Swaraj. In return for his support for the Khilafat, Gandhi obtained, or thought he obtained Muslim support for launching his nationwide nonviolent non-cooperation movement. In order to get their support, Gandhi went on to redefine Swaraj to mean support for the Khilafat. In his words:

 

"To the Musalmans Swaraj means, as it must, India's ability to deal effectively with the Khilafat question. ... It is impossible not to sympathise with this attitude. ... I would gladly ask for the postponement of the Swaraj activity if we could advance the interest of the Khilafat."

 

So Swaraj, which previously meant self-rule, became transformed overnight into support for the Khilafat — to restore the Sultan of Turkey! Let us not forget that the Congress, only a year earlier, had adopted Swaraj (as independence) as its goal. Yet, Gandhi was telling the nation that the restoration of the Sultan of Turkey — whom the Turks themselves eventually kicked out — was more important for him than Indian independence! The result was a ‘jihad’ by Muslim leaders against the British that was later turned against the Hindus. It led to the death of tens of thousands of innocent people all over India. It was particularly virulent in Kerala where it is known as the Moplah Rebellion which is known for its sheer brutality on women. But what can u expect from the majority of muslims who look down upon women as an object of lust gratification.

 

And Swaraj as the goal did not return to the Congress until 1929. In other words, Gandhi and the Congress gave up the cause of freedom in support of a faraway theocratic institution called the Caliphate. How can this be called nationalism? And how can its leaders — including Gandhi — be called ‘national’ leaders?

 

And even Md. Ali Jinnah, was against the Khilafat movement.

 

As I just remarked, Swaraj returned to the Congress agenda only in 1929, leading to the Civil Disobedience Movement in 1930. It was a similar story with the Civil Disobedience Movement also. After the magnificent promise of the Dandi Salt March — organized mainly by Sardar Patel — Gandhi abandoned his followers in midstream in return for the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. Here is what happened though history books today seldom present the true facts.

 

2. This very man Gandhi who walked his principles of ahimsa was so stubborn and arrogant about his principles; he was so self-righteous that without mincing words; his was a dictatorial attitude of the highest degree. Aren’t u aware of the millions of Hindus who were killed in the riots in Calcutta during partition. Who is to blame but Gandhi?

 

4. He labeled Bhagat Singh, Azad and others as terrorists. The perpetuators of the Moplah Rebellion were not criminals but he had the audacity to call these great freedom fighters as terrorists.

 

5. And finally a Mahatma is a man who has renounced the world. What did Mr Gandhi renounce in his life. After enjoying marital bliss for 20 yrs and after having four children he decided to take the vow of Brahmacharya at the age of 37 when possibly he was drained of all vigour. Infact, at that moment he even advocated the concept of brahmacharya. The hypocrisy of the man is too well evident now, first he enjoyed all lustful desires and then goes on to become a self conferred saint. If he was so uncomfortable with the tag of Mahatma he should have rejected it that very moment instead of hanging it around his neck like the dead albatross!

 

 

 

THE CASTE QUESTION

 

 

The problem with the current system of uplifting the lower castes is not the principle behind it but the implementation of that principle

->>1.The principle is the primary problem, hence its implementation will remain a utopian dream. For the basic principle that lower castes are being discriminated in cities is absolutely false. I live in Delhi and I can assure you that there is not a single case of caste based discrimination. And this is the case with all major cities and majority of suburbs. Caste based discrimination exists only in the remote villages. And there the benefits of the positive discrimination will never percolate.

 

->>2. The very principle is absurd when a significant number of India’s 250 million BPL population are comprised of the higher caste including Brahmins. They don’t get any reservations.

 

->>3. In the extremely competitive Indian education system of competitive exams, merit should be the only criteria. Thousands of higher castes students who for no fault of theirs; except that perhaps few of their forefathers had committed some atrocities against the lower castes; are rejected inspite of securing much higher marks than their sc/st counterparts. This only creates a sense of disillusionment against the system and discrimination, which further widens the rift between the castes in society.

 

->>4.The statistics you mentioned have not much value. For 2814 rape cases are nothing in a country where every day more than 10 women are raped. And secondly dalits not reporting cases to police is a thing evident only in villages, not in cities and suburbs. I am aware of the ground realities and you are not. Isolated incidents (high court judge instance) should be brushed aside rather than extrapolated as a generalization.

 

But you’d have a hard time convincing a Rajasthani Dalit today that he is better off than he was 50 years ago. Providing education, as you propose, cannot be the sole method at upliftment because this is simply not enough. In the eyes of those that fervently support the caste system, a well-educated Dalit doctor is still a Dalit; by that very fact the Dalit has a lesser opportunity to find a job equivalent to his education

 

->>Hence; chuck off this system, which has not borne fruit in 50 yrs by your own admission

Dalit doctors can find a job much easily than a higher caste doctor because reservations exist even in the post graduation arena. A well educated Dalit doctor abused the positive discrimination system; hence he is looked down upon. If that very dalit doctor had cleared the pre-med exams on merit, the scenario would have been entirely different.

And who will like to get treated by a substandard doctor? Will you???

 

 

As I explained earlier, fundamentalism and extremism results from the interpretation of scriptures

 

->>I will just pose you a simple question? Which religion has caused the most bloodshed in the history of mankind. The answer is Islam.

 

You are implying that it is more civilized for the Kashmiri pandits to go out themselves to kill their Muslim neighbors just because the militants attacking them are also Muslim.

 

->>The muslim neighbors are hand in glove with the terrorists. Or else why will the terrorists selectively cleanse Hindus only? And why do the muslim neighbors never publicly denounce these so called militants. No, pandits are too weak to fight their muslim neighbors. And as soon as one innocent muslim neighbor is killed accidentally by armymen; a hue and cry, innumerable rallies and protest come out in support of the deceased. All human rights organization start pulverizing these armymen who are sacrificing their lives for the country. But let a hundred hindus be killed; and not one word of condemnation escapes the lips of these muslim neighbors. They are all a bunch of fanatical hypocrites.

 

The ISI has nothing to do with India’s Muslims as far as I’m concerned. The ISI is a Pakistani body; operation of camps in Bangladesh and Nepal by the ISI does not imply anything about Indian Muslims .

 

->>But with whose help does the ISI plot their targets. Like in the attack on .; the involvement of four muslims was highlighted and one Mr. Geelanai escaped because of lack of concrete evidence whom the court held “very suspicious behaviour”. And he is a member of the muslim elite teaching arabics in Zakir Hussain college; who publicly demands a free state of Azad Kashmir.

 

Hinduism has lots of anti-scientific notions. Religion necessarily requires, to a certain extent, the belief in ideas beyond the scope of scientific investigation

 

->>Hindusim has NO anti scientific notions. Hinduism is itself a science; “THE SCIENCE OF REALIZATION”. Hinduism does not ask to believe in god; but to directly perceive god.

->>Many of the stories of the puranas have a deeper metaphysical explanation which are all scientific. And anyway the puranas are all secondary. Show me a line of the Upanishads which is unscientific. Our religion explains law of conservation of energy, matter energy interrelationship, wave and particle nature, etc. Max Planck was a self conferred Vedantist. And Michael Faraday was highly impressed by Vivekananda. The latter had asked him to research the matter energy relationship but Faraday failed while Einstein succeeded.

 

In fact, Islam being “anti-science” itself has nothing to do with this debate. What does it matter to you that someone’s beliefs discount science? Again, what does it matter that Islam is anti-science or not anti-science

 

->>Yes it does! An anti science religion is detrimental to the progress of the nation as a whole.

