'Pseudo' Secularism

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri Ramki Ji,

A very thought provoking response.

I think that because of 'History' and how it unfolded, today's Muslim is confused and frightened. I think that Fatwas and the peer pressure from folks who have no other credentials than to keep the status-quo are hurting that religion's expression of itself in the modern world.

If you have not yet read Ms. Irshad Manji's very thought provoking book 'Trouble with Islam today', I recommend that book, very highly. If you read that book, you can understand the actions (or non actions) of Indian Muslims, and the majority of Muslims everywhere.

We as Hindus or Christians or Jews wonder what prevents the Islamic 'moderates' to come out and condemn terrorism. The answer, in my opinion is because of three reasons: 1. Islam, even though a major religion, has allowed itself to be intertwined with politics everywhere. And thus it feels that it has been unfairly subjugated everywhere (Israel issue) by the West in particular (I could not believe my ears when a very well educated Muslim lady in India told me that 9/11 was the handiwork of Jews!). There is a constant drum beat of how Islam is not treated well anywhere by the majority of the Mullahs. 2. Islam has not gone through the experiences of 'dark ages' to have humanism infused in it's philosophy. I suspect that they are going through that now. 3. Intellectualism and reasoning are discouraged. I have read what Muhammed said about the same thing (e.g., multiple wives) interpreted in so many different ways. Please read:
http://www.milligazette.com/dailyup...al_Freedom_Muslim_Societies_islam_islamic.htm
This article explores this point quite well.

While I agree that the Muslim community in India should condemn terrorism and be Indians first, I think that we should through the government ask for such things from the community and not use it for vote bank politics.

Anyway, my two cents.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[hariharan1972]

My response


KRS Sir / SF / Ramki / Chintana,

This is an all rolled into one response.

KRS ji / SF – Since I am “considerate” about Father time, I didn’t ask you to “jump in”. You surely are welcome to “join in”. I can hear the gnashing of the teeth !

Anyways my apologies are due.

I think I made a bad fist of explaining myself on couple of points. Blame again to Mrs Prema Mahadevan (who taught me English) and my coming to terms with my ‘new-old’ laptop which returned after a by-pass. (How does this affect you may wonder, but yedhavadhu sakku cholli aaganumilla )

Ramki,

Firstly I am not justifying terrorism or the terror acts which followed Babri demolition. Very often I wonder if we could rewind the time clock and stop that particular act, how India would be Today.
I am only trying to make a case that WE HINDUS had a chance to be magnanimous and AVOID confrontation. It is to our ill-luck that BJP realized how the issue can be blown into an emotive issue enroute to power.

After all what is Hinduism without MAGNANIMITY and FORGIVENESS ? The beauty of Hinduism is that we don’t have ANY hard and fast rules. FLEXIBILITY is the name of the game that we have long played and suddenly I find some of us have developed RIGIDITIES.

I mean a “certain kind of flexibility here”. What I here mean is that we don’t necessarily have to go to ‘Thanjai Periya Kovil’ or a ‘Madurai Meenakshi ammal kovil’ only. We can find perfect peace and bliss by praying at a ‘Marathadi pillaiyar kovil’.

Not that I am against big temples or a temple for Lord Ram at Ayodhya but we could have stayed away from insisting on building a temple right at the point of dispute. I am sure you would agree that neither our belief nor our veneration for Lord Ram would diminish by agreeing to move away from the trouble spot.

Kindly let me know whether you disagree with this.

Now by not exercising the elbow room within our system, I am afraid we have unwittingly or wittingly created a situation where some radical Muslims felt they had to retaliate if they have to stand a chance of retaining their religious identity in this country. I agree with you that they had peaceful options before them, but for reasons best known to them, they chose not to exercise it.

This is what I wanted to articulate.

Ramki – point about Muslim ostracisation

Again, bad English from me.

I am not at all disagreeing with the Muslim engagement in politics, or ministerships or gubernatorial posts. I was more hinting at the mainstream system in which Muslims are unfortunately not a big part of.

Apart from the ubiquitous definition of “pseudo-secularism” my take on this term includes : not doing anything for the upliftment of the Muslim community and “just keep them entertained” by hosting Iftaar parties or joining them in Namaz during Ramzan or other holy occasions.
Economically they are below the national average, which I hope you will also agree.

I was referring to THIS kind of ostracisation.

If political engagement is the benchmark even BJP has Mr Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi as one of their Vice-Presidents but Muslims enmasse loathe BJP.

Regarding your point about politicians falling head over heels to “placate” the Muslims or PM losing sleep, I agree to your point, but these too, just as I mentioned, join the “Hall of Fame” of “appearing- to do- so-much-but-actually-doing-nothing” brand of Pseudo Secularism.

The political establishment (read : Congress) has successfully kept the Muslims under wraps by assuring them of their “religious identity” and just that. Muslims of the earlier generations were quite contend with that and now the community is realizing how they have been fooled. That is the reason, you would have seen the congress grip on “BMW Vote” slipping.

The final point of discussion being why Muslims are not much more in the forefront in condemning terror more publicly, I don’t disagree with it. As you rightly say their silence is a bit intriguing.

If at all I can throw a counter, which I am not, but I am just wondering, just as yet, whether OTHER COMMUNITIES are any different. In the sense that do other communities do enough ? I am not asking this of you, but to all of us, perhaps we should reflect upon it.

My only point, though would be that if we have a general consensus on the fact that everyone else is not doing enough, it would apply to Muslims too, but not in isolation.

My point about whether Muslims have been treated fairly, stems from the fact that even today there are some who doubt the patriotic integrity of Muslims. That’s about it. I agree with you on JFK.

Regards,

Hari

PS : Our resident hindiwallahs silence is bit worrisome. Also what happened to Suresh Sir ? Suresh sir, this is a “karumbu thinna kooliya” thread for you, I thought.

 

[silverfox]

Ok, Hari!
You have insulted us again!!
<<<<<<KRS ji / SF – Since I am “considerate” about Father time, I didn’t ask you to “jump in”. You surely are welcome to “join in”. I can hear the gnashing of the teeth !>>>

What do you mean by that? We cannot jump in? I will have you know that I play a mean game of tennis for two hours (lotus_quartz can attest to this!!) and run between 2 to 3 miles daily. I can surely "jump in"!!! Don't judge people by chronological age!!

p.s. Hari, this posting is in jest!! (not the tennis and run part!!)
By the way, where are lotus_quartz and Naras?

