What Hindus Should be Aware of

[Chintana]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

When the Hindu society is like a burning hut today with the government declaring that there is no evidence of Rama having ever existed, or that the DMK passing ordinance to give reservations to Muslims and Christians for its war against Hindus in general and the Brahmins in particular, unfortunately tamilbrahmins.com exists like dodos in their world of fantasy. My attempt to turn its focus was rebuffed by the moderator and I decided to refrain from posting because I sensed that if I don't conform to being a zombie I would be banned.

So long and good-bye.

Dear Amoorkan,

We like to talk about what can be done. There are many "burning" problems that exist. We want to know what to do. For some reason this message has not been understood by you.

Also you have chosen to name-call us - "dodos in a world of fantasy". We are trying to build a community here Amoorkan. And all of us are volunteers. We value our credibility as thinking individuals keen on acting in concrete ways that help our community. We don't like name calling. We don't have the time and energy to convert people seemingly bent a certain way. As we have limited time and other resources we want to focus on those people interested in aligning and acting in accordance with our commonly accepted objectives. We don't particularly welcome people who don't respect us and our goals.

If you find your interests don't match with ours I have to regretfully suggest that you make your home elsewhere.

Thanks for being with us thus far.

Regards,
Chintana

 

[vijisesh]

Yes, we should try , set priorities and attack the KEY ISSUES

 

[Chintana]

As we moderators are sometimes accused of misusing our "powers" it becomes important for us to defend what we do and how we come across. We do this to help enforce standards of decency in language so that posters always know what kinds of language is welcome and what is not. It is not my intention to point fingers at anybody but I am writing this in my own defense against possible allegations of "misuse of power".


To anyone who reads my following posting:

Amoorkan wrote posting no. 49 on this thread (the number on the light blue bar), on September 12th. Not even two hours had passed before my response. One poster had written asking - "Where is the moderator? On Vacation? Or is she too busy watching movies instead of doing her job as a traffic inspector?" - I shot back saying, "Beware of your words! You know nothing about who I am or what I do...". The poster later admitted the message was written in a light-hearted vein and removed the messages.

The following piece was written to establish that requesting a moderator's interference must be done with respect. It should not be communicated like a directive to lazy employee.

No personal insults will be tolerated in this forum. If you do not know the person well enough please do not try humor. Make sure both of you share the same sense of humor before you proceeed.

This is the principle. Here endeth the introduction to the following piece.

--
(Name of poster deleted out of respect for that person),


I am glad you recognized the tone of my posting.

Just watch your language. I didn't particularly detect respect in your previous posting.

I happen to know when I have to be nice and when I have to enforce rules.

Do not misunderstand my nice-ness for softness.

As to the point about ego - anyone who does not know how to defend one's position is incompetent. Not having ego does not mean one should not defend. Otherwise Sri Krishna would never have allowed the Mahabharata war.

So kindly do not aggravate me by discussing mastery over ego.

I am not saying I am perfect but I happen to know my faults well enough to recognize that you are not the one to lecture me on this.

Chintana

 

[vijisesh]

Edited and msg despatched to the moon !!

 

[silverfox]

Let us work together!

Dear Amoorkan:
I just happened to read thru this thread. I believe you are referring to this forum as "dodo", the flightless -now extinct- bird!! If we are already extinct, how could we fantasize?!! (a little humor there!)
Sri Amoorkan, I agree with your observations; however, what Chintana is trying to say is that what could we, as Tamilbrahmins, do? She wasn't rebuffing you; she was worried that some of the postings might send a wrong message as if this site was kindling sectarian problems! Sorry, Chintana, I certainly am not trying to speak for you. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Also, Sri Amoorkan, you refer to this forum as if some of us owned it and that we let you in!! No way, Sir! This Forum is yours and you have as much right to help the Tamil Brahmins as anybody else. Why don't we take a step back, cool our heels, and let us start afresh in coming up with ideas on how we can bring this community together. After all, that should be objective of every member in this Forum.
Thank you.

When the Hindu society is like a burning hut today with the government declaring that there is no evidence of Rama having ever existed, or that the DMK passing ordinance to give reservations to Muslims and Christians for its war against Hindus in general and the Brahmins in particular, unfortunately tamilbrahmins.com exists like dodos in their world of fantasy. My attempt to turn its focus was rebuffed by the moderator and I decided to refrain from posting because I sensed that if I don't conform to being a zombie I would be banned.