1. Many muslims have notions that polio drops will make females infertile and men impotent. And hence, we are still short of eradicating polio

2. Muslims refuse to use Oral contraceptives, condoms because it is against their religion. And their fertility rate refuses to go down.

3. By refusing to study science, they don’t get jobs -> no jobs -> poverty, illiteracy ignorance -> back to square one. A vicious circle is envisaged

4. Refuse antenatal care for their women by male doctors. High incidents of MMR and IMR.

5. Concept of Purdah is detrimental both to mother and child.

 

->>Europe in 1600-1700 fought against the antiscience ethics of Christianity and only when science won did industrial revolution come up in Europe to achieve prosperity and the high standards of living.

 

German race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races-the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here

 

->>Race pride at its highest indeed.I don’t see anything in here which highlights Gowalkar praising Hitler or espoused his persecution of Jews.

 

And Savarkar, the Hindu Mahasabha leader, declared that, “If we Hindus grow stronger in time Moslem friends ...will have to play the part of German Jews

 

->>Savarkar believed in a strong Hindu society and in the Hindutva ideology of one nation, one culture, one people, which meant no special provisions for any minority

And his book “The first war of independence” influenced millions of Indians and brought into them a deep sense of nationalistic pride.

And this freedom fighter spent 14 yrs in Kalapani (the jails of Andaman). Niether Nehru, nor Gandhi can claim any such Sacrifice. Bose and many other nationalistic leaders looked upon Savarkar as there ideal and his concept of Akhanda Bharat was supreme unlike the congressmen who had no qualms in diving the country for their lust for power.

 

THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM:

It is NOT that Muslims are bad. They are like any other people but it their religion which is making bad men out of them. And they ought to denounce it now for their present and future.

The muslims need to be retold that they are all converted Hindus and they are most welcome to come back to their original religious fold. Especially the muslim women; who have for centuries been exploited by their men in the name of Islam. The only other alternative is reform of the religion of Islam which is indeed a more dangerous proposition as it will incur the wrath of the mad mullahs who are the guardians of their book.

Until that day dawns, when this ageless and timeless Sanatana Dharma is enshrined as the national ideology and the foundation of nationalism, regardless of which political party is in power, India is an incomplete nation. The sages have done their work. It is for us, the ordinary people — and especially the leaders — to heed their call and build this spiritual nation. Until that day India is politically free but not spiritually free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said, “non-Hindu children should be taught their own religion” while also asserting that, “ a UCC will result in egalitarianism of the Indian society as a whole; not particularly Hindu or Muslim society.

Here is the contradiction that I do not understand: you support that Indian society be more egalitarian (therefore supporting equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people) while also supporting teaching different religions to different children in school. My objection is, first, that it would not be practical to have Muslims learn of Islam, Christians learn of Christianity, Hindus of Hinduism, etc etc etc, all under the same schoolhouse while ALSO being equal to each child’s religious education. The religious beliefs of every child cannot possibly be met by every school—what of the atheists, the agnostics, the Wiccans? What of adivasis? What do you suppose these children would learn? Certainly it would not be egalitarian to not include them. My second objection is that teaching religion in school fundamentally is not secular. We’ve established there shouldn’t be different laws for different religions in a truly secular government (thus, institute the UCC), so why should there be government rules that fund the forcible teaching of different religions to different students? By keeping the government away from religion altogether, religion has more freedom to grow and prosper on its own merit, and government has the neutrality and biaslessness required to fairly and democratically run a diverse nation of many peoples and faiths.

 

However, u err in the belief that religion is not to be taught systematically. All the scriptures are the guiding maps to the larger goal of realization. They are very important for the unrealized.

No Hindu scriptures systematically teaches religion. Hinduism is fundamentally non-sytematic because so many different paths exist toward the truth that people can only be, like you said, guided by scripture. I don’t doubt that they are important for the unrealized, and never claimed to. My point is that Hinduism is a personal search for the truth—temples, scriptures, gurus, etc. all are secondary to this aspect of it being a personal search. What would you have the children be taught? Dvaitva or adviatva? Vaishnava or Shivaite scriptures? Too much religious diversity exists simply in Hinduism alone, not speaking of other religions, for a practical systematic teaching to occur. This is why it is better that children grow old enough to choose what they believe by their own judgment and be given the resources (from nongovernment organizations) to explore that spiritual path to their pleasing.

 

it is also the age when if given the highest moral, ethical and metaphysical thoughts will make the child stand up in good stead throughout his lifetime.

Are you saying that the teaching of his/her own personal religion will make the child of “highest moral, ethical, and metaphysical” standing? I thought you believed Islam to be a religion which is “making bad men out of” Muslims?

 

When parents themselves are unaware of the ideals of Hinduism, then the only hope is the coming generation. Remember, “Child is the father of a man”. 99 out of 100 Hindus are unaware of the tenets of their religion.

If Hindus are not aware of their religious heritage, it is not the fault or the responsibility of the government to educate them to that end. I don’t see why it would be.

 

Such a callous attitude towards religion does not augur well for the country, which from time immemorial has been the fountainhead of spirituality in this world.

In no time was it “the fountainhead of spirituality” by means of in-school teaching programs, now, was it? If it can survive 5000 years w/o government interrference (and even under government oppression, I don’t see the need for government involvement now, no matter how morally degraded you view society to becoming.

 

This is because; they don’t know the value of religion, its importance in our lives. Moreover; they feel all religion is simply empty talk, a waste of time and energy..

Who are you to tell parents, “religion is valuble in YOUR life”? I think they have the right to decide how important they want religion to be in their own life and the lives of their children. The government should be neutral to this; let religion be important in your life if you wish, let it be not important if you wish. And if you do choose to have it important, then pick any religion and follow it freely to whatever extent you wish. Freedom of religion requires this.

 

Moreover, in this era of cutthroat competition, further intensified by caste-based reservations, the essence is on clearing exams rather than gain any spiritual knowledge.

Because spiritual knowledge will somehow relieve us of competition…???

 

Thus, teaching of Vedanta in schools throughout the land is the need of the hour.

Nothing here points to the teaching of religion by the government. There is no reason why a non-government movement can gain ground on its own merit for teaching of the Vedanta if people really feel it is that important to their lives.

 

And it’s your inherent folly to believe that the RSS tried to thrust Hindu religion upon non-Hindus.

Citing cases where the RSS’s schools resulted in good scores on scientific exams doesn’t discount that they teach absurd theories and promote hatred against “foreigners”. I do not think anyone can seriously believe the RSS is an organization which views Muslims and Hindus as equals after hearing the inflamatory speeches of its proponents. Check out the documentary <u>Final Solution</u>.

 

But if they cannot sing the Saraswati Vandana which is very secular to me or the Vande Mataram then they can walk out

First, the Saraswati Vandana is by no means secular. Secular necessarily means “not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body;” and the Saraswati Vandana is full of “relations” to religion and specifically the Hindu religious body. The english translation of it:

“May Goddess Saraswati, who is fair like the jasmine-colored moon, and whose pure white garland is like frosty dew drops; who is adorned in radiant white attire, on whose beautiful arm rests the veena, and whose throne is a white lotus; who is surrounded and respected by the Gods, protect me. May you fully remove my lethargy, sluggishness, and ignorance.”

Just the first two words—referring to a goddess—make it blasphemous for Muslims and Christians. It is clearly Hindu. Vande Mataram is not completely void of a Hindu bias either, but much more suitable for being universal.

 

I think it is absurdly wrong to say someone must be able to sing some song you personally value in order for them to live in the same country you do. This is the tolerance Hinduism teaches you?

