• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Musings of a liberal.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought of giving this thread the title of "Musings of a Hindu",but then as far as I am concerend liberal=hindu,hence I used this title itself.

A good article has appeared in outlook written by taslima nasrin about the burqa system titiled 'let's burn the burqa.' It has created a lot of heartburn among the islamic conservatives and they shout like anything protesting the article.

Here is the article.
Dont forget to read the feedbacks for the article.

In the feedback section, an impressed viewer commented 'Taslima reminds me of Raja Rammohan and Iswarchandra Viddyasagar 150 years ago started reforms for hindu women.

For islam its just a couple of centuries late thats it '

I 100% agree with him.

 
I read a similar article in another well established magazine only for it to be later pulled out of the website...

On the dot and agree completely.
 
Thank you Praveen,

Read a disturbing news today.

In singapore a temple priest refused to do poojas to mariamman because he says that goddess Mariamman is untouchable. For him, gods worshipped by untouchables are also untouchable. Angry devotees have filed a case against him in singapore court.
 
Last edited:
An excellent story is written by sujatha in kumudam which talks about the attack on bhramins in ayodhya Mandapam.The last line of the story 'I can no longer tolerate the beatings" beautifully sums up the essence of the story.Highly moving story.
 
Musings of a liberal - contd...

Your last line says much in few words.

Many years back, I happened to visit one of the famous churches in one of the metros. The particular Church happenend to be a tourist atteraction.
Though I am not a Christian, I spent some time introspecting myself in the peace and solitude of the hall. I wish to share some of the conclusions with all and leave it open for dissection.

Religion has two major aspects:- 1. Relation between individual and god & 2. Interpretation of God by the middlemen

The first part of it is nearly common in all major religions. It says you could appease god by your own conduct, and by the value system you follow and practice like truth, honesty, justice, freedom, respect to others, helping the needy, serving the poor and destitute etc. This fundamental tenet has changed very little and is likely to remain unchanged for quite some time to come.

when we come to the second part of it, we find that elaborate manuals have been written by the interpreters of god. Be it Hinduism, Islam, Budhism, Christianity, Judaism etc. , the manuals have tried to control and ritualize the conduct of life by the followers as to what is right and what is wrong.

These interpretations of god by the original intrepreters have been subjected to further intrepretations by successive generations of priests, mullahs, pandits, rabbis and what not. The end result being followers have been brainwashed by the middlemen into blindly following the rituals, fiats and dictats and either ignore or pay lip service to the original formula for appeasing the god (para-1).

Marxism which preached atheism was probably less harmful to human society than the interpretation of religion by the middlemen which has done much severe and incalculable harm to the human society.

The salvation for the human society lies in making efforts to appease the god by own conduct. The best ways of praying is to pray in silence and solitude, as I have already mentioned elsewhere in this site.

At some point in life, we all will come to the conclusion that following the ritualised intrepretations by the middlemen of God is of little worth. What is really precious is be able to follow the path in para-1.
 
well said lotus.

Hinduism has much to offer to the world, if the ills of the religion are removed.Hinduism in its essence is truely secular and we have to reestablish this nature of hinduism once again.
 
An excellent story is written by sujatha in kumudam which talks about the attack on bhramins in ayodhya Mandapam.The last line of the story 'I can no longer tolerate the beatings" beautifully sums up the essence of the story.Highly moving story.

Dear Goundamani:
A beautiful and moving story. Thank you for bringing this to us.

I agree with lotus_quartz with his observations on the role of religious middle men. However, not every religious middle man is bad and not everybody can be as mature as lotus_quartz to pray to God in solitude. I am sure many people need these 'gurus' to guide them.
 
Last edited:
Thank you silverfox.Guru-shishya is our paramparya and tradition and we cannot call them as middlemen.They are like our parents.

Dear members,

An important news.

TN government has sponsored 1 crore rs. for the movie periyar. In that movie satyaraj who acts as periyar asks "Rama touched the squrrill and immediatly it had 3 lines on it's back.So why did not seetha get 3 lines on her back?Did Rama never touch her on her back?"

Hindu Munnani and others have voiced their protests aginst this atrocious dialogue, but the director of the movie has sweared that he will not remove these lines.

Please read this article about this incident.Please voice your protests as comments in the feedback section of that article.
 