 

[gurumurthyji]

Thank you for the understanding sow.chintana ji

Dear Sow.Chintanaji,

[Dear Amoorkan and Gurumurthiji - your fears do have a basis but please recognize that indulging in them will not provide the security we seek. I find Hari's point most useful in emphasizing this idea].

Thanks for the understanding. But I believe that our security/or the security we seek surely lies in the hands of majority Hindus. Neruppu endhru sonnal vaai suttu vidhadhu . I find Shri. Hari’s point is the fittest example for Sath ghuna Vikruthi (can I say perversion of goodness?)


Gurumurthyji

 

[hariharan1972]

Can you kindly explain ?

I find Shri. Hari’s point is the fittest example for Sath ghuna Vikruthi (can I say perversion of goodness?)

Gurumurthyji

Sri Gurumurthyji ,

I am not able to get you. Can you kindly explain in simpler terms for me to understand ?

Also which point are you referring to ? Since perversion also carries the meaning of 'distortion'. Do you think i am distorting the point ?. If you can help me understand how, i will correct myself.

 

[lotus_quartz]

Now, now, Hari bhai, looks as if you are slipping up on your net browsing assignments !

Honorable members were under the assumption that at some time or the other you would have taken a more than casual peep into the contents of your junk mail folder which promise, among other things, prescriptions for perpetuating the youth.

The (Late) singer of yesteryears Kundan Lal Sehgal had to contend himself with singing "...Abhi to main jawaan hoon..." [..I am still young...] but modern day living has better options.

Since I am “considerate” about Father time, I didn’t ask you to “jump in”. You surely are welcome to “join in”. I can hear the gnashing of the teeth !

 

[hariharan1972]

LQ Sahab,

Very true.

Looks like i am behind on 'Beta' time.

I am pretty certain that the throw-away-line "I am STILL young" would not cut ice with SF, because, if he needs to "proclaim", then it is a tacit admission of the opposite.

This at a time, when according to reliable sources, SF has entered into the "Boys" Singles draw at The Championships for 2008 - it would be bad press !

I am seriously contemplating having a poll in the forum to choose the PYT SF would partner with for the Mixed Doubles. Can you give any headsup ?

This banter aside, wondering what are your thoughts on the issue on hand ?

 

[rxrajamo]

Hari

Thanks for your response. No need of apologies as we are just articulating our viewpoints.

Reg RamJanmabhoomi, I do not think Islamic militancy has anything to do with it. If not Ramjanmabhoomi, they would have found another issue. If Hindus or any other community for that matter have to forgo their beliefs just because some radicals in another community would react violently or to avoid confrontation, it will never stop. It will lead to more and more acts of appeasing and that is what the Indian government is doing anyway.

I understand your good heart when you say Hindus can be magnanimous. But my question is for how long ? We have been magnanimous about partitioning our country in the name of religion. We have let the political party Muslim League, that led to the partition continue to function. We have given the minorities more rights than majority community. It cannot go on for long. What did they do to reciprocate ? Dont you think it would have been much better if they had been magnanimous for once and let go off the Ramjanmabhoomi ? After all, for them it was just a mosque Babar built and was not tied to the prophet or anything sacred. But still you have not answered my question about why only Muslims react violently to all perceived acts of injustices against them. Why didnt the Hindus go about and indulge in terrorist activities when they feel their religion is threatened? Like you I often wonder, what the Muslims and the country would have gained if they had magnanimously come out and said to Hindus "Here. Take this place. We respect your sentiments". Just think about it.

Hari saare, I totally agree and strongly believe that God is in within us. As Sivavakkiyar said,

We dont even have to go to the Marathadi Pillyar Kovil to find bliss if we can realize the God within us. But temples in different locations, deities in different forms, and other festivals have their own significance. Holy places like Kasi, Madurai, Rameswaram or Ayodhya are very sacred to believers. For believers, each of these locations & deities (like Sri Saneeshwara at Thirunallaru) have their own special powers. We cannot say that since we can see god in ourselves, let us give away these temples to other communities.

Muslims being economically below national average is not something we did to them. It is something that to a major extent, they themselves are responsible. At least in this case it is not the politicians fault to get votes on communal lines and forget about them. That is what they do always. There are so many castes in Hindus who vote on caste basis. In fact in certain constituencies in TN where you have to have some particular caste candidates only. Haven't they prospered ? It is simply the question of ones priorities in life. If you vote for good administration, good roads, electricity, jobs and demand at least some of it, that community/caste will prosper. On the other hand if you are happy with laws to say talaq thrice and not pay maintenance, talk of Urudu education forgetting science, then you are bound to suffer. Good people beget good leaders.

Reg other communities, I do not see any other community in India resorting to violence to the slightest of the provocation (real or imagined). I do not see Hindus coming out in thousands and violently protest against the company that put Ganesha's picture on toilet seats. Nor do I generally see Christians or Buddhists doing that. No other community wants to bomb and kill civilians in the name of God. Of course, there are always fringe groups in these communities that indulge in sporadic violence. But we can hear saner voices coming out immediately condemning those indulging in violence. Sadly that is not the case with Muslims. Remember for evil to triumph, it does not have to strive hard. It is just enough that good people keep quiet on seeing evil things. Hence it is essential that good people come out in numbers to oppose evil every time they see it.

Over and out

Ramki

KRS Sir / SF / Ramki / Chintana,

This is an all rolled into one response.

KRS ji / SF – Since I am “considerate” about Father time, I didn’t ask you to “jump in”. You surely are welcome to “join in”. I can hear the gnashing of the teeth !

Anyways my apologies are due.

I think I made a bad fist of explaining myself on couple of points. Blame again to Mrs Prema Mahadevan (who taught me English) and my coming to terms with my ‘new-old’ laptop which returned after a by-pass. (How does this affect you may wonder, but yedhavadhu sakku cholli aaganumilla )

Ramki,

Firstly I am not justifying terrorism or the terror acts which followed Babri demolition. Very often I wonder if we could rewind the time clock and stop that particular act, how India would be Today.
I am only trying to make a case that WE HINDUS had a chance to be magnanimous and AVOID confrontation. It is to our ill-luck that BJP realized how the issue can be blown into an emotive issue enroute to power.

After all what is Hinduism without MAGNANIMITY and FORGIVENESS ? The beauty of Hinduism is that we don’t have ANY hard and fast rules. FLEXIBILITY is the name of the game that we have long played and suddenly I find some of us have developed RIGIDITIES.