 

A version of history is created to turn the victims into villains and the destroyers into heroes.

Some instances:

1. Aryan Invasion Theory propagation

2. Aryans were barbaric: no self-respecting Indian can adhere to such ludicrous statements

3. Aryans destroyed the Hararppan civilization

 

I have personally chosen to stay away from the debate of the Aryan Invasion Theory; clearly the traditional theory is, at the very least, not entirely correct. But I feel more questions have to be answered before a conclusion void of doubt can be reached.

 

According to [leftist historians led by Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, & P.S. Sharma] the [Muslim] invaders came only for wealth and had nothing to do with the people, they converted none, they didn’t break idols, and they didn’t commit atrocities along with all kinds of nonsense. There is no mention that 75000 women committing mass sati along with Rani Padmini to escape the clutches of Alaudin Khilji!

 

I agree with you to a certain extent in that Romila Thapar and etc may have their own agenda in their historical analysis, but I am not aware of enough details to conclusively make a stand on this issue. What I do agree with is that a bias in history is just as wrong whether it be leftist or rightist. Accusing the left of being biased does not relieve the right of the same crime.

 

HOLY PLACED NAMED AFTER A BARBARIAN LIKE BABUR IS BLASPHEMY. AND THE HOLY PLACE I REFER TO IS A MOSQUE ITSELF. NO HOLY PLACE LIKE TEMPLE, MOSQUE, CHURCH should be named after a barbarian. If it is, then that place cannot be holy by any means

 

Let’s look at that word, shall we? “Blasphemy.” Defined by Merriam-Webster as, “the crime of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God or a religion and its doctrines and writings and especially God as percieved by Christianity […]”. I do not agree that having a masjid named after Babar in the city of a Ram’s birth is blasphemy. Just because the city has that historical/religious significance means nothing in the whole city cant go against it? And of the temple—the temple hasn’t been renamed to an invader’s name: the temple, if it existed, has been completely destroyed and built over. But the point is not whether a temple existed there or not. The point is that two wrongs do not make a right. Rebuilding the Rama temple by destroying the Babri Masjid just because the latter came about in the same fashion does not mean it is the ethical, moral thing to do.

You speak of barbarism with contempt, and justly so. Tell me: what happened in December 1992 in Ayodhya, was that not barbarism? I don’t see why not. You say you don’t want a holy area to have a masjid named after a barbarian—how do you like a temple that is going to be built due to the barbaric act that occurred in December 1992? Shouldn’t that be more appauling?—that a temple is being built which stands for Hinduism but which also originated by an act of barbarism? I find it appauling. How different are the men and women who tore down the Babri Masjid to build a temple from those Muslim invaders that tore down the Ram temple (if it existed there) to build the Babri Masjid?

 

6. The advent of the Islamic fanaticism in India was the cause of introduction of social evils like child marriage, purdah, women illiteracy and sati. I need not repeat that such details have been shelved in these books.

 

Yes, I agree that Islamic fanaticism brought social evils to India. This is not to say, however, that Hinduism was chaste of social evils before the advent of the Muslim invasions. The caste system existed long before they came, and caste discrimination has existed for a long time.

 

7. Glorification of the Mughal Rule: No rule, not even the British did as much damage as the mughal rule […]

8. Next the chapter on Jahangir and Shah Jahan […]

9. Great centers of learning […]

 

 

I’m not here to defend the Mughals. I’m just against the distortion of hisotry of any side, left or right.

 

Why? Because Sri Aurobindo was a staunch critic of Gandhi;s philosophies. And I will prefer to believe a realized man than a man who was perennially confused.

 

Aurbindo was a great man. So was Gandhi. Realized or not, Gandhi was a huge driving force toward the Indian independence, and this statement is supported by, if the phrase is not yet hackneyed, the ‘vast bulk of historical knowledge.’

 

But indeed my friend, Islam is monolithic in character. The religion is based on one book which further supplements as a law book.

 

Islam is a monolithic religion, I agree. But that does not automatically make the Muslim community monolithic in nature because interpretation of the dogma creates sects and factions that disagree with each other.

 

Any religion, which brings laws into its fold, is destined to be doomed. Laws are made by men, not by GOD. Further, they change with the vicissitudes of time.

 

I agree with this statement; it is something that very much is a product of Hindu teaching. But you see, just because the Abrahamic religions disagree with this statement does not mean that we should not respect their belief to the extent that we are not harmed in doing so. By degrading the parts of their beliefs which do us no harm, however much we may see them as flawed or incorrect, we do nothing but show intolerance and hatred.

 

Instead of admitting that the religion of Islam is in need of drastic reform, u are instead trying to circumvent this very question!.

 

I agree that Islam needs reform to the extent that the interpretation that arises from Islam which leads to terrorism needs to be addressed by the Muslim community throughout the world and dealt with appropriately. As for the role of women & etc--the way to reform any society/culture/religion to be more liberal toward women and more open and tolerant is to introduce equal laws in a nation of diversity (to instigate equal interaction) as well as to promote equal education. This formula has worked wonders for the west over the last couple centuries, and there is no reason why it cannot be universally applicable.

 

->>Consensual, legal, constitution: all 3 words are very much within the domain of a democracy (of any kind!)

Cannot find anything wrong with that..

 

The thing wrong with that isn’t the methods they’re using to have the temple built there, the wrong thing is that they even are pursing to have a temple built there in the first place. It was barbaric of them to bring down the masjid that stood there and it will be wrong to build a mandir in its place.

 

. Yet, like any true follower of the Geeta, he stood by his statements and was prepared to resign over the matter. Hats off to him!

 

A true follower of the Gita doesn’t go out of his way to gather support of rioters to bring down others’ places of worship. Advani is a criminal and should be imprisoned.

 

->> All acts of minority appeasement are inherently Anti National. Since 82% Hindus constitute India, therefore all nationalistic policies are Indirectly Pro Hindu and all anti nationalistic policies are Anti Hindu. […] ANYTHING NATIOANLISTIC -> PRO NATION -> PRO INDIA -> PRO Hindu

 

 

So now anti-Hindu=anti-National? So does that mean not being Hindu makes you an anti-national? This is Hindutva defined. Creating a Hindu Nation. “All acts of minority appeasement” you say. HIV/AIDs victims are minorities, we shouldn’t fund research for their cure. The handicapped are minorities, we shouldn’t fund programs for their assistance. You are being a bigot when you say that minorities should be treated as second-class citizens; just as you do not appreciate minority appeasement, you should be against majority appeasement. The government is a government of ALL that live in India—Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc. It’s laws should be fair to ALL. Being pro-Hindu does not make someone pro-India. Being pro-India does not mean someone has to be pro-Hindu or Hindu to begin with.

 

->>The BJP is not Anti Muslim.

The BJP is bound to the RSS & VHP. This shows it looks out for Hindus’ interests; what Muslim organizations is it bound to that it would look out for Muslims’ interests? They are very clearly pushing an agenda to benefit Hindus and Hindus only: their reasons for supporting Ayodhya, the UCC, and Article 370 all would make the Hindu majority politically stronger and would be further steps for a Hindu Nation as idealized by the RSS.

If the BJP were not anti-Muslim, they would not have supported Ayodhya. Simple as that. Show neutrality of government toward religion, and you can be seen as pro-Hindu, pro-Muslim, pro-Christian, etc.

 

1. Hinduism does not ask people to break mosques but it doesn’t say not to defend its places of worship.

 

So the violent razing of the Babri Masjid was DEFENCE? Sir, I do believe it was nothing other than REVENGE.

