Saturday, June 20, 2009

HFL 10

Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2008 01:50 pm
BRF Oldie
Offline

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am
Posts: 5658
renukb wrote:
What's the purpose of this thread?


What's the purpose of this post?

Anyhow _ I had an interesting exchange of emails with Ram Guha. He sent me an article that had appeared some years ago that spoke of the demise of the liberal. But the Muslim author lamented that

1) Muslim liberals were shouted down by Muslim conservatives while Hindus had active liberals
2) That Hindu liberals too were under attack.

That really set me thinking.

You CANNOT have "Hindu" liberals and "Muslim" liberals. Either you are a liberal or not. Once you start classifying yourself as a "Muslim" or "Hindu" as a liberal - your liberalism goes for a six.

That beings me back to earlier discussions on this thread - whether Hindu Fake liberals were Hindu or not. Fact is they are too Hindu to be really liberal.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2008 01:54 pm
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 18 Aug 2008 06:48 am
Posts: 998
Quote:
What's the purpose of this post?


Every discussion like the one here, should have an objective... I was trying to understand what is the objective here...

Anyways.... couple of Questions :

1: What makes one a liberal
2: What is the basic essence of being a Hindu?

I am asking these questions because I saw a lots of discussions on meat eating, free sex etc.... so far... None of them should be defining either of the above ? Am I right?


Last edited by renukb on 16 Oct 2008 01:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2008 01:57 pm
BRF Oldie
Offline

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am
Posts: 5658
renukb wrote:
Questions :

1: What makes one a liberal
2: What is the basic essence of being a Hindu?


Boss check out the two iterations of this thread (use search option) and then as what the thread is for and how it started and see if you can find answers to your questions - which have been rehashed several times on this thread.

I would have said welcome back if you were not so enthu about making random pot-shot posts


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2008 02:01 pm
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 18 Aug 2008 06:48 am
Posts: 998
Dr. Shivji.... I could not find the appropriate definitions of either in the previous posts....Hence the questions... If you don't want my posts here in this thread, that's fine with me..just let me know.. I was just quickly trying to catch up...


Last edited by renukb on 16 Oct 2008 02:07 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2008 02:03 pm
Forum Moderator
Offline

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 03:39 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: হ্যাংলা হাতী চ্যাং-দোলা, শুন্যে তাদের ঠ্যাং তোলা !
Quote:
Fact is they are too Hindu to be really liberal.

shiv ji, could you clarify this comment a bit ?


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2008 02:21 pm
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 18 Aug 2008 06:48 am
Posts: 998
Quote:
Fact is they are too Hindu to be really liberal.


It's due to such comments and other things, I asked the above 2 questions...just to understand better.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2008 02:49 pm
BRFite -Trainee
Offline

Joined: 30 Jun 2006 09:08 pm
Posts: 95
Location: MASA Land
Aditya_V wrote:
To the Father's question to Shashi's article why only Hindus convert and not others. the Answer simple convert anyone else and you are an apostate and converter and converted both get execueted. And lets not pretend Sharia courts do not operate in India. As the case of Shailendra Prasad clearly illustrates, Sharia courts in India do operate in villages where minority are the majority.


Let me put up an analogy to explain it a bit further.

The top two brands of beer that sell in United States are Budweiser and Miller, in that order.

Budweiser has a market share of around 50% and miller around 15-18%, around 2005 Miller came up with negative adds against budlight products and with in a span of 6-9 months the numbers for miller went up and bud came down.

Its the same philosophy thats being used by christian missionaries, who are only interested in numbers game.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2008 03:04 pm
BRF Oldie
Offline

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am
Posts: 5658
Rahul M wrote:
Quote:
Fact is they are too Hindu to be really liberal.

shiv ji, could you clarify this comment a bit ?