So long and good-bye.

 

[Kamakshi]

Nice to be the one to wield a whip and threaten others and have ability to erase the retort!

 

[Kamakshi]

It is strange that one admin says 'OK, get out' and another says please don't. What's going on?

 

[silverfox]

Don't we have anything better to do?

It is strange that one admin says 'OK, get out' and another says please don't. What's going on?

Dear Kamakshi:

Please don't try to read between the lines. Chintana did not say 'get out'; Some of you don't appreciate Chintana's work for this forum; she volunteers her time in spite of a very busy schedule.
Nevertheless, it seems my pleas of asking members to come up with ideas on how THEY can help our community has gone by the wayside!! Some are more interested in starting a 'sambandhi sandai'

(some humor! based on my vague memory of that famous novel 'Washingtonil Thirumanam' - I live in the metro Washington area, near Potomac river!!).

Seriously, as I had indicated before, this Forum belongs to all members of tamilbrahmins.com and we all have to pull this together.

 

[Chintana]

Nice to be the one to wield a whip and threaten others and have ability to erase the retort!

Who are you referring to Kamakshi?

If you are addressing somebody specific, be sure to include that person's id in your message salutation.

 

[Chintana]

It is strange that one admin says 'OK, get out' and another says please don't. What's going on?

Two people's opinions. That's what is going on here.

Also read carefully Amoorkan's posting before commenting on mine.

 

[hariharan1972]

Chuckle | Part of the Solution

Friends,

In the midst of the III World War, i couldnt help chuckling that we have a thread on "Unity of Brahmins" started 4 days ago.

Here we are, just few persons, with the safe confinity of anonymity trying to bait, taunt within the group.

Whither unity ?

The larger point that i want to adumbrate is that *hand-wringing* isnt going to be of much use to anyone, anywhere.

It is very easy to get rambunctious within the forum on all the real, perceived, imaginary threats to brahmanism and/or hinduism. What is of essence though is the fact whether we have the strategy to counter it.

Strictly speaking for myself i have the following impressions when i see posts which intend to be the forewarning signals

a) Deja vu

b) Are we making exception the rule ?

c) Are we fearing the thing to be feared or are we seeing ghosts everywhere

Along with this a feeling of helplessness, which is best avoided.

So can we focus on what needs to be done rather than trying to control the uncontrollables.

 

[KRS]

Well said Sri Hari.

But why such a diversity of monocular views within such a small community? Why such statements and shouting which border on attacks on individuals? Why such a rancour on the part of some folks?

I will not dismiss these feelings as unworthy or just hate mongering. In my opinion, there are currently three divisions within our community, that make the question of 'unity' very difficult.

1. The first group, I would term as 'Orthodox Conservatives'. These folks believe that Hinduism is in the state today mainly because of the Muslim (Islam) and English (Christian) attacks on it. There was nothing wrong with the social system that existed within Hinduism before these historical periods and so the Hindu life should be restored to the original Varna based social divisions. Then everything will be cool. Group 3 as described below looks at this group as not in step with modern life and as extrimist to the right.

2. The second group I call 'Conservative Progressives' understand that the Hindu life fell apart because of whatever reason (they do not care to know why), but they are trying to do the best they can to follow the Hindu/Brahminical way of life. They follow the rituals as best as they can but they also prepare for the daily life in the secular world by preparing their children to live in the secular world as best as they can. The majority in our community fall in this group.

3. The last category is another small group called 'Progressives'. These people want to abolish the caste divide and want to move Hinduism towards egalitarianism, without any divisions. Group number 1, usually labels this group 'Secularists', and extremists to the left.

These are my own observations. And sometimes when a Group 2 member sounds out ideas from either Group 1 or Group 3, they are attacked. Of course Group 1 and Group 3 attack each other everywhere.

But we need to keep in mind that hopefully this Forum will speak for/about the great majority who give a whit about all theory. They care about the day to day life, how to earn a living, how to be a good Brahmin and a citizen in today's India and elsewhere. This is the reality.

So, what is the solution? A civil discourse without shouting and attacking. Nothing can be gained by shouting and attacking. Unless everyone in our community learns to respect the other's views (including the Admins') there is nothing to be gained. To change hearts and minds, one should listen first.