 

Apart from one mosque in Ayodhya, built by a Barbarian, not having any religious sanctity, was any other mosque touched during the BJP Regime? I will quote what u said “History happened. Live with it!”

 

Other mosques touched by the BJP: the Gujarat Riots. Enough said. You are taking my quote of “History Happened” out of context. Here is what I had written: “So does this mean that every Mosque built before the British came should be torn down and a mandir built in its place? That's simply absurd. History happened. Live with it. You can't turn back time. All you can do is make things better in the present, and violently creating more distance between Hindus and Muslims isn't something that is making the country a better place to live in.” I was not saying that it was okay that the history happened; I was saying there is nothing you can do NOW to change what happened THEN; all you can do is try to prevent it again.

 

Never will another temple be razed, in our hallowed land because the Muslims will have realized that such acts of terror will be returned in kind

As long as the religious intolerance the RSS spreads continues, riots will occur and both masjids & mandirs will be razed. Revenge isn’t the solution to the Hindu-Muslim problem. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

So, if the BJP is communal the congress is 100 times more communal.

There’s no scale of communalism. Either you are or aren’t. The Congress simply had more time—they ruled longer than the BJP has—to incite riots.

 

3. Arming yourself with tridents and kerosene bombs? ->>The idea is so laughable. Why not arm oneself with revolvers, AK 47 and rocket launchers. They are more reliable to say the least

I was making a reference to the Gujarat Riots, when Hindu rioters actually did arm themselves as such.

 

If its policy on the Rama Janambhoomi issue has popular sentiment it cannot be helped.

The popular sentiment was incited and grown by the BJP and then leeched off of. The BJP could very well have said, “we do not support this issue as popular as it may be because we believe in an India with Hindu-Muslim unity rather than discord.”

 

There is no place for religious reservation is a secular country.

Reservations of any kind occur to more quickly bring about equality in a nation—this is why there is affirmative action for blacks in America and why there are religious reservations and reservations based on caste in India. If you waited for the social fabric to change by itself to a more equal incarnation, without government inteference, you would be waiting for decades while people suffer all about.

 

Hindu extremism can never be a national ideology via the UCC. There is no place for extremism in UCC.

If the BJP equates Hinduism with Nationalism, as you do, then they surely equate anything that is Hindu as benificial to the nation. Who is to say that their UCC will not be biased against non-Hindus, “in the interest of the nation”? I fear the BJP’s UCC—because they have not necessarily specificed its details—will make all Indian citizens bound to a Hindu way of life, and will treat non-Hindus as second class citizens.

 

->>It is not. The fundamental rights are the same for all citizens irrespective of caste, creed, and religion in any democracy.

This is not true in majoritarian democracy. Majoritarian democracy BY DEFINITION means that the majority can DEMOCRACTICALLY strip the minority of its rights.

 

Terrorists have no cause; they kill to acheive their lustful paradise with abundant beautiful horis that allah made for those who die in the cause of Islam as explained by Mohammed in the Quran.

You are wholly flawed in this statement. The very WORD ‘terrorist’ requires, by definition, “radical who employs terror as a political weapon”. And bin Laden has used terrorism as nothing more than a political weapon. His JUSTIFICATION for the use of terror was found in Islam, but the GOAL of his use of terror was found in politics.

 

I Never used the word rejoice. And these people always criticize terrorists onditionally.

So is that the answer to my question? I had asked, “are you now claiming that most of the 120 million Muslim men, women, and children living in India sympathetically rejoice at terrorist attacks?” Your answer is basically “yes” except using the word sympathize instead of “rejoice”, then? Think about that answer: you are saying one hundred twenty million people or more (that’s 12 crore individuals) are ALL sympathizers of bin Laden just because they are Muslim and he is Muslim. You cannot keep claiming that “they” (Muslims) are this or that; they are all innocent until proven guilty. But to that you responed, “You can prove guilty via two counts. One through direct evidence. The other via circumstantial evidence, which is whopping.” I do not think there is “whopping” circumstantial evidence that 120 million people living in India actively support terrorist acts. These people are normal people, just like you. They go to work and want their kids to be educated and love their family and friends. All Muslims are not inhuman.

 

Dogma divides and nationalism unites.

When nationalism itself becomes a dogma, it divides more than it unites. The RSS has done just this.

 

Since, there is no concept of country in Islam, there can be no nationalism either.

I don’t see how there isn’t a concept of country in Islam—they have very strict rules all which would allow them to govern their nations and they do so all over the middle east.

 

Hence, the Muslim is always in a catch-22 situation; his dilemma of whether to be loyal to his country or to his religion.

That’s a stereotype and you know it. It’s like saying all catholics are too loyal to the Vatican to be patriotic. This is not true for the vast majority of the people.

 

By agreeing to a temple in the disputed site of Ayodhya, it might ingite a fire of brotherhood among Hindus and Muslims alike. But that seems like a distant dream.

Muslims can’t just give up a mosque to have a temple built there. After all, they didn’t destroy the temple that apparently existed there—their ancestors did. Fighting today for the wrongs of the past is called revenge, and I do not think it very honorable to build a temple on the basis of revenge.

 

Strength is life, weakness is death. Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly! Just like the story of the snake and the sage.

We’re not animals (most of us). We do not need physical strength to be strong. Humankind is given the overpowering ability to learn and comprehend.

 

Remember, it was the question of one mosque and for the greater good of the country it had to be brought down. It was a necessary act of evil. It was a natural consequence of the Muslim appeasement policies being carried out by the INC for 45 yrs (nay 90 if u take into consideration the pre-partition era) , and Hindus had lost all their reserves of patience

First, the act was anything BUT <u>necessary</u>, but evil it was. Second, it was not <u>natural</u> for Hindus to go and destroy a Muslim mosque. To say that it was a natural consequence for Hindus to do an evil act as this is to say it is an act in natural harmony with Hinduism. This is not the case. The men and women who destroyed the Babri Masjid did not “loose their patience” and simply erupt onto the mosque without immediate cause. It was an organized, coordinated “erruption” of violence. The BJP & RSS actively took roles to this end, and still support their doing so.

 

->>Making the nation secular, means weakening religion. The countries of the west are not moved by religion but by Science and politics.

Secularity does not mean weakened religion. Secularism means neutrality of the government toward religion. Why cannot you offer the freedom for the nation’s citizens to choose, as they have the right to do so living in a democracy, to be moved by religion or not? Secularism does this. Turning the nation into a religious powerhouse is equivalent to making a theocratic regime equivalent to the governments of Muslim nations (Pakistan, Iran, etc). Religion was not made to govern people in the way the modern nation-state requires. Religion was made so people have a way to govern THEMSELVES individually and individuals among each other.

 

But India has from time immemorial been moved by religion and only religion and so shall it be. Hence, the ideas of religion merit a special place in India unlike the west and hence the concepts of western secularism cannot be applied to us. We were not secular ever and never shall we be

Did India not keep being a religious nation under foreign rule for the last 1000 years? Did religion suddenly end with the advent of this foreign rule? If Hinduism can survive a thousand years of foreign rule without being the least bit shattered in its confidence and its splendor, I doubt it will suddenly fall apart under a truly secular government. Religion doesn’t just suddenly go away unless the people choose for it to. Secularism is not a threat to the prosperity of Hinduism. The true threat would be if people were forced to follow it (for otherwise be labled “anti-nationals”); it takes away religion’s credit of being self-sufficient. Can Hinduism not surivive without a government to sanction its place in society?

Secularism and Hinduism may share the principle of alloting every individual the freedom to believe whatsoever he wishes to whatsoever extent he wishes. But I do not think that the BJP’s concept of “a Hindu nation” match up with secularism. They would not have torn down Babri in 1992, and would not have incited the riots of Gujarat in 2002 if they really believed anyone could practice their faith in a truly Hindu nation.