Last edited:
excellent goundamani

An excellent story is written by sujatha in kumudam which talks about the attack on bhramins in ayodhya Mandapam.The last line of the story 'I can no longer tolerate the beatings" beautifully sums up the essence of the story.Highly moving story.

excellent story goundamani.but i never expected sujatha to write a pro brahmin story.in order to appease anti-brahmin DK-DMK he had always spewed venom on us.In films anniyan & ullam ketkuthae ,in which he had written dialogues ,he had ridiculed brahmins & had made us a clown before our non-brahmin brothers.most of youngsters today dont know what veeramani or periyar had said.but they still hate & ridicule us because of cinemas.it is our people who r responsible for such cinemas(example K.Balachander,anuradha shreeram,sujatha,YG.Mahendran(who is acting as a brahmin in the film"periyar").God save brahmins from this traitors.
 
English transcript.

Is English transcript available?

An excellent story is written by sujatha in kumudam which talks about the attack on bhramins in ayodhya Mandapam.The last line of the story 'I can no longer tolerate the beatings" beautifully sums up the essence of the story.Highly moving story.
 
sir-vijay is right in his view about sujatha. but what else can you expect from a porn writer? this sujatha is a porn writer. his writings betray him as a sex maniac. he glorifies pathological voyeurism. just for the sake of a few rupees, sujatha, crazy mohan, s.s. vasan, kalki krishnamurthy ,k.balachandran etc., mortgage their self respect and resort to female skin selling in films. k.balachandran's manmata leelai is so vulgar - it is the closest definition of blue film, as far as i am concerned. films produced by him like 'saami', 'siva', 'naan mahaan alla' are out and out vulgar and violent movies! how censors allowed these films is a surprise! wonder what k.balachandran 'gave' to the censors in return for being soft on his films!
crazy mohan is a stale low class comedian indulging in foolish baffoonery. s.v. shekar is a better artist in terms of quality. if k.balachandran is harrold robbins of tamil cinema, sujatha is harrold robbins of tamil writing! if k. balachandran is porn king, sujatha is the prince of pornography.but it is good the nauseating careers(?) of both these traitors has come to an end!!
as far as i know, potraying any caste in an offensive manner is against censor rules. censor rules & indian laws also do not permit commercial exposure of female skin. but sujatha & k. balachandran are experts in the trade of commercialising the female skin! i wonder how the scissors of the censors spare these type of female skin traders! god should first punish these sort of antisocials before saving them from brahmins! it is a shame for all of us that these fellows were born in the same caste in which the paramacharya was born!!
 
Last edited:
Pulp authors have existed in all societies and pulp fiction has some amount readership. This august gathering need not feel offended by things which do not have any literary value worth mentioning.
 
Lotus,

English translation is not availaible for that story.

Mr.Suresh,

Sujatha,balachandar, SS vasan and kalki are greate artists and creators.You talk about porn,but you forget that Indian culture never prohibited sex or porn.Havent you seen sculptures in kajuraho?Have you read kamathupal of valluvan and kamba rayanan?

Sex is celebrated in our culture.Our religion never called sex as a sin like abrahamic religions.So there is no point in inculting these great writers of tamil.
 
sir - i am not talking about religion or culture alone here. i am talking about law and censor rules. indian law and censor rules clearly ban commercialising female skin. khajuraho, kambar did not commercialise female skin. they did not earn even a single penny for their creations. they just recorded their views . but porn kings like s.s.vasan, k. balachandran. kalki krishnamurthy, sujatha have earned crores of rupees by titillating audience by exposing the female skin.this may be in tune with our 'culture' as you say. but have not these 'great(???) writers (!!!) violated established norms, rules and law? how they managed to get their writings and films exhibted for public viewing?? they must have given 'something' to authorities for sure! what is this 'something' is the billion dollar question!!!

the paramacharya represents the real face of indian culture.he was not even remotely connected with porn.if indian culture glorifies sex as you say, how did it create paramacharya, swamy raghavendrar, ramakrishna paramahamsa etc.. remember there is big difference between normal sex and Free sex. indian culture celebrates normal sex - sex between a male and female. but the 'great' writers you mentioned are apologists of Free Sex, which i dont think indian culture celebrates or indian law allows!!!!

last but not the least - the very fact that the 'great' writers you have mentioned are all favourites of the karunanidhi, show that these writers are all porn & pulp pathologicals!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Dear Suresh,

You are misinformed.First of all Indian law does allow sexuality in screen upto an extent. So Kb, Sujatha ,sandilyan, kamalahassan et al., broke no law.