I mean a “certain kind of flexibility here”. What I here mean is that we don’t necessarily have to go to ‘Thanjai Periya Kovil’ or a ‘Madurai Meenakshi ammal kovil’ only. We can find perfect peace and bliss by praying at a ‘Marathadi pillaiyar kovil’.

Not that I am against big temples or a temple for Lord Ram at Ayodhya but we could have stayed away from insisting on building a temple right at the point of dispute. I am sure you would agree that neither our belief nor our veneration for Lord Ram would diminish by agreeing to move away from the trouble spot.

Kindly let me know whether you disagree with this.

Now by not exercising the elbow room within our system, I am afraid we have unwittingly or wittingly created a situation where some radical Muslims felt they had to retaliate if they have to stand a chance of retaining their religious identity in this country. I agree with you that they had peaceful options before them, but for reasons best known to them, they chose not to exercise it.

This is what I wanted to articulate.

Ramki – point about Muslim ostracisation

Again, bad English from me.

I am not at all disagreeing with the Muslim engagement in politics, or ministerships or gubernatorial posts. I was more hinting at the mainstream system in which Muslims are unfortunately not a big part of.

Apart from the ubiquitous definition of “pseudo-secularism” my take on this term includes : not doing anything for the upliftment of the Muslim community and “just keep them entertained” by hosting Iftaar parties or joining them in Namaz during Ramzan or other holy occasions.
Economically they are below the national average, which I hope you will also agree.

I was referring to THIS kind of ostracisation.

If political engagement is the benchmark even BJP has Mr Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi as one of their Vice-Presidents but Muslims enmasse loathe BJP.

Regarding your point about politicians falling head over heels to “placate” the Muslims or PM losing sleep, I agree to your point, but these too, just as I mentioned, join the “Hall of Fame” of “appearing- to do- so-much-but-actually-doing-nothing” brand of Pseudo Secularism.

The political establishment (read : Congress) has successfully kept the Muslims under wraps by assuring them of their “religious identity” and just that. Muslims of the earlier generations were quite contend with that and now the community is realizing how they have been fooled. That is the reason, you would have seen the congress grip on “BMW Vote” slipping.

The final point of discussion being why Muslims are not much more in the forefront in condemning terror more publicly, I don’t disagree with it. As you rightly say their silence is a bit intriguing.

If at all I can throw a counter, which I am not, but I am just wondering, just as yet, whether OTHER COMMUNITIES are any different. In the sense that do other communities do enough ? I am not asking this of you, but to all of us, perhaps we should reflect upon it.

My only point, though would be that if we have a general consensus on the fact that everyone else is not doing enough, it would apply to Muslims too, but not in isolation.

My point about whether Muslims have been treated fairly, stems from the fact that even today there are some who doubt the patriotic integrity of Muslims. That’s about it. I agree with you on JFK.

Regards,

Hari

.

 

[Amoorkan]

Hari OM

Thank you for having the name Hari. I am going to say this many times in this positing to earn some Punya!

Dear Hari, you have said: "I feel very very sad that you think that Muslims haven’t changed their attitude towards Hindus. IMHO, nothing can be farther from the truth." In reply I have to say that
I have based my opinion on historical facts (remember facts happen in history not outside of it!).]

Dear Hari, You have said: "At the cost of being a damning statement, I really think India does not have a History ! I think the way I think because we are still are “enquiring” into whether Rama built a bridge, atheists question the “sexual” preferences of Rama, we still believe there is a temple beneath the Taj, we still question the real motives behind the Mutiny of 1857, we still think that Rama was born precisely on a certain sq inch of land at Ayodhya. Phew!"

Hmm. Who are 'we'? Hindus worship Rama as an incarnation of God Vishnu. Why bring in the athiest? Believe me true Hindus do not subscribe to your 'phew!'. It is really hurtful.

Dear Hari, you have asked the question: "Can we ever give a honourable burial to History and leave it for the kids to study?

If you want the history to be buried why do you want the kids to study? Is history a joke or a fiction? But then you come back to say "Before you question me, I am not saying “let us forget history” but only appealing that “history has a certain context and expiry date” and let us not draw inferences for our present from the past. Please."

Are you saying history won't repeat? Yes, my friend, it will repeat for those who do not learn from it. History is of course history and it has expired but no one can say it is irrelevant. You don't wake up everyday as a new "Adam" to use the biblical term of the first man!

Dear Hari, you have said: "but what is of relevance today is that we are a Hindu-majority nation and it is our responsibility to peacefully co-exist with other communities including Muslims."

Did anyone in this forum including me say we should not peacefully co-exist with other communities including Muslims? Why are you jumping the gun to draw needless conclusion? I have to explain to you something very importatant. It is about the Hindu. What is the difference between a Muslim, a Christian and a Hindu? Muslims considers that Hindus who do not believe in Islam is an infidel and destroying an infidel is a jihad that earns him a place in heaven. Islam has never disowned this part of their belief. In fact they don't disown even a comma in their qoran and you say one single
slight (the way you quoted the atheiest above about Ram) and there would be a fatwa on your head.

Now let's take the Christian. From the Pope down to a devout Christian, they all think that we the Hindus would be damned to hell and have to be 'saved'. To quote the pope's words, our 'souls have to be harvested'. Proselytization is their religious right they claimed and our secularists
betrayers of the Hindus refused to ban conversion by fraud and coersion. (Remember Pratibha returned the bill of Rajasthan government banning forced conversion?).

Now we come to the Hindu. Hindus never force any one to change his/her religion. Only Hinduism gives complete freedom to anyone to do whatever karma he deems fit by thoughts and deeds that would include your slight on our revered God Rama. Whether you did directly or by quoting a wicked guy makes no difference. You can make it but I have no respect for it. You wish to claim to be a Hindu and yet stand out in disdain and you certainly have the freedom to do it. Hinduism allows it and there is no Ayatolla to issue a fatwa on you.

This is what I am about and all the Hindus are about. I and all Hindus therefore do not advocate or entertain even remotely to the idea of ethnic cleansing. But to attribute whenever we express our fear of destruction coming from other religions, some secularists jump in and claim that any Hindu to come to power would be disastrous to the minorities and that they have to exhibit their true secularism by appeasing to the minorities by denying to the Hindus any power or privilege and dividing them on caste and many other basis. Who does this help? I personally do not believe in courting destruction and pain and self-denial in the Gandhian style. That is against the Purushaartha given in our scriptures in Dharma, Artha, Kaama and Moksha.