 

THE QUESTION OF GANDHI

I do not doubt Gandhi made mistakes, and neither does Gandhi himself. Aurobindo did too. This does not take away from all that both men accomplished.

 

Caste based discrimination exists only in the remote villages. And there the benefits of the positive discrimination will never percolate.

Regardless of the discrimination, there still exists a huge socioeconomic gap between the lower castes and upper ones. The point of the positive discrimination laws are to bridge this gap between both populations; after 50 years, this still has not resulted in a favorable outcome. Again, this is because the implementation is flawed, not the principle. These laws exist in foreign nations—affirmative action in the US, for example—and have proven to be effective over time if implemented correctly.

 

2. The very principle is absurd when a significant number of India’s 250 million BPL population are comprised of the higher caste including Brahmins. They don’t get any reservations.

They do not get such reservations, true, but they do not face the discrimination that the lower castes do. They have an easier time getting jobs because they are not automatically deemed “dirty”.

 

I will just pose you a simple question? Which religion has caused the most bloodshed in the history of mankind. The answer is Islam

That does not refute the statement I made: fundamentalism & extremism exist in all religions because of interpretation.

 

and not one word of condemnation escapes the lips of these muslim neighbors. They are all a bunch of fanatical hypocrites.

Again, you are labling a whole population of millions of individuals with one title. This is simply absurd. Just as I cannot say, “all Hindus are against abortion,” I cannot say “all Muslims support Kashmiri terrorists. Both statements do not reflect the factionalism that exists in every society, every community.

 

Mr. Geelanai […] is a member of the muslim elite teaching arabics in Zakir Hussain college; who publicly demands a free state of Azad Kashmir.

Democracy allows for freedom of opinion.

 

->>Hindusim has NO anti scientific notions. Hinduism is itself a science; “THE SCIENCE OF REALIZATION”. Hinduism does not ask to believe in god; but to directly perceive god.

To think that Hinduism has no anti-scientific notions is to be idealistic to what Hinduism is. I agree that Hinduism is “the science of realization,” I agree that it promotes a direct perception of the Truth (not necessarily “God”), but this does not mean that the practice of Hinduism over the centuries is completely void of notions and beliefs that blatantly contradict modern science. I will offer just one simple example: Time. Yes Hinduism promotes the belief of a regenerating universe, but it also supposes the idea that men existed in a civilized fashion millions of years ago (throughout the different yugas and etc). There is conclusive scientific evidence that human civilization begins not more than 5 to 6 thousand years ago, although humankind itself is much older.

 

Show me a line of the Upanishads which is unscientific.

The Upanishads are philosophical treatises, and I never claimed for them to be unscientific. I simply said, “Hinduism has lots of anti-scientific notions”.

 

Our religion explains law of conservation of energy, matter energy interrelationship, wave and particle nature, etc.

Not explicitly. There’s not Vedic scripture that goes out and sayd, “well the frequency of light times a constant (Plank’s) times an integer of quantization will give the Energy of that light”. And to say that the men who wrote the scriptures knew of wave-particle nature and quantum mechanics and etc. is simply absurd. Sure their ideas sound like echoes of modern physics, but that is all they remain. They are strictly philosophical treatises that deal with the atman and humanity, not abstract concepts as quantum mechanics. Becoming realized doesn’t mean you suddenly understand how to do quantum mechanics—it more so means that you have achieved an existance above this simple plane of existance.

 

->>Yes it does! An anti science religion is detrimental to the progress of the nation as a whole.

It is not Islam being “anti-science” that is detrimental, it is the lack of education. This is what prompted the European Renisannce. In fact, if you look at the Middle Ages in Europe before the 1600s, you will notice that it was only because of the Muslim obsession with science and commerce that the teachings of ancient Greece and Rome were preserved through the ages. Muslim scientists and teachers and students reprinted these documents for the Arab world, while the original are now lost to history.

 

Race pride at its highest indeed.I don’t see anything in here which highlights Gowalkar praising Hitler or espoused his persecution of Jews.

The quote I presented was:

“German race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races-the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here.”

Somehow the ending part of the quote didn’t get pasted properly. The quote continues as so:

“ontinues as such:

“Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by”.

Clearly, he thinks what happened in Germany under Hitler was something worth admiration and worth repitition in India.

 

And Savarkar, the Hindu Mahasabha leader, declared that, “If we Hindus grow stronger in time Moslem friends ...will have to play the part of German Jews ->>Savarkar believed in a strong Hindu society and in the Hindutva ideology of one nation, one culture, one people, which meant no special provisions for any minority

So beief in Hindutva excuses his belief that what Hitler did to the Jews Hindus should do to the Muslims?

 

Until that day India is politically free but not spiritually free.

India can only be free for spiritual experimentation if government is separated from religion.

 

Some questions I posed earlier:

1. Appeasing Muslim extremists is wrong, but appeasing Hindu extremists is okay?

2. Are you saying that the BJP is pro-Hindu because they want to allow non-Kashmiris to move in and own land in Kashmir?

3. Is it not true that the BJP is the political wing of the RSS, the RSS hates non-Hindus, and therefore, the BJP is a tool for hating non-Hindus?

4. The question is not whether a temple stood at the Babri Masjid or not. The question is this: is the violent destruction of another’s place of worship something Rama would condone?

5. Something has to be old to “hold much water”? I’m curious—how old, then do you take the laws should be before they should actually hold enough water for you to consider them worthy of being laws? (In reference to: “(J) *** Firstly, the laws of the land have been framed just 50 yrs back by these same pseudosecularists of the INC. So they dont hold much water.”

6. What is wrong with making the nation secular? (Can Hinduism not propser under a secular government?)

7. Are you saying [Muslims] are both speaking in support of terrorist activities therefore making them terrorist-supporters, AND they’re being silent of terrorist activites therefore also making them terrorist-supporters?

8. How would you feel if your Hindu son/daughter went to a school where everyone prayed to Allah, and everyone was taught to thank Allah, and everyone was required to recite verses from the Koran—all because you lived in a country where you were the minority and Muslims were the majority?

 

And also, let me take the time out to thank you for actually having the knowhow and will to debate on this forum. As much as we do disagree, I admit that not anyone else here seems to have demonstrated a will to actually debate the issues as much as you have, and that is very much admirable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<< THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM:

It is NOT that Muslims are bad. They are like any other people but it their religion which is making bad men out of them. And they ought to denounce it now for their present and future.

The muslims need to be retold that they are all converted Hindus and they are most welcome to come back to their original religious fold. Especially the muslim women; who have for centuries been exploited by their men in the name of Islam. >>

 

yes.

 

a muslims leader should be persuaded to do this.

then he can easily persuade other muslims.

 

Suppose the Hindu friends of Dilip kumar actor tell him this:

"You have chosen a Hindu name. You made a lot of money from the Hindus, You live with Hindu intheir Hindustan. So, please why not give up islam, and accept Hinduiam, and then tell the muslims of Bharat to give up islam."

 

We should really ask this to him and get anaswer from him.

how to do it?

need to search for connections that lead to him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My objection is, first, that it would not be practical to have Muslims learn of Islam, Christians learn of Christianity, Hindus of Hinduism, etc

Again, where there is a will, there is a way. There is nothing impractical about the issue

 

religious beliefs of every child cannot possibly be met by every school—what of the atheists, the agnostics, the Wiccans? What of adivasis? What do you suppose these children would learn?