And next our texts do talk about sexuality and free sex.Havent you heard of vatsayana rishi's kamasuthra and kokokam?

Gandarva vivaha, paisasa vivaha, rakshasa vivaha all were part of our texts and culture.Prostitutes, devadasis, homosexuals, eunuchs all have peacefully existed in india.No king has banned them.

There is no point in taking the moral high ground and blaming others.Its all individual rights and personal freedom.Consenting adults can do whatever they want within 4 walls.Others have very little control over this.And further if a movie is given A certificate, anybody above 18 can watch it and anybody can make such movies.People do have freedom of choice.
 
Dear Suresh,

You are misinformed.First of all Indian law does allow sexuality in screen upto an extent. So Kb, Sujatha ,sandilyan, kamalahassan et al., broke no law.

And next our texts do talk about sexuality and free sex.Havent you heard of vatsayana rishi's kamasuthra and kokokam?

Gandarva vivaha, paisasa vivaha, rakshasa vivaha all were part of our texts and culture.Prostitutes, devadasis, homosexuals, eunuchs all have peacefully existed in india.No king has banned them.

There is no point in taking the moral high ground and blaming others.Its all individual rights and personal freedom.Consenting adults can do whatever they want within 4 walls.Others have very little control over this.And further if a movie is given A certificate, anybody above 18 can watch it and anybody can make such movies.People do have freedom of choice.

SIR - Indian law and indian culture even allows violence to some extents. gods like lord muruga, rama ,krishna all have killed demons on various occassions. does that mean that we should also follow that example and start killing our adversaries. moreover the dispute is about commercialisation of female body- which is what the likes of kamalahassa, sujathal, k. balachandran, crazy mohan etc. are doing.the dispute is about potraying any caste in an offensive manner which is also against censor rules. then how do these fellows get films certified for public release inspite of blatantly violating censor rules, regulations and guidelines? they must have 'given' 'something' the censors for sure!!!!

crazy mohan, an apologist of the kamalahaasa, in the film avvai shanmugi, says since brahmins use leather , they should not oppose non vegeteranism. this shows the foolish levels to which the mohan has descended. leather is not created by killing animals, but derived from animals after animals die a natural death. leather has not been proved to be harmful , but non vegeteranism has been discovered to be harmful to humans. above all usage of leather is not banned in indian constitution, whereas non vegeteranism is banned directly in indian constitution in many clauses and provisions.

k. balachandran is the leader of the porn club in tamil cinema. of course more than this k.b., AVM is more famous for producing porn films. AVM should be called the leading porn institution in tamil cinema!!!!

YOU CAN DO ANYTHING WITHIN 4 WALLS SUBJECT TO LIMITS. BUT WHEN YOU COME OUT OF 4 WALLS, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO RULE OF LAW OF LAND. FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS ALSO SUBJECT TO MANY RESTRICTIONS. EVEN YOU ARE SAYING THAT INDIAN LAW ALLOWS SEXUALITY ONLY TO SOME EXTENT. THE FELLOWS YOU HAVE MENTIONED HAVE CLEARLY CROSSED THAT EXTENT. THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED BY LAW OR BY GOD. RISHI VATYSYAYANA DID NOT MAKE EVEN A SINGLE PAISA BECAUSE OF HIS SEXUAL WORKS. BUT THE FELLOWS YOU GLORIFY HAVE COMMERCIALISED FEMALE BODY AND MINTED CRORES! WILL THESE FELLOWS SHOW THEIR FILMS OR WRITINGS FREE OF COST? IN THAT CASE THEY CAN BE COMPARED TO VATSAYAYANA!! WE ARE NOT LIVING IN THE AGE OF KINGS BUT IN A MODERN DEMOCRACY WITH A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND ENFORCED IN LETTER & SPIRIT. ALL THE FELLOWS YOU EULOGISE ARE BLATANT VIOLATORS OF LAW. THEY ARE ACCUSED. THEY ARE THE CULPRITS.
 
Dear Mr. Suresh & Mr. Goundamani,

It was quite interesting to follow the debate. Allow me to put the things with a different view point to help clairify matters. First issue is depiction of porn/pseuo porn in vernacular language films including Tamil. Second issue is derogatory depiction of TAMBRAMS in tamil films. Third issue is to what extent constitution/legal provisions allow / disallow porn and vulgarity. I would suggest that these three issues be dealt seperately and in their own perspective.