You asked the question: "Sir, if you think that “ALL” Muslims treat Hindus as Kafirs, kindly confirm whether this is true for Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, for starters." This sort of pitting an exception to the generalities is the argument of the unpad. The scientific maxim is that the exception proves the opposite! When the Mukthibahini went on the offensive against the Pakistani Army in Bangladesh in 1971 the Pakistani general Niazi embarked on a diversion by inciting the Muslims to kill Hindus in Bangladesh. Tens of thousands of Hindus were slaughtered and millions were uprooted and robbed of their possesions. Heinous crimes were commited on their families. It was ethnic cleansing. The refugee flow was unabting. I was then in Calcutta and was a witness to it. It was this refugee problem that prompted Indira Gandhi to send in our troops. In my earlier posting I have quoted from the Hindu American Foundation where Rosaline Costa, a native of Bangladesh recounts her eye witness account of gang rapes indulged on helpless Hindu women in front of their own children, husbands, parents and brothers. If you parade a hundred Kalams before these tens of thousands of miserable husbands, parents, brothers and children would they agree with your contention that they are painting all the Muslims with a broad brush?

Dear Hari, You have said: "the growth of these radical elements was fuelled on the fateful day in Dec’92 when the Babri Mosque was demolished". This is a selective statement. And you have selective amnesia too just like all the secularists who spew on the Hindus. Why are you so blind that you never speak of the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits by the Muslims that have been going on ever since 1947. (Nehru would refer Kashmir issue to the Security Council on the advise of his sweetheart Edwina against the sagacious advise of Gen. Kariappa and Dharam Vir Vallabhai Patel? According to the published papers "Sardar Patel used to say that he would have tackled the Kashmir issue like Hyderabad. He was against referring the Kashmir issue to the UNO as he was of the opinion that the United Nation Security Council had not solved any problem, be it Palestine or Indonesia." - The Tribune, Oct 12 1998)

And then you say: "The Mumbai serial blasts followed and it then gradually spiralled into full fledged terror networks." So you are saying, the Muslims wouldn't have done it but for the Hindus (read it as fundamentalists or right-wing saffronists or whatever, right?). Yes it is the fault of the Hindus for you have said: "The most recent start point I am afraid, was something, us, the Hindus could have prevented. But political compulsions, narrow mindedness and penchant for digging into history has reduced us to a state where we are living in a era of terror." Great argument! Penchant for digging into history!!


Dear Hari, you have said: "What does the Muslim in India do if there is an ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh. How do you think it is justified to view the Muslims of India with suspicion?" Pray tell me what did I want anyone to do particulary to any Muslim in India? All I am saying is there is a fundamental philosophy they have towards non-Muslims that is easily tranformed into bloodbath of Hindus as in Pakistan or Bangladesh or Kashmir or Hindukush (literally means kill Hindus) which would dwarf the holocaust. If you do not want to see this reality I have nothing more to argue with you.

Dear Hari, You have said: "Now that we find that some people form economically/educationally challenged sections of Muslims taking to violence, we again point out to the low reach of education. For what is largely political apathy, the cross-bearers again are the Muslims." Muslims
are cross-bearers eh? Economically/educationally challenged sections are there in every section of the community be it Hindu, Muslim or Christian. Haven't you read about the many hundreds of peasants committing suicides in all parts of India. Haven't you heard of the Naxalite movement that spreads terror. Why Muslims get special attention from you for being the most dispossed? You don't think that the terror has foreign hand at all?

And dear Hari, you have concluded with a question: "Before you castigate the Muslims, kindly reflect on whether as a Nation we have dealt with Muslims fairly?" I have a counter question for you. Before you castigate the Hindus, kindly reflect on whether as a Nation we have dealt with Hindus fairly ?

 

[KRS]

Dear Friends,

So we have established that both Islam and Christianity have done wrong with respect to India and Hinduism.

So, I go back to my original question.

Is the solution that India proclaims Herself a majority Hindu nation? What will that mean?

I repeatedly hear learned members confusing 'pseudo' secularism with secularism. Seems to me that the word 'secularism' is purposefully is made in to a dirty word.

I wonder whether people have thought through the consequences of India being a non-secular nation (not 'pseudo'), when they trash this word. We all know what is happening, but what is a true solution?

Pranams,
KRS

 

[hariharan1972]

response

Ramki / Sri Amoorkan,

My response

Ramki

• About Ramjanmabhoomi I said what I said, since here “we” were making an attempt to change history. The fact that there was a temple seems irrelevant to me and what is of relevance is what all of us “that day saw”. There was a structure, whether or not Muslims did namaz in it, it was not a “building” but a “mosque” and “however it came into existence”, it was there and now it is not there.

• I am only saying any attempt to “change history” will cause passions to run high. Just for argument sake, if it is archaeologically proved that any of our major temples was built on what was erstwhile a mosque, will we agree to change history ? (I know major temples pre-date the mosque, but just for an argument). Now if the Govt would support this change, I agree it is appeasement and I will do whatever within my might to oppose the Govt’s move.

• We have slightly different takes on History. But my larger point here is –

i. Not to draw “such inferences” to be used as prisms through which we want to see someone today – you seem to agree on this

• • Let us not attempt to “change history”

• As to why Muslims react violently – I don’t know. I also don’t know whether it is “only” them. (Dera issue ?) I am certainly not-informed on a pan-world basis. All I know that there are “recent flashpoints” in India which could have been avoided with better governance. And I don’t know whether you agree, it is my belief that what happens “here” has a more direct bearing on how each community thinks. (Danish Cartoon & Anti-bush protests aside, they were anyway not sustained)

• I am certainly neither trying to tell you that temples don’t have a locational significance nor am I opposed to them. I was only trying to tell you that the locational significance needn’t have an “engineering-precision”. Temple in Ayodhya, Yes, but why “only” on that exact sq.inch is my question. Muslims could have shown flexibility, Yes, but it would amount to agreeing to change their own history which “we” wouldn’t isn’t it if it were to be asked of us.

• None of us are witnesses to history. So it is not easy for any community to let-go of what they see, feel and sense based on anything not 100% empirical. Add to it the possibilities of as many theories as the number of heads that get into the issue.

• Muslim leaders are largely responsible for the problems of the community. I agree with you here. They were foolhardy in only seeking “religious-non-interference” as the only “output” of Governance and they are living to regret it. Most certainly I was not trying to imply that “we” did to them. I was only trying to argue that the Govt didn’t cover themselves in glory by not engaging them in the process of development. As much difficult it is, I cannot pardon the Governance which just played ball with them and not tell them the disastrous path they were taking and not insisted on course correction.