So you are labeling children as born atheists? Sorry, rarely is a child a born atheist. However, I get your point. What if the children’s parents are infidels? My answer is simple; suppose the parents believe in anarchy or dictatorship? Even then, we have to teach about democratic ideals to our children. Secondly, parents have no right to thrust their nihilistic views on their children, as it is detrimental to their moral, ethical health. It doesn’t matter whether you are atheist or agnostic? Doesn’t matter, if the child has no faith. For the greater good of society these values have to be taught. Our thinking changes with the vicissitudes of time, hence it is natural that a child may follow other doctrines in the time to come.

 

There is no reason why a non-government movement can gain ground on its own merit for teaching of the Vedanta if people really feel it is that important to their lives. The reasons are very much there. People don’t know the importance of religion because they have been too busy making money in this age of materialism. By the time, they realize its felt need they are too old to do anything worthwhile. If you feel the people are disinclined towards teaching of religion to their children; why not discuss this issue nationwide. I am confident that the Majority wants their children to be given religious education, if it is given free of cost at school level, without involving any hassles on their part.

 

By keeping the government away from religion altogether, religion has more freedom to grow and prosper on its own merit, and government has the neutrality and biaslessness required to fairly and democratically run a diverse nation of many peoples and faiths

 

How does teaching religion make a government biased? Treat religion as any other subject like social sciences. Neither does religious teaching impede democracy in any way. Hinduism does not need a label of merit from any institution. It is above all merit.

 

 

My point is that Hinduism is a personal search for the truth—temples, scriptures, gurus, etc. all are secondary to this aspect of it being a personal search. What would you have the children be taught? Dvaitva or adviatva? Vaishnava or Shivaite scriptures?

Again, you err in your beliefs. I agree it is a personal search for the truth but without the maps one can be lost forever. The question is not what I will have the children be taught. The curriculum has to be universally acceptable. And ever since Vivekananda has proven the truth of all the 3 paths of Dvaita, Visitadvaita and advaita, there cannot be any problem about teaching of the scriptures. It is important to realize we are not here to make philosophers out of men. Only the BASICS of each vedantic path needs to be told. Just tell the children “These are the truths which the Aryan rishis found out, and you are most welcome to believe in the ones you relate most favourably too”. Along with that, we need to teach our children the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata so they develop the necessary pride for their country’s cultural and religious heritage, which is nonpareil. ONLY WHEN THE INHERENT PRIDE IN BEING INDIAN IS THERE IN EVERY CHILD OF THIS COUNTRY CAN THIS NATION PROSPER. Hinduism is not about being judgmental as to this and only this is the absolute truth. All we need to tell the children is this is the possible truth which was found by our forefathers and they mention the following path to be followed for anyone else to realize the same. As a child grows older, he will develop the necessary intellect to discriminate between the various paths and choose the one he feels is right. Or he might decide not choose any path at all.

 

I thought you believed Islam to be a religion which is “making bad men out of” Muslims?

I stand by my statement regarding Islam. But it cannot be denied that Islam has some of the greatest truths too. Thus, deleting the objectionable passages (inciting violence against kafirs and promise of heaven, etc) and teaching the verses having merit is more rational. This is how the religion of Islam can be reformed to be a modern religion for the 21st century.

All religions including Islam ask people to follow a virtuous life. Although its my personal belief, its only Advaita which explains the reasons behind being virtuos.

"Man must love others become all those others are himself"

 

If Hindus are not aware of their religious heritage, it is not the fault or the responsibility of the government to educate them to that end

It is, indeed. The root cause of Hindus not being aware of their religious heritage is the secularization of our country. Hindus are not aware because they are not taught about their own religion. The result is they acquire all kinds of superstitions and beliefs. DO I NEED TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF MYTHS IN HINDUISM? Hinduism acquired its share of myth and superstition during the Islamic rule when Hindu teachers were not able to teach their countrymen of their own religion. Like, the degraded position of women in society; where they are told that Hinduism is antiwoman while the truth is Hinduism is the most androgynous religion, where both men are women are considered equal halves of the divine. Thus, Hindu people not knowing about their own religion; think about Hinduism as some degraded entity. And because any person who tries to teach religion is branded as communal, these myths are not dispelled from the minds of impressionable young minds. These lasting impressions can last for a lifetime and thus only contribute towards weakening of the religion of sanatana dharma.

When followers of the religion start harbouring doubts about the validity of their own religion, how can that religion be expected to survive??? Thus, the greatest danger against sanatana dharma is its drastic neglect by its own followers.

 

it can survive 5000 years w/o government interference and even under government oppression, I don’t see the need for government involvement now, no matter how morally degraded you view society to becoming

This is the basic problem with your thinking. You only want India to survive, and I want it to reach the pinnacles of the modern world. For 3000 yrs kings of India patronized the religion of sanatana dharma and that is why it flourished. But just as soon as Ashoka stopped the patronization of Hinduism and embraced Buddhism; the latter overran the entire religion of Hinduism. And now when the govt. distances from all religions (but maliciously supports Islam) the religion of Hinduism can only be weakened!

 

And for growth, one needs patriotism and nationalism of the highest degree. India can only be a united country when sanatana dharma rules………if we can unite the 80% of people following sanatana dharma then and only then will begin the renaissance of India. When people realize that although we might not be economically very strong but our spirituality is inimitable only then will develop among them the necessary pride and patriotism. Not before that! And I stand by my remarks about most Muslims being inherently antinational.

 

Who are you to tell parents, “religion is valuble in YOUR life”? I think they have the right to decide how important they want religion to be in their own life and the lives of their children

The question is not who I am? The question is who are the parents to impose their non religious attributes on their children. The duty of the parents is to give children a good education, and that includes religious education. Our duty is not to produce decadent elite, but the highest morally, ethically, renunciating men and women. Once a child is an adult; he has every right to leave his religious fold, embrace nihilism, atheism, hedonism or any doctrine he wishes to, but before that he needs to be provided the truth of the ages, represented in sanatana dharma or the other religions.

 

Because spiritual knowledge will somehow relieve us of competition…???

Again it’s your lack of insight. Do you know quite a few students commit suicide or go in severe depression on not clearing competitive exams (especially in India). With spiritual knowledge, one realizes that the sole aim in life is not to earn big bucks, enjoy and be merry. If one doesn’t clear exams; there are other alternatives, which are equally good. All work is good; everyone is great in his own place. Disappears the feeling of inferiority and comes the feeling of equanimity. The aim of life is realization of the true nature of man; rather than getting caught in the rat race.

 

I think it is absurdly wrong to say someone must be able to sing some song you personally value in order for them to live in the same country you do. This is the tolerance Hinduism teaches you?

I personally value??? This song has been valued for hundreds and thousands of years by India. And today reciting it becomes taboo. Because we have changed the inherent nature of our own motherland??? My question now is “If more than 90% students have no problem in reciting the song; then because of the remaining 10% we will destroy our own culture, our own sacred heritage of the past.

If a muslim boy has problems reciting the song; he can simply walk out from the assembly. No one is being forced to sing the song. But if 90% children want to sing the song; then they have every right to!

Tolerance does not mean SELF DESTRUCTION. And the destruction of the religious and cultural heritage of the past; in lieu of an alien secular heritage is the 1st step in the degradation of the nation.

 

 

Tell me: what happened in December 1992 in Ayodhya, was that not barbarism? I don’t see why not. You say you don’t want a holy area to have a masjid named after a barbarian—how do you like a temple that is going to be built due to the barbaric act that occurred in December 1992? Shouldn’t that be more appauling?—that a temple is being built which stands for Hinduism but which also originated by an act of barbarism?