There are Forums in the Net, serving parts of our community. But I have sadly witnessed some of the very hallowed of these allow extremist views within our community express themselves at the cost of moderation. And sadly, people whose views should be accommodated were shouted off these Forums, never to return. I think then the Forum loses its vibrancy and becomes irrelevant.

Hope that will not be the case here.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Kamakshi]

Dear Sri KRS,

However much a person rationalizes a thing or an event it always happens that he (perhaps I should say we that includes me) tends to make a choice by one's own desire or stupidity whatever one might wish to call it. This choice is actually irrational, a bias. But then no one can make a decision (Hindus call it sankalpa) without that bias in him for if no one makes a decision then the world comes to an end as no action is possible without the sankalpa. (Hope I made myself clear!) That is why Hindus call the Creation itself as 'Sankalpa Poorvam'.

This bias in each of us is perhaps God given for there isn't anyone in the world without bias. You can call it Guna or whatever (I am certainly not interested in going into the exegesis of it). I believe that through this bias that is inherent and unconcious in each of us that Easwara controls our destiny the fruits of our poorva janma karmas.

Even in this sankalpa a person tries to rationalize as to how it is right. Sankalpa is for himself and rationaliZation is for (convincing) others! Often the sankalpa is determined by a trade off between what pleasure is gained immediately and what pain one suffers because of it. But even this intellectual exercise could be faulty just as you would buy stocks at a price hoping it goes up but it turns out to be a bummer. Such is the power of bias against reason!

And such is my rationalization about rationalization itself!

In this way I think terms like conservative, liberal, radical, progressive etc and just loads of bias from one's own point of view. There is one thing that is certain. People act in self-preservation, self-interest, for one's own happiness etc. etc. It happens by one's own identification. Such identification can be just with the body, or with a clan like the Tamil Brahmin or even for people like Mahatma or Netaji the whole of India. This identification is our freedom!

Regards,
Kamakshi

 

[KRS]

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Kamakshi Ji,

This is why I clearly said above "I will not dismiss these feelings as unworthy or just hate mongering."

One has to discuss based on one's outlook. But then one has the freedom to either agree or disagree based on one's feelings. But, I would hope that, based on the world reality today, we all can agree to disagree on theories but agree at least on a certain courses of action that would benefit our community as well as Hindus and then all the people of Indian origin and at last the human kind.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Kamakshi]

Dear Sri KRS,

All other freedom one has is based on his/her identification (see my last post) which is the fundamental freedom. You are branding that fundamental freedom as conservative, liberal, radical, progressive etc which classification I call as bias. Another person could have a different branding of the same thing and thus such brandings are not universal but biased. For me the fundamental freedom cannot be classified. Just as Gandhiji identified himself with India that he offered Prime Ministership to Jinnah in return for his not splitting the country, just as Netaji identified himself with India that he aligned with Japanese to oppose the British, just as the communists identified themselves with Russia that they opposed India and Netaji, to quote understandable examples, I would say that Amoorkan identified himself as Hindu and felt threatened by forces inimical to the Hindus. When Sow. Chintana called for suggestions for actions you have said no action is required because you have identifed yourself as a secularist and did not feel threatened and it is my feeling that all secularists feel that Hindus are fundamentalists and should not be in power if they do not declare themselves as secularists. These two are the divergent 'outlooks' as you say of the two. Just because you two are Brahmins or even Hindus would not therefore generate unity.

Regards,

 

[KRS]

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Kamakshi Ji,

It is quite interesting - I did not label myself as a 'secularist', but I said that I believe in scularism that is different from what I said was 'psudo-secularism'. This is an important distinction one has to understand.

Otherwise it is easy to pin a generic label as you do above and elsewhere in this Forum, creating certain negative images. You have proved my point by yourself when you bring up the negative consequences of labeling above. Again, it is interesting that you would say Sri Amoorkan is a 'Hindu', and I am a 'secularist' as opposed to being a Hindu!

Again, if I may be repetetive, for the nth time, I am a proud Tamil Brahmin Hindu who has certain 'secular' ideas.