So far as showing porn/pseudo porn in Indian films is concerned, we must bear in mind that films are only a mirror of the society. These films have been cleared for public viewing by censor board which comprises of leading citizens besides government officials. Over the past 40 years or so, film censor has become more and more liberal. Scenes which were considered taboo 3 decades back are commonly appearing in most films. This liberalism has to be allowed to some extent to counter the danger of moral policing of society's values by self appointed moral cops who may foist their political idelogy on common public.


Second issue pertains to derogatory depiction of any community in films. Yes, here the deciding criteria should be that .....your freedom starts where my nose ends...In multi ethnic multi-lingual stratified democratic society, we all must be alive to the sensitivities of others in the general interest of peace in the society. If any community feels incensed due to certain films or scenes, they have every right to take up issues legally or through NGO action etc. In this connection, the following two events which took place recently can be taken as guidance.
1. Few months back, a new restaurant opened in Mumbai named "Hitler's Cross". The small indian jewish community felt offended and took up the matter with the owner of the restaurant. The Israeli and German consulates also took up and finally the owner agreed to change the name of the restaurant to some thing else.
2. The Da Vinci Code which was allowed in many Christian countries was objected by some groups in India. Though cleared by censor board, many state governments have decided not to allow this film citing various reasons like public harmony etc.


So far as the third issue of constitutional provisions pertaining to non-vegetarianism, porn, vulgarity etc is concerned, legal experts may be able to throw more light. However, as far as I recollect, only the directive principles of state policy touch upon the cow protection issue. Constitution has no direct preference to the eating habits of the citizens. Porn and Vulgarity are governed by some acts like S(uppression of) Immoral T(raffic) A(ct), Sexual Exploitation Prevention Act etc.

If we see the Khajuraho temples which explictly depict sex and also many others temples in which statues are found showing various states of undress, copulation etc., it suggests that Indian society was quite permissive 2000 years back. Soft porn and unnecessary suggestive hip gyrations etc. found in todays movies should be dismissed only as cheap stuff meant for unsophisticated viewers. Don't watch it if you don't like but at the same time there is no need to adopt indianised version of talibaanic views on sex, women's freedom etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reflections of A True Liberal

As a true liberal, I believe in FREEDOM. I believe in free markets. I believe that everyone should be allowed to be free, live free, worship the gods of their choice in any mannner that they choose freely, voice their opinions freely, and also have the freedom of all opportunities EQUALLY.

This means that a priest should have the freedom to choose where and where not to be a priest in whatever temple for whatever reason. That those who wish to wear burqa should be free to do so without harrasment as long as they are not forcing others to where burqa. That whoever chooses to use "middle men" between them and god should be free to do so just as those who do not wish to have a mediator or choose to make fire their mediator or Jesus their mediator or go straight to Allah as their choice would be.

There are 2 things missing in India. These two things define the entire western civilization. India is missing these two things. Look deep in your hearts and be truely honest with yourselves. Those who've lived in foreign countries may or may not recognise this. But these two things are at the root of all of India's problems.

In India, the individual has not attained TRUE FREEDOM and Indian society has not attained TRUE EQUALITY. All they have done is found scape goats as to reasons why they don't have freedom and eqaulity. One important scape goat is the Brahmin. Just like the Jew was blaimed for all the ills of Europe, the Brahmin is made the ultimate oppressor.

A true liberal will fight for the emancipation of the Brahmin community in India. A true liberal will fight for Brahmin's right to live their indiginous culture and traditions. There are few true liberals in India but I have found plenty here in the west. You see, the west created your languange of oppresion on yourselves so the western people understand far better what your people are doing to you then even many on this forum know.

So let's here it for the true liberal and for true freedom and true equality.
 
Dear Sri suresh and lotus,

I would like to appreciate Mr.Lotus for the points which he mentioned.I dont have much differences with the views he expressed. Unfair attack on bhramins in movies should be curbed,I dont have any disagreement in it.At the same time,a fine line should be drawn between portrayal of bhramin characters in movies and insulting them as a community.

Mr.suresh argues that using leather is vegetarian and eating meat is non-vegetarian.I dont understand this logic.using animal skin is good, but using animal flesh is bad..How?Many animals are killed for their skins.So many species in the world because extint because they were hunted for their skin.And if people stop using leather products meat will become prohibitively costly,forcing more meat eaters to stop consuming meat.And as he argues, nobody takes leather from dead animals.They get it from butchers.