• My point about “other communities” was not about whether they were engaging in violent protests but more about whether they come out in proportional numbers to condemn terrorism. In this context, did I say that we cannot have separate standards for Muslims.

Sri Amookan

• ‘Phew’ was said in exhaustion and not out of dis-respect. I apologise if it was hurtful

• I was not expressing any opinion on what I listed. I was only trying to drive home the point of the number of historical issues that we were dealing with.

• History is not a joke or fiction but a collage of what went by. It has a learning value, I agree, but as I keep saying, it cannot be used to draw inferences for current consumption.

• I see a dichotomy – We fear that history might repeat but we want to “change” history. By engaging in “changing history” it is my belief that we “invite” history to be repeated.

• While I entirely agree that we cannot make societal inferences based on few individuals (in hindsight I should have written about this in my previous post). Glad that you brought it up. While I mentioned about some Muslims who have made positive contributions to the nation, Ramki referred to few who have caused sufferings. True. Now my question is whether we are going to “evaluate” a community based on “personalities” ? You may find it amusing coming as it is from me, who brought personalities into this discussion, but I was a bit intrigued when you said “All” muslims in your earlier post. So as a poser I had to bring in Dr Kalam and Ustad Bismillah Khan.

• Sir, given the fact that I have a certain chronological start point, I have a handicap of only ‘reading’ history and not ‘witness’ to it. So, from my standpoint, I again feel that Bangladesh was a political fallout caused by – either a porous border or power politics. I am fully empathetical to the plight of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan but I am only asking you, Sir, whether we should follow them in hating an entire community in India ? Secondly is what happening in Bangladesh and Pakistan “sufficient reason” ?

• No, I didn’t even mean that you were against co-existence. Sorry if it was not clear from my post. I am only saying that at 187 Million, we cannot but deal with them. This is a fact that we cannot shy away. I only wonder how we will engage them if we continue to harbour suspicions.

• I have clarified what I meant by “fair treatment of Muslims”. A Hindu is a deemed patriot and has to be proved otherwise while a Muslim is a deemed anti-patriotic and has to be proved otherwise. This is the mindset and I don’t know how you feel about it.

• Certainly I meant no disrespect to Lord Ram. I am a bit agnostic when it comes to ritualism but I am not a ‘Kafir’. I am not certainly a Naras brand Brahmin or a Hindu but I do submit myself to HIM.

• My apologies once again if my references to Lord Ram hurt your beliefs/sentiments.

 

[gurumurthyji]

Let us not loose the main question?

Dear Sri. Hari Sir,

[Also which point are you referring to ? Since perversion also carries the meaning of 'distortion'. Do you think i am distorting the point ?. If you can help me understand how, i will correct myself ].

I could not find an exact word in English for the Sanskrit word Vikruthi. In tamil I can say that as ‘vakram’. Rhombhavum nallavana irukkira vakram you can also take like this. Any how Sri.Ramki sir, Sri.Amoorkan sir and others have written point by point. Hari sir, I like you and your writings. Pasangu thookkathai vittidunga Sir. Rhombhavum nallavana irundha win panna mudiyadhu sir. O.k.

We left the main point declaring India as a Hindu nation. Let me now say my view. You will find a ‘thalai nimirndhu sellum Gen Next’. The days are not far off that I will be able to see that soon, I wish. Kettaley summa adhiruthille!! Ungalai rhomba copy adikkiren sir?

gurumurthyji

 

[silverfox]

Back to the issues!

Dear Hari:
I am not sure if you were insulting me or paying back-handed compliments on my tennis prowess!!ound: L!Q: Tried to call you on your cell-phone (NOT for support for me against Hari!!)

As for mixed-doubles, I asked none other than Maria but she has declined due to her other engagements!!:Cry:

Ok, guys, enough fooling around! There are serious discussions going on!

Sri Amoorkan: Powerful arguments.

LQ Sahab,
Very true.
Looks like i am behind on 'Beta' time.
I am pretty certain that the throw-away-line "I am STILL young" would not cut ice with SF, because, if he needs to "proclaim", then it is a tacit admission of the opposite.
This at a time, when according to reliable sources, SF has entered into the "Boys" Singles draw at The Championships for 2008 - it would be bad press !
I am seriously contemplating having a poll in the forum to choose the PYT SF would partner with for the Mixed Doubles. Can you give any headsup ?
This banter aside, wondering what are your thoughts on the issue on hand ?

 

[hariharan1972]

How to name it ?

SF,

Surely not. When I met LQ, he did tell me that you are pretty active on the Tennis circuit.

It was not a “back-handed compliment at all”. I meant it all earnest with the silken grace of a Ken Rosewall or a wideserve-runin-volley of an Edberg.

Gurumurthyji Sir,

Thanks. I couldn’t get you the first time around.

No, I am not as “nallavan” as you make it out to be. Nor was my intention to get some brownie points from Muslims. I have a more matter-of-factly approach towards Muslims. If I can paraphrase the lengthy posts, I can put it as : Muslims are Indians ; They are a big block ; They have to be dealt with ; Thumping them for their religious identity will only be regressive ; They have to be carried along ; Ashte.

Gurumurthyji Sir / KRS Ji,

The idea of India declaring herself a Hindu State ? Not even in my dreams will it happen. Not until the deep ravines of castes in Hindus can become an endogamous group. It is not going to be feasible because the castes are not just merely castes but sub-culture under a main identity.

Practically speaking, Sirs, there are several groups in Hindus who would identify themselves strongly with Muslims and other religious minorities under the umbrella of ”oppressed sections”. I don’t see a way how they would support such a move.

Show me any one politician who has the guts and gumption to do what you are seeking / hoping. This is an era of political correctness sir.

Speaking personally, I am not in favour of this move coz what is the message that we want to send out to religious minorities ? Is it – Behave yourself else !!!! And after this we will expect them to be patriotic ?

One point though I completely agree is that we badly need to define what is Secularism ? It is the misinterpretation / mis-application of this term which is the source of lot of problems in India.

Just what is Secularism ?

Learned members, over to you.

 

[lotus_quartz]

I find the posts deeply thought provoking as well as quite engrossing. I consider muself to be what India is today - a mixing pot (contrast it with melting pot that the US of A is) of various relegions, cultures, thoughts, beleifs and hopes. This is possible only by respecting the principles of 'sarv dharma sanmaan' and 'vasudhaiva kutumbam'. I am sure majority of 100+ crore Indians silently practice these virtues.