And very interestingly, you have just illustrated the very problem I wrote about, above. Thanks.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[silverfox]

Dear Kamakshi:
I was amused at your daring statements and conclusions about Sri KRS! It appears that you obfuscate facts and draw your own conclusions and label people as you see fit! Don't look at the world with colored glasses! As far as I could see, nowhere has he said that he was a "secularist"; if at all, he was classifying himself under category #2 (quote from Sri KRS)--
2. The second group I call 'Conservative Progressives' understand that the Hindu life fell apart because of whatever reason (they do not care to know why), but they are trying to do the best they can to follow the Hindu/Brahminical way of life. They follow the rituals as best as they can but they also prepare for the daily life in the secular world by preparing their children to live in the secular world as best as they can. The majority in our community fall in this group.
I also would like to go on record that I am against the 'psuedo-secularists' (the Congress party, DMK, the Communists) who are 'secular' when it comes to Hindus! Sri KRS is not talking about those false 'secularists'.

Personally, I, too, am with Amoorkan when he points out the dangers posing the Hindus from the Christian conversions, and what have you. I would love to see a HINDU India! Fantasy? Perhaps! Reality? No way it is going to happen! The hard fact is that we, Hindus, have to live and get along with people of other faiths in India. I believe this is what KRS is trying to portry. What has "Secularism" got to do with this?

Talk is cheap. I would like to see our members, who can afford, contribute donations to help out the needy students in our community. I don't see the money flowing! We need action and concrete ideas on how best we, as individuals, can serve and help our community. Someone sent me this:
If you put 3 Tamil Brahmins together, this is what happens:
1. Each one is trying to show the other that he/she is smarter than the other!
2. If one is a woman, the other two try to put her down or be condescending to her!
3. They start three different cultural organization!
4. Each one is trying to outwit the other in giving out advice
5. All the three disappear as soon as you ask them for donations for good causes!

Dear Sri KRS,
All other freedom one has is based on his/her identification (see my last post) which is the fundamental freedom. You are branding that fundamental freedom as conservative, liberal, radical, progressive etc which classification I call as bias. Another person could have a different branding of the same thing and thus such brandings are not universal but biased. For me the fundamental freedom cannot be classified. Just as Gandhiji identified himself with India that he offered Prime Ministership to Jinnah in return for his not splitting the country, just as Netaji identified himself with India that he aligned with Japanese to oppose the British, just as the communists identified themselves with Russia that they opposed India and Netaji, to quote understandable examples, I would say that Amoorkan identified himself as Hindu and felt threatened by forces inimical to the Hindus. When Sow. Chintana called for suggestions for actions you have said no action is required because you have identifed yourself as a secularist and did not feel threatened and it is my feeling that all secularists feel that Hindus are fundamentalists and should not be in power if they do not declare themselves as secularists. These two are the divergent 'outlooks' as you say of the two. Just because you two are Brahmins or even Hindus would not therefore generate unity.
Regards,

 

[Chintana]

On the exchange between KRS and Kamakshi

Dear Sri KRS and Sow. Kamakshi,

To me both of you are trying to address the same issue in different ways without arriving at a meeting point. There is a bit of circularity in both your arguments.

To me, in the first round of exchange KRS is talking about classification and Kamakshi is talking about choices and bias. KRS says that there is a pattern in posters' thinking that falls under three broad categories. Kamakshi says those categories are a mere creation of KRS's "choices" and "biases".

In the second round of exchanges Kamakshi says people have the "freedom" to "choose" their "identification" and that such "freedom" cannot be classified. KRS says that is his point too - we all have to agree to disagree.

Let me throw in my piece for what it is worth.

American approach to learning anything involves trying to find patterns and classification. If one has lived long enough in America this tendency gets set within one's mind without the person's explicit awareness.

The Indian approach to learning is generally averse to boxing anything into specific categories. Any attempt at categorizing can be seen as a loss of individuality.

KRS reflects the former approach and Kamakshi seems to reflect the latter approach.

As a person initially uncomfortable with the classificatory approach of the West (and eventually got used to it)I understand this.

More pointedly, addressing the exchange at hand - Kamakshi, what KRS identified do not necessarily have to be the only 3 categories. You may come up with your own if that is what you choose.

A category is nothing to feel uncomfortable about - it is only a conceptual classification. Every item in a category has different shades of adherents. Simply because someone puts us in a category that does not mean our individuality goes away.

Categorization is quite useful, actually. It is the fundamental principle of group formation. We find strength in aligning with like-minded persons. If such persons become a group large enough then their voices will be heard.