It was an act of necessary evil. If now any muslim tries to damage our temples; he will be served a strict reminder of what we are capable off.

Sometimes, to curb barbarism one has to be barbaric!

And why do you not understand my point…will a church named after Hitler be acceptable with the Christian community. Then how can, a mosque named after Babur be acceptable to the Muslims. How can they accept a mosque built by a barbarian in his name? Or is it they accept Babur as a hero; who destroyed the temples of the infidels!

 

So was Gandhi. Realized or not, Gandhi was a huge driving force toward the Indian independence, and this statement is supported by, if the phrase is not yet hackneyed, the ‘vast bulk of historical knowledge

The historical knowledge you talk off, has been doctored by a few British and congress leaning Historians along with Marxist historians. The truth of the matter is; Gandhi;s contribution in the freedom struggle was MODERATE. Clement Attlee remarked that the role of INC was MINIMAL.. The chief cause according to him why the British had to free India; was because the Indian Army was at the point of revolt; thanks to the efforts of Subhash Chandra Bose. I admit that it might not be the absolute truth but it must have some relative truth. I refuse to buy the theory that one man, howsoever great he may be, bought us freedom.

 

By degrading the parts of their beliefs which do us no harm, however much we may see them as flawed or incorrect, we do nothing but show intolerance and hatred

You cannot see the harm they are doing the country? By keeping 50% of their population comprising woman as illiterate and ignorant, making fundamentalists of their children, preventing their children from getting modern education, breeding like rabbits; are these innocuous beliefs in any sense of the word?

 

As for the role of women & etc--the way to reform any society/culture/religion to be more liberal toward women and more open and tolerant is to introduce equal laws in a nation of diversity (to instigate equal interaction) as well as to promote equal education

That can only occur with the installation of a UCC. And the congress government; in its ardent desire to appease the muslim votebank will never do so. The BJP is the only hope regarding this issue. Here I pose you a question? If the muslims have a sizeable elite women population who are not fundamentalist then why don’t they demand a UCC from the present congress government? What STOPS them? A person like Shabana Azmi who raised such a hue and cry about Gujarat never utters a word condemning the fatwas issued by the deoband ulema like the recent one forcing the female electoral candidates to observe purdah. Niether does Javed Akhtar, aren’t these guys who represent the muslim elite! A bunch of hypocrites, that’s what they are! The truth of the matter is the elite Muslim women in India take all possible steps to perpetuate Muslim patriarchy to satisfy their egos concerning the religion of Islam.

 

anti-Hindu=anti-National. So does that mean not being Hindu makes you an anti-national? This is Hindutva defined. Creating a Hindu Nation. “All acts of minority appeasement” you say. HIV/AIDs victims are minorities, we shouldn’t fund research for their cure. The handicapped are minorities, we shouldn’t fund programs for their assistance.

Anti Hindu is anti national, not being Hindu doesn’t make one anti national. The question is not in being Hindu, but in framing and favouring policies, which are against the majority hindu population. HIV/AIDs victims are from every strata of society. Thus, we need to find their cure. If you reserve seats for Muslims, at the cost of economically downtrodden Hindus who vastly outnumber these Muslims; then you are being antiHindu and anti national at the same time.

 

Reservations of any kind occur to more quickly bring about equality in a nation—this is why there is affirmative action for blacks in America and why there are religious reservations and reservations based on caste in India. If you waited for the social fabric to change by itself to a more equal incarnation, without government inteference, you would be waiting for decades while people suffer all about.

 

Affirmative action in America is not same as positive discrimination in India. Reservation of seats is not to the extent of upto 30% unlike India. Moreover, I don’t need to agree with the American viewpoint. We are knowledgeable enough to think of our own solutions; we don’t need a sanction from an American viewpoint!

Waiting for decades; yes we have been waiting for 5 decades and you yourself admitted it has not served any purpose. Reservations DO NOT bring about equality but only widens the gulf between the castes. This is again because you are not aware of the ground realities. I have talked to many Americans on this issue and they all unanimously condemn affirmative action. And the American education system is too smart; to allow it to get degraded by churning out substandard professionals.

 

The reason the lower castes continue to suffer in the villages is because of their decision to side with leaders like Mayawati who also play the worst kind of votebank politics. It is high time, they realize the folly of voting for illiterate, shortsighted leaders like Mayavati who are opportunists to the core, who are exploiting the dalit masses for their own vested interests.

 

Terrorists have no cause; they kill to acheive their lustful paradise with abundant beautiful horis that allah made for those who die in the cause of Islam as explained by Mohammed in the Quran.

You are wholly flawed in this statement. The very WORD ‘terrorist’ requires, by definition, “radical who employs terror as a political weapon”. And bin Laden has used terrorism as nothing more than a political weapon. His JUSTIFICATION for the use of terror was found in Islam, but the GOAL of his use of terror was found in politics .

 

What about the people who actually participated in 9/11 and 7/7 attacks? I mean the suicide bombers themselves. They were not playing political games, my friend; life is too precious to be sacrificed for political goals. Those bombers were guided by the verses in Quran, which promise the shaheeds the lustful paradise when they die defending their religion from infidels/kafirs.

 

do not think there is “whopping” circumstantial evidence that 120 million people living in India actively support terrorist acts. These people are normal people, just like you. They go to work and want their kids to be educated and love their family and friends. All Muslims are not inhuman .

 

I know; that my statement is too bold for comfort. But believe me the normal muslim people you talk about are in a minority atleast among the Muslim elite. I will give you a talisman. Pick up any Indian newspaper and go the letters to the editor section. Find letters by Muslims. They are always defending the wanton acts of terror via muslims; by calling on the plight of Muslims in Palestine, etc/ I am yet to find a single letter in recent yrs which unconditionally denounces these terrorists or their acts. And I read three national newspapers everyday

 

don’t see how there isn’t a concept of country in Islam—they have very strict rules all which would allow them to govern their nations and they do so all over the middle east

 

Yes the concept of the country gels well with them; only when the country is Islamic. India is not an Islamic country and kafirs or infidels dominate it. So how can the average muslim be nationalistic. He will rather be affirming his solidarity and brotherhood with his brothers on the Pakistan side. So why didn’t they go to Pakistan on partition? Financial reasons and nothing else. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Going to Pakistan would have meant foregoing their lands which was not acceptable to them. It is money, which makes the word go round; even religion takes secondary precedence during such instances.

 

Why cannot you offer the freedom for the nation’s citizens to choose, as they have the right to do so living in a democracy, to be moved by religion or not? Secularism does this. Turning the nation into a religious powerhouse is equivalent to making a theocratic regime equivalent to the governments of Muslim nations (Pakistan, Iran, etc).

So India; a religious powerhouse since 1000 AD was a theocracy. Who gave u such ludicrous ideas! Havent u read Vivekananda;s address at the . of religions. Ours is the land, which offered shelter to the persecuted Jews and others through the ages. Every citizen has the right to choose his own religion but Hindus also have the right to propagate their own religion. Why are educational institutions of the minorities including the despicable madarsas not taxed while similar counterparts of Hindus are?

 

Did India not keep being a religious nation under foreign rule for the last 1000 years? Did religion suddenly end with the advent of this foreign rule? If Hinduism can survive a thousand years of foreign rule without being the least bit shattered in its confidence and its splendor, I doubt it will suddenly fall apart under a truly secular government. Religion doesn’t just suddenly go away unless the people choose for it to. Secularism is not a threat to the prosperity of Hinduism

Hinduism not shattered the least bit? Indeed it has been weakened. Hindus are enervated today and it is because of the weakening of sanatana dharma. I mentioned before the innumerable myths, superstitions, sectarianism which arose in Hindu society, which became ultra-conservative during the foreign rule. Yes, religious goes away when people become unaware of their own religion. When they associate it with evils plaguing the society. When teaching religion becomes taboo, then religion is destined to be doomed.