I do not relish the idea of becoming the subject of a theocratic state, not even a Hindu theocracy if it comes to it. Come to think of it, I find that people who take extreme positions in the name of religion are still at the bottom rung of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Enlightened Gurus (many are members of this forum) are at the top rung and need religion only for self actualization. Marx of course does not fit anywhere on the pyramid for he says"..religion is the opium for the masses.."

As a born liberal, I must say we all should respect others freedom of religion, freedom from the narrow confines of caste, color, creed, religion and all other forms of bigotry and intolerence.

Many of my own thoughts have already been put nicely by you as well as by other liberals and I need not repeat the same.

My liberalism also includes efficient law and order system, timely punishment to the guilty and above all, completely secular state, which bends neither 'this way' nor 'that way'.

This banter aside, wondering what are your thoughts on the issue on hand ?

 

[Amoorkan]

Know the incomparable leader of India's secularism!

[SIZE=+2]Discovery of Nehru[/SIZE] T R JAWAHAR
Editor of News Today

27 May, 1964 -- Jawaharlal Nehru's last day on earth happened to be my first. My father, TRR, a great admirer of 'Panditji' or an admirer of the 'great' Panditji, as he would prefer it, promptly named me after the just-dead PM. So, I was among the first to be born into an India minus Nehru, the earliest possible member of the post-Nehru generation. It is a generation that was since raised on a diet of unquestioned reverence, unadulterated respect and unbounded love for Nehru, in all his resplendent glory: Children's Chachcha, the red-rose reformer, the white dove peacenik, the mentor of modern India, the mascot of the Third World ... in short, an icon beyond compare. That I schooled in Jawahar Vidyalaya and my mother's name was Indira, besides my father's non-stop Nehru Namayana till he himself joined his idol up there, only added to the Nehru aura that had engulfed me right at birth. So, for someone of such pedigree, to be critically appraising Nehru, is indeed a great leap of faith. And it must be so for many of my peers though to some such a venture would tantamount to blasphemy. For, secular and atheistic Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru is among the nation's most sacred holy cows. But alas, truth is no respecter of well- entrenched imageries or carefully cultivated reputations, and destiny demands that even Nehru must have his tryst with history, real history, which of late is hitting back with phenomenal force and fury, exploding myths, exhuming facts and laying bare skeletons.
The de-classified CIA archives that reveal in graphic detail Nehru's naivette and cowardice vis-a-vis Chinese aggression and his rollicking affair with Mrs Mountbatten as told by the lady's daughter herself, have truly put Nehru in a spot posthumously. Sure, the revelations are nothing new and have been the subject of many books earlier. Yet the fresh round of digging into his past that they have spawned has completely dwarfed the 'colossus'. Honey, how they have shrunk our Chachcha! So let's join the party and add our bit ... and sorry, Dad! It's not that we love Nehru less, only that a nation, still under his spell, needs to know him more! In fact, peer evaluation of Nehru was comparitively objective because there were many who knew his failings and flings. Only the post evaluation got a bit too euological. So, we have been hearing only his glories. We need to know the other side, and there is so much tittilating stuff in it that no responsible father could tell a toddler son. Of course, now we have grown up, even outgrown Nehru.
Let's leave dull China out and zero in on Chachcha's flame, the enchanting Edwina. The setting is romantic Kashmir, the paradise on earth, now a hell, thanks to Nehru's Himalayan blunders. Only, that it is now official, from the pony's mouth itself, that Edwina might have used her charms to influence her lover-PM during those fateful days. Here's a quick take on Nehru's classic gaffes, courtesy Edwina, on J&K.: a) Volunteering a plebiscite after securing a letter of ascension to India from Kashmir's maharaja, b) Referring the issue to the UN and thus bringing the aggressor Pak on equal footing with victim India in the world's eyes c) Calling a ceasefire just when the Indian army was on the verge of evacuating the raiders from PoK and d) Art 370, a preposterous provision that made the Indian Parliament subservient to the J&K Assembly!
So, was our Jawaharlal set up? One cannot be faulted for assuming so. The British, realising that it would help to have a pliable premier ruling their erstwhile colony and also being alive to the chinks in Nehru's moral armoury, probably unleased the oldest trick known to humanity, a trick that Lord Indira himself played on Vishwamitra; and the lonely but romantic Nehru fell hook, line and sinker. In 1946, a year before Independence, the British government invited Nehru to Malaysia and Singapore. Over to veteran journalist and political observer, Satya Dev Narayan, who writes in his book, They betrayed you, Dear Mother: ' ...the chance rush of the crowd in the Red Cross building in Singapore where Edwina as Red Cross chief was waiting to show her work to the distinguished visitor, her falling down on the ground in that rush and being promptly and gallantly lifted by Nehru himself to be carried to safety and quiet where the doctor could go to work: every little bit looks suspiciously like part of an elaborate plan to hook the coming man, Nehru. A carefully contrived plan, with much attention to timing and finesse in execution. If successful, it would no doubt give Britain a great deal of advantage during negotiations in the final phases of transfer of power. It would be a great situation to be in if, of the two representing their respective sides and facing each other at the conference table, one was the hooker and the other, the hooked...'
Thus Nehru's chivalry became the nation's curse. Edwina's daughter also informs us that though her mother had many lovers, Nehru was very special. What an honour for the nation that its top man also topped Edwina's lovers' list! But why not? It is not often that PMs come calling at your door! And the daughter adds with a touch of respect: 'My father knew all about my mother and was inured to it'. And why not, again? Having gotten used to the ways of his wayward wife, why would Mountbatten bat an eyelid when it came to his 'best friend' Nehru? Particularly, when it served a political purpose as M.Batten,who was batting for Pakistan, might have, according to the daughter, used his better(?) half to clinch Kashmir? One does not know if M was a cuckold (look up the dictionary, stupid, this is a decent family paper), but he sure din't care. But forget M's morals. How does it feel, as a nation, to know that the man it so implicitly trusted with its fate, future and fortune, could be so easily compromised? Whether it was platonic love or plain adultery, the nation has paid a stiff price for Nehru's extra-curricular activities!
There were other blunders too. He gave us socialism. It bombed. He gave us secularism. It backfired. He implanted his dynasty. We are now struggling to uproot it. Again, a foreign lady is at play. He is touted as the architect of modern India. But he is the known wrecker of India's cultural past: He was McCaulay's ideal Indian. Every country that attained freedom first seeks to rediscover its glory and identity, but Nehru's India took off as if it never had any. India was born on Aug 15, 1947 and N discovered it anew. Period!
Even now, when Nehru's immortal and immoral blunders are self-evident, his apologists call him a dreamer-visionary at best and a misplaced idealist, at worst. In reality, he had both a passion and penchant for pomp, power and personal glory, not to speak of pleasure on the sly. A case in point is the way he became the Cong president and thereby the prospective PM over the head of Sardar Patel who had better credentials and more support. The common impression that N was the foremost freedom fighter is not just owing to his eloquence and elegance but also to a good amount of PR and posturing. And to the Mahatma, who according to Rajmohan Gandhi, was totally taken in by Nehru's glamour! And thus putting greater mortals and more dedicated freedom fighters to shade!
Hope readers would pardon me for the personal touches. Difficult to let them pass. And I hope my father forgives me. But should the nation forgive Nehru? Or seek to exorcise his ghost from its psyche? Or should we wait for another memoir, sleazier and more sinister?
​