The Hindu fake liberal uses his standing within Hindu society to be critical of Hindu society. If was a true liberal, he would have no problem in being equally critical of conservatism and dogma in non-Hindu groups. But he does not do that. He treads with care and does not bother to hurt any non Hindu sentiment while he is scathing of Hindus - knowing that among Hindus he is safe and that his liberalism need not extend to his being critical of conservatism or extremism of other religions - which he expects will be dealt with, for example, by "Muslim liberals' ("Not my business - I am Hindu so I'll talk about shit in Hindu society"). In other words the Hindu who acts like this and calls himself a liberal is opposed only to what he thinks is Hindu conservatism. He will not utter a word about Muslim or Christian extremism or conservatism because he feels he is a Hindu and must not tread on the toes of "his Muslim and Christian brothers"

In order to be truly liberal one has to leave behind sensitivities like "I am Hindu so I'll stick to bashing Hindus to show my liberalism" A true liberal will bash all conservatism and not have an internal mental debate about who he is and who will feel bad if he says some things. The true liberal opinion is an opinion that is independent of religion or color or creed,

If one wants to say "The incidence of crime is higher among blacks in America" we don;t generally find people saying "Oh our black brothers will feel hurt because I am white. I must not say that. I will wait for some black man to point that out"

Saying that such a fake liberal is not Hindu is a self goal of sorts - because it gives him fuel to screw fellow Hindus more and he will do it with glee because Hinduism does not have the dogma to say that he is not Hindu. besides - and I found this error on this form/thread. People were talking of "excommunication" Among Hindus. there is no such thing as "excommunication". To use it for Hindus is a clear case of Fractal recursivity. What used to be done to Brahmins if the travelled abroad (it was done to my grandfather) was that he would be "ostracized, not excommunicated. There is no mechanism to throw a Hindu out of Hinduism. The concept does not exist.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2008 04:32 pm
Forum Moderator
Offline

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 03:39 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: হ্যাংলা হাতী চ্যাং-দোলা, শুন্যে তাদের ঠ্যাং তোলা !
thanks for the clarification. certainly makes sense.

I've just one niggling problem with that usage of the word hindu. these people consider themselves to be only born hindus and part of hindu society as statistics only, not hindus as individuals by choice.
by associating the word hindu with people practicing despicable double standards, we would be confusing the definition of these people.
this is also the reason why I prefer the acronym FHL to HFL.
JMT.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2008 12:48 am
BRF Oldie
Offline

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am
Posts: 5658
Rahul M wrote:
thanks for the clarification. certainly makes sense.

I've just one niggling problem with that usage of the word hindu. these people consider themselves to be only born hindus and part of hindu society as statistics only, not hindus as individuals by choice.
by associating the word hindu with people practicing despicable double standards, we would be confusing the definition of these people.
this is also the reason why I prefer the acronym FHL to HFL.
JMT.


Rahul I am sure the statistical Hindus you speak of exist but

a) They never convert.
b) It still does not make them bold enough to be critical of the absurdities in other religions

The viewpoints of these people are firmly rooted in their claim that being Hindu allows then to be what they are - i.e critical and scathing of Hindus and asking for change while the job of being honest and open about the idiocy in any other religious group is "someone else's job".

At best they are rebels or half-blind reformers of Hinduism. They are not liberal.

I have a reason for stressing on both points i.e that
a) They see themselves as Hindu (often "on-practising")
b) they call themselves "liberals"

By calling themselves liberals they get access o media exposure among media that are less than innocent in the way news and views are portrayed. It is important IMO to expose their fakeness without dismissing them as non Hindu. That is because "dismssing them as non Hindu" would be the obvious reaction of anyone opposed to them, Their pretences and falsehoods need to be exposed from within and not by labelling them as "other" which is the normal way humans deal with those whom they dislike.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2008 02:12 am
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 18 Aug 2008 06:48 am
Posts: 998
What I don't like here is the title... Liberalism or terrorism should not be associated to any particular religion. It is not good.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2008 02:32 am
BRF Oldie
Offline

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am
Posts: 5658
renukb wrote:
What I don't like here is the title... Liberalism or terrorism should not be associated to any particular religion. It is not good.


Exactly and anyone who calls himself "Hindu liberal" or a "Muslim liberal" is a fake liberal. Hence "Hindu Fake Liberal"

Check this out

Quote:
published in the Times of India, c. 2004)