Sri KRS - the terms conservatives, progressives, liberals etc do not carry the same meaning among our Indian brethren as they do in the US. Indians tend to associate these terms with politics strictly. Traditionally this is seen as having nothing to do with religion. I think this is why you've been called a 'secularist'. These words are loaded - the minute they see these words memory pulls up association with political happenings (it is human psychology to do that) - your words that follow, however deep their meaning gets lost because not everybody learnt the meaning of these words in the same context.

I think this is the fundamental reason for several misunderstandings of this kind.

This is only my take on the issue. If it is incorrect please ignore.

Regards,
Chintana

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

The strict definition of secularism as per the dictionary is

Religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

The other definition is

Religious skepticism or indifference.

Strictly according to this India is not a Secular republic.

secularist - an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion should be excluded from government and education.

None of our politicians are Secular according to this.

The political parties in India have written their own definition.

I remember M.V. Kamath saying long time back " In India if a christian goes to the Church, he is a good Christian, if a Muslim goes to the Mosque , he is a good Muslim, but if a Hindu goes to the temple he is communalist."

All Parties in India including Muslim league or even Madani's party are secular. Only BJP is communal. This definition is accepted by the entire Media especially the English newspapers led by "The Hindu".

Indian intellectuals not only join the politicians in this but also vie with each other in this game.

The term for this is Intellectual Prostitution which is worse than the body kind.

I have to use this as this is the only word which suits these people.

This seems irrelevant here. If others want it I will delete it.

 

[vijisesh]

Vanakkam , Qualified Dignitaries !,

Silver fox quote .........

Talk is cheap. I would like to see our members, who can afford, contribute donations to help out the needy students in our community. I don't see the money flowing! We need action and concrete ideas on how best we, as individuals, can serve and help our community. Someone sent me this:
If you put 3 Tamil Brahmins together, this is what happens:
1. Each one is trying to show the other that he/she is smarter than the other!
2. If one is a woman, the other two try to put her down or be condescending to her!
3. They start three different cultural organization!
4. Each one is trying to outwit the other in giving out advice
5. All the three disappear as soon as you ask them for donations for good causes!

Silver fox , I have a suggestion !
If possible u can enlighten the viewers about " What's the action plan " to channelize the funds to our poorer sections of the society , any network existing there ? any activities commenced already ?? etc etc

so that our people get more confidence in Donating !

( as for me , pl refer my personal msg !)

Thanks

 

[Kamakshi]

Dear Sri KRS et al,

Sri KRS has said:

"It is quite interesting - I did not label myself as a 'secularist', but I said that I believe in scularism that is different from what I said was 'psudo-secularism'. This is an important distinction one has to understand.

Otherwise it is easy to pin a generic label as you do above and elsewhere in this Forum, creating certain negative images. You have proved my point by yourself when you bring up the negative consequences of labeling above. Again, it is interesting that you would say Sri Amoorkan is a 'Hindu', and I am a 'secularist' as opposed to being a Hindu!

Again, if I may be repetetive, for the nth time, I am a proud Tamil Brahmin Hindu who has certain 'secular' ideas."

First of all I had assumed that everyone knows the fact that people have more than one identity. For example a person is a father, son, mother, daughter, etc. etc. by the role he/she plays. Then there is the identity due to ideas, convictions, belief etc. such as Hindu, Muslim, Christian, communist, secularist etc. Then there is identity on the basis of the body such as man and woman and some take it to advocate masculinism, feminism etc. Then there is identity on the basis of profession such as teacher, begger etc. And so on and so on. If this is understood then it is easy to see that Sri KRS's accusation that I am branding him as a secularist falls flat. He is a secularist besides all other things he claims. Can he deny that he advocates secularism? I don't think anyone would be fooled by the jugglery of logic!

Regards,

 

[vijisesh]

Again ! Again and Again !
History repeats itself ! , everyday in this forum !

i don't understand " What significance are these one -to-one arguments going to bring about to the subject matter of concern "

A simple suggestion is those interested can start off a new thread called
" Cat-Fights - Any Takers ??"
" Take my challenge of Word-Warfare !"


And the Light hearted people can fight it out there and demonstrate their supremacy !

As for the Strong hearted people ( Strong because their heart is with supporting systems !) , who aim to accomplish something in life , either by way of learning something about our religion , doing something for our society , the normal discussion should continue !

 

[Chintana]

Dear Kamakshi,

Dear Sri KRS et al,

As you mentioned et al in your salutation I take it I can share my opinions without feeling that I am interfereing.