 

They do not get such reservations, true, but they do not face the discrimination that the lower castes do. They have an easier time getting jobs because they are not automatically deemed “dirty”.

Indeed, if the higher caste BPL families had jobs they wouldn’t be in this category, would they. Do you have any statistics indicating the caste distribution of 250 million BPL citizens in India?

Don’t time and again, tell me about US govt;s actions. Do you know about the levels of unemployment in India? That is not the case in America. Do you also know about the social security system in America, which is not existent in India? Affirmative action in America is NOT at the cost of the white masses, while that in India is at the cost of the higher castes.

I repeat, in cities I can clearly see only lower caste people who are economically and socially at par with higher castes, being benefited by the policies of positive discrimination.

 

Again, you are labling a whole population of millions of individuals with one title. This is simply absurd. Just as I cannot say, “all Hindus are against abortion,” I cannot say “all Muslims support Kashmiri terrorists. Both statements do not reflect the factionalism that exists in every society, every community.

 

Sorry but this what the apparent truth seems like. In America, after 9/11 scores of Muslim groups came out in a symbolic show of support and solidarity with the American people. They denounced the terrorist’s acts in one voice, Unconditionally.

That is what I expect from the Indian Muslims and nothing less. And so far, it has not happened…. not even in one instance. What we get here are either 1) Complete silence 2) Muffled voices of some condemnation coupled with the reasons justifying those barbaric acts which are either the Kashmir cause, Anti Muslim policies followed by USA in Iraq, Israel’s occupation of Palestine, etc. So HOW TO INFER that these Muslims are peaceful by nature. Nothing in their actions support your view!

 

Yes Hinduism promotes the belief of a regenerating universe, but it also supposes the idea that men existed in a civilized fashion millions of years ago (throughout the different yugas and etc). There is conclusive scientific evidence that human civilization begins not more than 5 to 6 thousand years ago, although humankind itself is much older.

 

That is because; Hinduism;s concept of evolution also includes the necessary concept of INVOLUTION. There can be no evolution without a precipitating involution.

Just like a tree cannot rise from a seed unless a previous tree was there for the seed to be existing.

To go with the notion; that Darwin’s theory are absolutely true is more of scientific superstition than rationality. Remember, in America they are now considering teaching the children “Intelligence Design Theory”

 

There’s not Vedic scripture that goes out and says, “well the frequency of light times a constant (Plank’s) times an integer of quantization will give the Energy of that light”. And to say that the men who wrote the scriptures knew of wave-particle nature and quantum mechanics and etc. is simply absurd. Sure their ideas sound like echoes of modern physics, but that is all they remain .

 

The mathematical proofs are absent, I agree. But the Indians never felt the need to prove theories. The law of gravitation existed forever. Newton proved it in the 17th century but it doesn’t; mean that it didn’t exist before that. Hence, Indians discovered the principles behind these theories or atleast they were aware of the germ behind these theories but they never cared to prove their theories. You should know that Indians tried to find the oneness among all knowledge. Quantum mechanics and Vedanta philosophy can be both brought under one conclusion and I feel that someday in future it will be a reality.

 

It is not Islam being “anti-science” that is detrimental, it is the lack of education And where are they going to get that modern education? Madarsas???

It comes back to square one… Islam doesn’t allow teaching of Science.

Arabs preserved the knowledge. But they didn’t use it; that’s for sure

 

Can the Muslims give one good reason why they have been voting for the INC and other pseudosecularists for the last 50 yrs. What good has it brought them? The plight of the average Indian Muslim hasn’t improved for the past 50 yrs and neither will it improve by continuing voting for them. The Muslims of India need to come out of their delusion of persecution from the BJP before its too late. When they stop behaving as a votebank with a herd mentality (voting on the call of the fatwa issued by the mad mullahs), only then will all parties including BJP consider their welfare.

 

Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by”.

 

Now let me interpret it this way;

Germany tried to enforce their one culture theory on its Jewish population. But the results were a catastrophe. The experience of them is a reminder to us that to try to replicate that idea in Hindustan the same way would end in disaster. Hence, the one culture cannot be imposed on all but all groups should have the right to practice their own culture, their own way without hindrance from the government.

Now, what is wrong with his assertion?

 

 

So beief in Hindutva excuses his belief that what Hitler did to the Jews Hindus should do to the Muslims?

Savarkar;s ideology was Not perfect. If the great Mahatma can make blunders like not condemning the Moplah Rebellion and the Calcutta riots, why not a few mistaken words from Savarkar

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS?

 

1. BJP incited the Gujarat riots?

A. No, it were the Muslim fanatics who burned to death 100 kar sevaks in the sabarmati express train.

2. Appeasement of any kind becomes wrong, the moment it becomes detrimental to a nation’s security, unity, economics, and liberty. Thus, Hindu appeasement is bad like Muslim appeasement. But except the issue of the mosque there have been no instances of Hindu appeasement while Muslims have been appeased for the last 90 yrs by the INC.

3. BJP and RSS have several ideological differences. For instance the RSS ideology believes in swadeshi, while BJP actively pursued a policy of disinvestment and globalization while in governance. Even at the moment, Advani and RSS have several differences. With time to come, BJP is likely to go its own way.

4. Rama would also NOT condone; the compulsory spiritual disarmament which led to destruction of his own temple. Don’t drag Rama into it. He doesn’t care about temples; but people do. Sometimes; to destroy barbarism you have to be barbaric yourself.

5. With the statement; I meant these laws had been framed by the pseudosecularists congressmen who didn’t have the consent of the people. They were NOT elected representative in the true sense of the word No referendum was done among the people of India on whether they wanted a HINDU RASHTRA OR NOT. India should have been secular if India remained undivided during independence. But since the representatives of the Muslims themselves opted for partition; when religion became the deciding factor regarding nationality what was the need for India to be secular. 99% of Hindus in Pakistan had to move into India; then why the hell did we allow the Muslims in India to stay back. Was not the INC answerable to the people? How could Nehru and Gandhi thrust their own principles of secularism on the nation without the consent of the masses? And let me remind me you time and again; that India was NOT secular at the time of independence. Indira Gandhi added this word to the preamble.

6. Can Hinduism not prosper under a secular government? The answer is NO. Atleast not under the Muslim appeasing INC government. We are spiritually not free because we cannot practice and teach our own religion to the masses. We cannot sing religious songs in schools. We cannot utter a word regarding religion in public schools. And this is preventing our children from knowing about our glorious heritage. And when we bring up a generation of Indians ignorant of the glories of their past, ignorant of the glory of sanatana dharma, then we only produce the same decadent elite which was left behind as a legacy of the British government. Without morals, without ethics, without renunciation, without any pride or patriotism! WHY IS RELIGION A TABOO SUBJECT? I only agree to that secularism which maintains all citizens as equal and having the freedom of right to practice any religion. And Hinduism has given that right to all from time immemorial Thus, the role of secularism is giving the right to practice a religion; not curbing the right to practice it. It is about giving the right to propagate one’s culture and heritage, not curbing it. Only when you realize this, will you realize the dangers of the practice of pseudosecularism to the spiritual freedom of India.

7. In a muslim country with all students chanting allah;s name; I should have the right to walk out from the assembly. I deserve the right as an individual not to sing such songs. But i have no right, to expect that the majority population will share my views and not sing such songs.

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...