 

[Amoorkan]

'Militant' is a dignified parlance of India's Secular Media to refer to the Muslims, oops, bad of me, I said it!

Srinagar, July 21 (PTI): In the second attack on Amarnath pilgrims this week, militants today threw a grenade at a community kitchen in Pahalgam, injuring at least 10 people, mostly sadhus.

The ultras hurled a grenade towards a 'langar' at a Gurudwara near police station Pahalgam, 100 km from here in Anantnag district of south Kashmir at around 1.10 p.m., officials said.

The grenade exploded inside the langar area where pilgrims had gathered for their lunch resulting in injuries to eight sadhus, a pilgrim and a driver of state road transport corporation, they said.

One pilgrim was killed and several injured in a militant attack on Baltal base camp on Tuesday.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
manmohan will not lose a minute of sleep for Hindus, the non people of India.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Hari, Sri Gurumurthyji Ji and Sr LQ Ji,

Thank you for answering my question about India as a Hindu State. I asked the question for a reason, as I will explain here shortly.

Secularism as initially originated was conceived as a philosophy where men acted on the basis of science and wordly knowledge and acted for good on that basis as opposed to believing in religious dictats that they viewed as based on superstition (mooda nambikkai). Now as this philosophy eveloved, as the modern states got formed after abolishing monarchy etc., some of the enlightened societies (such as USA), adopted the secular form of government, with a twist. For these governments, the impetus was to keep the religions out of government policies and prevent the majority to rule over minorities based on their religious beliefs. So secularism eveloved as embracing humanist principles of giving a person the freedom to practice one's religion in peace as well as other individual rights, irrespective of what religion / community one belongs to. This protection of one's individual rights and freedom has been and is very important in the modern world. Because, without it, the modern idea of the economy and more specifically the idea of the 'American Dream' would not have found expression.

One should read the story of Ataturk and how he made Turkey in to a modern country to understand and appreciate how a government run by theocracy became a secular nation (for the good of the country).

Coming back to India, while India rightly adopted secularism in its government, having a different minority code was a blunder. This essentially negated the purpose for which secularism was intended (to leave one's religion at his/her dorrstep, as Sri Hari once observed), and thus India has the 'pseudo' secularism, where communities are against each other, wanting to progress on their own terms rather than wanting a united India to prosper (recent OBC fracas is case in point).

We need to be careful in attacking the concept of secularism - because in my opinion that is the only way to codify and manage a huge country with minorities galore, such as India.

Can India be governed as a Hindu State? What does the question mean? There can be 3 forms of a Hindu State: 1. Hindu Theocracy 2. A civil government that 'listens' to the religious institutions and 3. While naming itself as Hindu (thereby promoting 'Hindu' values), the government still safeguards minority rights.

Options 1 and 2 will never work for obvious reasons - 1. there is no single theocracy in Hinduism and 2. There can never be a 'single' religious institution that can speak for all the Hindus. It is no accident that the rediculous HRCE was established as a 'neutral' religious body, on the recommendation of various Hindu groups not being able to unite and agree.

Option 3 will be possible, but then I would argue that such a government will be unworkable as the minorities (as Sri Hari points out) will create problems and the definition of What is Hindu will change by the day.

It seems to me that an 'enlightened secularism' as Sri Subramanya Swami says, is the proper way to govern in modern times.

And one last word - on hind sight, I know that Sri Nehru made big blunders. They are even stupid blunders. But to say that he did them out of no concern to India would be wrong. I read recently that the land reform that he pushed through is the main reason for India to be a viable democracy (which in the long run is the best system for any country) today as opposed to Pakistan which is still ruled by the 100 Zamindars.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Amoorkan]

Dear Sri KRS,

I am a big fan of Dr. Subramanian Swamy. He ever so much laments that we do not have a 'Hindu mindset' and in the many meetings across the U.S. he has exhorted the audiences to look at the world events from this precise 'Hindu mindset'. Every one should read his great book "Hindus under Seige - the Wayout".

All the Sankarachariars and other Mataadhipathis and Acharyas met in New Delhi in the first convened Achaarya Sabha about the middle of March 2007 and have firmly resolved to fight together to face the unprecedented onslaught against time-honoured Hindu culture and Hindu traditions. They have authorized Dr Subramanian Swamy, former Union Law Minister to carry on the crusade on behalf of the Hindus of India.

Thanks for bringing up this in this forum.

Regards,

 

[Amoorkan]

I got this forwarded by a friend of mine. He didn't give the author's name. Our freedom fighters had Hindu mindset. The break with that tradition came from Nehru who admired everything western. Pity!

"Hinduism and India have been under attack for thousands of years. First it was Islam, then came Christianity, that have created havoc to the fabric of Hindu society. Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi both opposed it. Swami Vivekananda has given the most heart-rending accounts of the calumnies that Christian missionaries spread about Hinduism and about India. Most common Evangelistic words are "Hindus need to be saved from spiritual darkness," church plantings, rich harvest of converts, idol worshippers and un reached people." They speak openly of "spiritual conflict." Their text often have words like "God's armor," "battle," "weapons," etc. Sir John Woodroffe had predicted in his book, Is India Civilized p. xlviii, that: “ In every way, the coming assault on Hindu civilization will be the greatest which it has ever had to endure in the whole course of its long history.”