And I dont think KB or AVm broke any laws by making movies.If Mr.Suresh would call movies like sakalakala vallavan and manmadaha leelai as porn , then I would suspect that we are using 12th century standards to define porn.They are not even soft porn:love: ,they are movies made for fun loving audience above 18.Those movies broke no law

Rishi vatsayana did not make single penny?Does that make him somehow better?In internet so many porn videos are released on mytube and google videos by college students.Anybody can download them free of cost.So does that mean that these amaterus equal rishi vatsayana?

Suresh said:
non vegeteranism is banned directly in indian constitution in many clauses and provisions.

Are you serious?:love: which Indian law bans non-vegetarianism?which clause and provision bans it?OMG..
 
As a true liberal, I believe in FREEDOM. I believe in free markets. I believe that everyone(all communities, irrespective of their castes) should be allowed to be free, live free, worship the gods of their choice in any mannner(like becoming priests) that they choose freely, voice their opinions freely, and also have the freedom of all opportunities EQUALLY.

This means that a priest (of any community) should have the freedom to choose where and where not to be a priest in whatever temple for whatever reason. That those who wish to wear burqa should be free to do so without harrasment as long as they are not forcing others to where burqa. That whoever chooses to use "middle men(of any community)" between them and god should be free to do so just as those who do not wish to have a mediator or choose to make fire their mediator or Jesus their mediator or go straight to Allah as their choice would be.

Ms.Shanthi bhrahm,

I am happy to know that we agree in so many issues.To your posting, I have added some words in bold,which I believe arent contrary to your belief in human right to worship.
 
Flawed Indian Constitution

YOU CAN DO ANYTHING WITHIN 4 WALLS SUBJECT TO LIMITS. BUT WHEN YOU COME OUT OF 4 WALLS, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO RULE OF LAW OF LAND. FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS ALSO SUBJECT TO MANY RESTRICTIONS. EVEN YOU ARE SAYING THAT INDIAN LAW ALLOWS SEXUALITY ONLY TO SOME EXTENT. THE FELLOWS YOU HAVE MENTIONED HAVE CLEARLY CROSSED THAT EXTENT. THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED BY LAW OR BY GOD. RISHI VATYSYAYANA DID NOT MAKE EVEN A SINGLE PAISA BECAUSE OF HIS SEXUAL WORKS. BUT THE FELLOWS YOU GLORIFY HAVE COMMERCIALISED FEMALE BODY AND MINTED CRORES! WILL THESE FELLOWS SHOW THEIR FILMS OR WRITINGS FREE OF COST? IN THAT CASE THEY CAN BE COMPARED TO VATSAYAYANA!! WE ARE NOT LIVING IN THE AGE OF KINGS BUT IN A MODERN DEMOCRACY WITH A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND ENFORCED IN LETTER & SPIRIT. ALL THE FELLOWS YOU EULOGISE ARE BLATANT VIOLATORS OF LAW. THEY ARE ACCUSED. THEY ARE THE CULPRITS.

Dear Suresh,

I'm not sure if Rule of Law arguement is the best arguement to make. This is because there are too many fundumental problems with the Indian constitution and the Law of the Land. I would say a drastic revision is in order if India is going to compete in the global arena.

One thing can be said about Indian Constitution is that it is unique. It is not based on English Mangna Carta or American Bill of Rights Contitution ro French constituton or anything else ( all based on older models with revisions coming from a universal constitution based on earlier greek notions of democracy with added universalist ideals) but is a unique document that is uniquely Indian for India. This has been it's problem.

As most constitutions are based on fumdamental principles ( it is said that they derive those principles from Freemasonic Constitution which claims those principles to be Universal) they are said to stand for Universal principles. India's constitution is based not on Universal principles but on unique Indian principles that charactorize a time and place in Indian history and developement and understanding of what Indianism was and what problems it faced according to the "wisdom" of a few people.

Therefore, the Indian constitution is inherently flawed. It cannot adapt itself quickly to change, to new understanding, to re-evaluation, to new times or new situations. It is not fundamental ( you cannot take this constitution and use it in America or Greece, for instance.) It is not Universal.

As India changes the only solution is lawlesness. Which is exactly as Churchil predicted when he got a wiff of our Indian constitution.
 