Sri KRS has said:

First of all I had assumed that everyone knows the fact that people have more than one identity. For example a person is a father, son, mother, daughter, etc. etc. by the role he/she plays. Then there is the identity due to ideas, convictions, belief etc. such as Hindu, Muslim, Christian, communist, secularist etc. Then there is identity on the basis of the body such as man and woman and some take it to advocate masculinism, feminism etc. Then there is identity on the basis of profession such as teacher, begger etc. And so on and so on.

I have no problems with this part.

If this is understood then it is easy to see that Sri KRS's accusation that I am branding him as a secularist falls flat. He is a secularist besides all other things he claims. Can he deny that he advocates secularism? I don't think anyone would be fooled by the jugglery of logic!

No, I don't think anybody is getting fooled.

But here is the confusing part - although you say that KRS is a secularist besides having other kinds of identities his secularist identity is the only one you seem to refer to, quite repeatedly in your postings.

Do you refer to any of his other identities as father, professional, NRI, etc?

I haven't seen you do that till date. If I missed reading a posting where you have brought this up kindly refer me to it.

Regards,
Chintana

P.S-I: I took some trouble to summarize the previous exchanges between you and KRS. Was that accurate?

P.S-II: A few postings ago you demanded not so gently -'what is going on here?' - by way of commenting on interactions with Amoorkan. I raised a few questions about it and I am yet to get your reply.

 

[Chintana]

The strict definition of secularism as per the dictionary is

The other definition is

Strictly according to this India is not a Secular republic.

None of our politicians are Secular according to this.

The political parties in India have written their own definition.

I remember M.V. Kamath saying long time back " In India if a christian goes to the Church, he is a good Christian, if a Muslim goes to the Mosque , he is a good Muslim, but if a Hindu goes to the temple he is communalist."

All Parties in India including Muslim league or even Madani's party are secular. Only BJP is communal. This definition is accepted by the entire Media especially the English newspapers led by "The Hindu".

Indian intellectuals not only join the politicians in this but also vie with each other in this game.

The term for this is Intellectual Prostitution which is worse than the body kind.

I have to use this as this is the only word which suits these people.

This seems irrelevant here. If others want it I will delete it.

Not at all, Sri Nacchinarkiniyan.

This is indeed the meaning prevalent in India.

This term carries a different meaning for those in the US compared to those in India.

So the posters here are carrying different meanings of the term secularism. They use the same term but refer to two or more different things. That is why, to me atleast, we are having a confusion.

Regards,
Chintana

 

[Chintana]

At first I thought this message was addressed only to KRS. So I missed the part where I was referred.

Here goes...

Dear Sri KRS,

All other freedom one has is based on his/her identification (see my last post) which is the fundamental freedom. You are branding that fundamental freedom as conservative, liberal, radical, progressive etc which classification I call as bias. Another person could have a different branding of the same thing and thus such brandings are not universal but biased. For me the fundamental freedom cannot be classified. Just as Gandhiji identified himself with India that he offered Prime Ministership to Jinnah in return for his not splitting the country, just as Netaji identified himself with India that he aligned with Japanese to oppose the British, just as the communists identified themselves with Russia that they opposed India and Netaji, to quote understandable examples, I would say that Amoorkan identified himself as Hindu and felt threatened by forces inimical to the Hindus.

No problems with this part.

When Sow. Chintana called for suggestions for actions you have said no action is required because you have identifed yourself as a secularist and did not feel threatened

I vaguely remember what you are referring to. I think he didn't have anything to say about action plans because, to him the question of identity - the understanding of it was predominant. I don't think it was because he was a 'secularist'.

I think you are using the term secularist as an adjective for everything he says and does.


and it is my feeling that all secularists feel that Hindus are fundamentalists and should not be in power if they do not declare themselves as secularists.

If you are referring to the Indian political scene you are right.

But secularism is understood by different people in different ways.

Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong in wanting a Hindu India. But the current politicians who speak for Hinduism have not carved out a place for other religious groups in their agenda. That is problematic. Hinduism should get strong. But others should not be alienated. The "I-don't-care-about-you" attitude of Hindutva politicians towards religious minorities is definitely problematic as it is anti-democratic.


These two are the divergent 'outlooks' as you say of the two. Just because you two are Brahmins or even Hindus would not therefore generate unity.

I take it you are referring to me and KRS.

Why! What a nice thing to say!


Regards,

Regards,
Chintana