The missionary zeal has been to convert Hindus by giving the most lurid accounts in the West to raise money for financing their activities. It costs $145 billion dollars a year to operate global Christianity, records a book on evangelization - Arun Shourie Missionaries in India. According to Professor Gauri Vishwanathan in her book Outside the Fold "religious conversion is probably one of the most unsettling political events in the life of any society." In the Forties, when missionaries were active in China, this denationalization process was summed up in the line, “One more Christian, one less Chinese.” From this perspective, conversion is more than just a Hindu becoming a Christian, it is the transformation of an Indian into an extension of Western culture and influence. Guy Sorman, author of The Genius of India had difficulty accepting mass conversions of children and dying by Mother Teresa, who was indifferent to the religions of India as the missionaries of the past; she believed in numbers. Arun Shourie author of Harvesting Our Souls: Missionaries, their design, their claims asks: "How come our secularists insist that conversion is not the aim of the Church when the Church repeatedly and explicitly declares that the singular aim of all its activities is to convert non-Christians to Christianity? K. M. Panikkar, author of Asia and Western Dominance has written: "the doctrine of the monopoly of truth and revelation.. is alien to the Hindu and Buddhist mind" and that "to them the claim of any sect that it alone represented the truth and others shall be condemned has always seemed unreasonable."

Mahatma Gandhi called Christian missionaries, "Vendors of Goods". He said " In Hindu households, the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink". "If I had power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytizing". "I resent the overtures made to Harijans." "Stop all conversion, it is the deadliest poison that ever sapped the fountain of truth." Poverty doesn't justify conversion. He also considered missionaries as "a clear libel on Indian humanity."

The doctrine of racial superiority that the Europeans used to justify their colonial rule is gone, but the attitude of Christian religious superiority continues. Such religious exclusivism is backward and prejudicial, just like racism.

This chapter is in no way anti-Christian but rather anti-conversion. It provides information about the insidious campaign that is taking place to reduce and wipeout Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and other Vedic traditions that are followed by large sections of humanity in India and around the world."

 

[silverfox]

Blame the Hindus for their own downfall

Dear Sri Amoorkan:

Thank you for your postings; I am learning a lot. On a personal level, I am frustrated and somewhat peeved at our own Hindu brotheren! They are so lackadaisical and have this attitude "NIMB" (American expression - Not In My Backyard). When I was in Chennai and when the DK hooligans vandalized a temple and attacked a helpless brahmin, nobody in public spoke up. Even the newspapers (I wish HINDU would change its name to Bootlickers of the pseudo-secularists) while mentioning Karunanidhi threatening to take stern action against anybody who damages the EVR status, did not mention about the destruction to temple property and the attacks on Brahmins.

Just wait; it is only a matter of time before Sonya and her troupes (she has encouraged all the evangelical Christrian groups to come to India to proselytize) converted quite a few - by whatever means it takes -- they have the tacit government approval to do that, hiding under the umbrella "secularism".

 

[hariharan1972]

We are deeply entrenched !

Sri Amoorkan / KRS Ji,

At the risk of sounding boorish, do you know that Dr Swamy is the eternal "joker" of the Indian political system !

I say this without any intention to be dis-respectful of Dr Swamy but the fact of the matter that he has reduced himself to a "P-I-L" man.

Without even an iota of dis-respect to both of you, do you really think any politician worth his salt including Dr Swamy has the courage to speak about "Hindu thinking" in India ?

Lecturing in US is all fine but can the same statement be made public in the 'boiling pot' that is India ?

Not long ago, Dr Swamy was under fire for the use of the term 'International Pariah' against LTTE or some such org. The KKKs and many parties were up in arms saying that the word 'pariah' was dis-respecful of certain communities.

Such is the 'knowledge grounding' in India.

Again being uncharitable to you and other esteemed members of the forum, i am certain that if you are a citizen of India and have to deal with the daily run and mill, your views will be so different.

I am constantly making the case to "deal" with the Muslims because the reality is that they are a big block and cannot be left behind in the path of development. I am saying this because I HAVE TO live in India till the call from HIM.

A Muslim neighbour, a colleague, a friend, an acquaintance, a trader, a co-passenger is the REALITY. We cannot constantly have 'under currents of tension'. The 'trust deficit' has to go !

 

[silverfox]

I am an OCI now!

Dear friends:

First the good news! Finally......! I got my OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) card today!! It only took them 4 months! The Indian government kept referring to this OCI as 'dual citizenship' but it is NOT so! I cannot vote or hold public office!!

Now, back to our discussions:
Hari: I believe the truth and practicality of living with other faiths in India lies somewhere in the middle.
What is PIL? And, isn't Dr. Swamy president of Janata party? How big is this party? When I was in India, I used to see some news item here and there about him. Does he have relevance (clout) in today's Indian political climate?
Here is an article by him about Sonia, which I liked! (it is an old item - Feb.24, 2006 - came across when I was searching on Dr. Swamy)
http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2006/02/sonia-is-communal-dr-subramanian-swamy.html

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Hari Ji,

I did not say that I agree with Dr. Swamy's politics (he is a distant relative of mine and so, I know a bit about him).

When someone has an idea that has merit, one should not be afraid to use it irrespective of who it is from. I would not want labels on myself and so we should not label any one else.

I think the 'crusade' that Sri Amoorkan has referred to is an interesting one, (irrespective of the bad connotations attached to that label) and for the first time a lot of Hindu religious sects have signed up. Let us give him time and see.

In the absence of any viable spoke persons for Hindus in general (I think BJP and RSS have planted doubts in people's mind that they are truly speaking for the Hindus), and with a clear agenda of Christianising India by the current Pope (he has blatently admitted it), and what is happening with the terrorism in India, that seems to be related to either the ISI or AlQueda, I think we should see whether something concrete emerges.

We should engage with our Muslim brethrens in proper discussions about India and our role in the country while safeguarding both our traditions and religion.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[hariharan1972]

KRS ji,

I am sorry.

My previous post gives an import that i am "calling" Dr Swamy a j***r. What was unsaid is that the 'vernacular press' which is a big opinion maker treats him so. No one takes him too seriously.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, Dr Swamy is not too comfortable in tamil and that is yet another reason why his "connect with people" is not strong.

I agree that any message/idea has to be evaluated independent of its source.

My profound apologies.

SF - 'P-I-L' is Public Interest Litigation.

You have called it correct when you said that the practicality of co-existence with many religions is somewhere in the middle.

Where am i, i wonder !