Thanks for Agreement

As a true liberal, I believe in FREEDOM. I believe in free markets. I believe that everyone(all communities, irrespective of their castes) should be allowed to be free, live free, worship the gods of their choice in any mannner(like becoming priests) that they choose freely, voice their opinions freely, and also have the freedom of all opportunities EQUALLY.

This means that a priest (of any community) should have the freedom to choose where and where not to be a priest in whatever temple for whatever reason. That those who wish to wear burqa should be free to do so without harrasment as long as they are not forcing others to where burqa. That whoever chooses to use "middle men(of any community)" between them and god should be free to do so just as those who do not wish to have a mediator or choose to make fire their mediator or Jesus their mediator or go straight to Allah as their choice would be.

I am happy to say that I completely agree with you on this. I think any community can start their own temples and become preists in those temples and freely creat the religion of their choice or their form of hinduism. At the same time, those who wish to have Brahmin preist hinduism should be free to practice that.

Let both exist.
 
Indian COnstitution.

Dear Sir,
I completely and totally disagree with your views on Indian Constitution. Indian Constitutution draws heavily from original Government of India Act (1935), and also from American, Irish and French Constitution. For the first time in 7000 years old history of India, an effort has been made to treat all as equal in the eyes of law. The fundamental principles dictate the rights of individual and the limits on the powers of the state. The directive principles govern the direction state policy must take. The constitutiion provides for amendment in itself with adequate safegaurds to ensure that over zealous politics does not alter the basic structure of the constitution. The delicately balanced power equation between parliament, executive, judiciary and the president ensure that nobody grows too big for his boots. 60 years after independance if India still remains as a single nation, the credit goes to the Constitutution and the iron structure (the beurocracy or the baboodum).

One must take a positive view of things. Must we not appreciate that within 60 years of independance, our country has risen from the dumps of ignorance, disease, poverty and fraction politics to a modern and secular and progressive nation ?

I am not an apologist of reservation and neither a supporter of casteism but I give credit to the foresight of the authors of the constitution who have allowed the state to lend a helping hand to the socially downtrodden people to come up and catch with the rest. 2000 years of social oppression can not be undone in mere 60 years of reservation. Positive reservation in favour of weak and oppressed is found in many other countries. As far as I see, the present opposition to reservation is solely due to limited economic opportunities available in the country and with government as the single largest player in the economic field hence reservation deprives the rightful opportunities to young bright people from other communities in the larger interest of social upliftment of the downtrodden. As we progress further, greater economic opportunities will become available in private sector and self employment sectors which are not within the purview of reservation and are generally guided by the universal principles of SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.

Dear Suresh,

I'm not sure if Rule of Law arguement is the best arguement to make. This is because there are too many fundumental problems with the Indian constitution and the Law of the Land. I would say a drastic revision is in order if India is going to compete in the global arena.

One thing can be said about Indian Constitution is that it is unique. It is not based on English Mangna Carta or American Bill of Rights Contitution ro French constituton or anything else ( all based on older models with revisions coming from a universal constitution based on earlier greek notions of democracy with added universalist ideals) but is a unique document that is uniquely Indian for India. This has been it's problem.

As most constitutions are based on fumdamental principles ( it is said that they derive those principles from Freemasonic Constitution which claims those principles to be Universal) they are said to stand for Universal principles. India's constitution is based not on Universal principles but on unique Indian principles that charactorize a time and place in Indian history and developement and understanding of what Indianism was and what problems it faced according to the "wisdom" of a few people.

Therefore, the Indian constitution is inherently flawed. It cannot adapt itself quickly to change, to new understanding, to re-evaluation, to new times or new situations. It is not fundamental ( you cannot take this constitution and use it in America or Greece, for instance.) It is not Universal.

As India changes the only solution is lawlesness. Which is exactly as Churchil predicted when he got a wiff of our Indian constitution.
 
I I think any community can start their own temples and become preists in those temples and freely creat the religion of their choice or their form of hinduism. At the same time, those who wish to have Brahmin preist hinduism should be free to practice that.

Let both exist.

Both of them can and should co-exist.

Temples which belong to all hindus like srirangam, chidambaram,madurai ,annamalai etc. should be open to all hindus for worship and priesthood. They are not the personal property of any community. They were built by kings for the benefit of the whole world. Apart from temples which belong to all hindus, I dont have any problems with any community building exclusive temples for its members.

Both types of temples should co-exist in the country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top