LIBERALISM’S DOUBLE DEFEAT
by Ramachandra Guha


Nearly forty years ago, the Marathi writer Hamid Dalwai wrote a fascinating series of essays on the lack of a liberal movement among Indian Muslims. The leaders of the community, he argued, were incapable of critical introspection. As he put it, ‘when they find faults, the faults are invariably those of other people. They do not have the capacity to understand their own mistakes...’.
Dalwai accepted that there were a few exceptional individuals who could ‘think dispassionately and in a secular manner’. However, it was ‘not possible for isolated individuals to have any appreciable effect on society’. Progressive Muslims could not create a wider movement because they did not themselves have a real place in the community. For ‘the moment they became liberals they lost the confidence of their backward and orthodox community’.
By contrast, there was a large and influential class of Hindu liberals. Indeed, there was a ‘vast gulf that separates the intellegentsia of the two communities’. Compared to the Hindus, ‘the Muslims today are culturally backward. They ought to be brought on a level with the Hindus. This would imply the creation of a liberal class in the Muslim community. The Indian Muslims today need, most urgently, a liberal movement’.
Indian Muslims, wrote Hamid Dalwai, needed an ‘avant garde liberal elite to lead them’. Otherwise, the consequences were dire, and not just for Muslims. For ‘unless a Muslim liberal intellectual class emerges, Indian Muslims will continue to cling to obscurantist medievalism, communalism, and will eventually perish both socially and culturally. A worse possibility is that of Hindu revivalism destroying even Hindu liberalism, for the latter can suceeed only with the support of Muslim liberals who would modernize Muslims and try to impress upon these secular democratic ideals’.
The prediction has come chillingly true. In 2004, as in 1968, there is still no credible, influential community of Muslim liberals. There are indeed exemplary individuals, such as Asghar Ali Engineer and Mushirul Hasan. Yet these thinkers are treated with suspicion or indifference by the vast bulk of their co-religionists. To be a liberal Muslim still implies that you do not have the confidence of your community.
That has not changed, but on the other side, much has. For Hindu liberals do not any more command the status that they once did. Thus Hamid Dalwai could write with awe, and perhaps a little envy, of the extraordinary influence of a man like Jawaharlal Nehru. He recalled that when anti-Muslims riots broke out in Bihar in 1946, ‘Nehru threatened to bomb the rioting Hindus if they would not stop their violence; and yet the Hindus continued to accept Nehru as their leader. In spite of partition, Nehru gave this nation a secular constitution; he gave Muslims equal rights; and yet a large majority of Hindus accepted him as a leader’.
Before Nehru there was Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was a believing and by his own lights a practicing Hindu; yet he mounted a fundamental challenge to Hindu orthodoxy. In a society where women were cloistered and oppressed he brought them into the mainstream of public life. As Madhu Kishwar has pointed out, Gandhi did more for the emancipation of women than did Lenin, Mao, Churchill, or Roosevelt. More women participated in the Indian national movement than in any other political struggle of the modern world. India was well ahead of supposedly advanced countries like the United States in making women Vice Chancellors of universities, Governors of states, and Judges of the Supreme Court.
Gandhi also mounted a successful challenge to the orthodoxies of caste. Over nearly forty years of patient work he did more to undermine Untouchability than any other high-caste Hindu. Notably, his campaign attracted the ire of the priesthood. In the early thirties, a conclave of Shankaracharyas issued a joint petition to the colonial government asking that Gandhi and his followers be ‘derecognized’ as Hindus. He was a mere interloper, they said, who did not know Sanskrit, and was not even a Brahmin. How dare he challenge a practice so central to the faith as Untouchability?
And before Gandhi there was Ram Mohun Roy. Also Swami Vivekananda. They too urged Hindus to discard their archaic practices and come to terms with the modern world. In sum, behind the reformist impulse of the nationalist movement lay a century and more of effective work by Hindu liberals.
The great German writer Friedrich Schiller once remarked that ‘the first law of decency is to preserve the liberty of others’. This is a law that Gandhi and Nehru made their own. They were male, upper caste, and Hindu, yet worked ceaselessly to safeguard the rights of Indians different from themselves: women, low castes, and minorities. And they successfully converted other Hindus to their point of view. Thus we came to be governed by a secular, democratic, and egalitarian Constitution, rather than by the Laws of Manu.
In recent decades this tradition of Hindu liberalism has come under grave threat. Consider thus the increasing presence of sants and sadhus in our political life. In his seventeen years as Prime Minister, Nehru never entered a temple or mosque or church. The domains of statecraft and spiritualism were kept separate, as is proper in a civilized society. But with the Bharatiya Janata Party it is hard to tell where governance begins and religion ends. Chief Ministers are sworn in before a row of saffron sadhus; Prime Ministers ask Shankaracharyas to solve matters that should not be within their purview at all.
Consider also how the nation as a whole has been held mortgage to a medieval property dispute. 270 milion Indians still live below the poverty line. A hundred million more are illiterate. There is only one doctor for every 2000 Indians. Female infanticide is rampant. The main sufferers, in all cases, are Hindus. Why should it matter to them whether or not a temple is built in Ayodhya?
But apparently it does. The rise of the BJP owes something to the decline of the Congress due to cronyism and corruption. But it also owes something to its successful stoking of feelings and passions that should have no place in a civilized society. Through demonizing the Muslim they have created a widespread sense of fear and persecution among the majority community. Where Nehru and Gandhi asked Hindus to reason and reform, the Sangh Parivar urges them to mistrust and hate.
The unacknowledged model of Hindutva is political Islam. For our sants and sadhus have a deep envy of the influence of mullahs in Muslims societies. They seek likewise to identify the nation with a single religion. If they have their way, our multicultural democracy shall be transformed into a bigoted theocratic state.
For the moment, at least, Hindu reaction is triumphant. Its triumph is reflected in the mimicry of its methods by its opponents, by the desperate attempts of the Congress to present itself as Hindutva’s B-team. It is also reflected in the sense of siege that has overcome the progressive Hindu thinker and writer. I write here from experience. To speak of secularism and modernity, or even of tolerance and dialogue, is to be dismissed as a ‘deracinated intellectual’. The more liberal a Hindu is now, the less of a Hindu he is said to have become.
Historically, a major blow to a reform movement among Indian Muslims was the migration of many of their number to Pakistan. Those who left were the cream of the professional class: lawyers, doctors, professors. Had they remained they might just possibly have led a movement for liberalism. In Pakistan (as one might have foretold) they were marginalized. In this respect, Hindus were luckier. For one thing, there was no single Holy Book they had constantly to make obeisance to. If the Shastras sanction Untouchability, said Mahatma Gandhi, then we must reject them. (By contrast, even the most emancipated Muslim has to take recourse to the Quran.) This freedom from dogma allowed the Hindus to develop a robust and self-confident liberal class. This was the class represented by Gandhi and Nehru, by the Congress party, by the Constituent Assembly, and, for decades, by the Government of India.
The cause of Indian liberalism has thus suffered a double defeat. There is still no credible liberal movement among Indian Muslims. And, as Hamid Dalwai forecast long ago, Hindu liberalism has been pushed into retreat by the advancing forces of Hindu revivalism.




Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2008 05:12 am
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 18 Aug 2008 06:48 am
Posts: 998
moved to Indian psyche thread.
I've also replied there.
Rahul.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2008 05:40 am
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 07 Sep 2008 01:52 am
Posts: 166
Shivji, the point that Ramguha misses completely (and I think this he does on purpose IMO ) is that the entire Muslim world put together is yet to produce a single liberal worth his salt.Infact they have been churning out Jihadis at a faster rate than ever before. So to blame the evil yindoos for having thrown a spanner in the works of Islamic reformation (lol) is a result of some pretty fertile imagination on part of Ramguha.

But he did send me a curt 2 sentence reply to that article (Is Advani the Hindu Jinnah ) you quoted elsewhere. These guys are beyond correction. (Asked me to read his book "India after Gandhi" and claims BJP lost elections despite Ayodhya)


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2008 07:22 am
Forum Moderator
Offline

Joined: 05 May 2001 06:01 am
Posts: 4315
Location: Chennai
Now that the DGP of Orissa has categorically stated that a 'certain community' had hired the Maoists to do the dirty job of eliminating the Swamiji, while the members of a 'certain community' were standing guard around the ashram, is it too much to expect a 'liberal' like Shashi Tharoor to write a series of stinging articles on the intolerance of that 'certain community' ? Will he be up to the task ?


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2008 07:31 am
Forum Moderator
Offline

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 03:39 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: হ্যাংলা হাতী চ্যাং-দোলা, শুন্যে তাদের ঠ্যাং তোলা !
best would be to email him asking his reactions. anyone has his email ?


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2008 08:13 am
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 22 Oct 2000 06:01 am
Posts: 122
Dont we know the well-reharsed response of any HFL (or any FL)worth his salt?
'..but those who kill are not true followers of Christianity/Islam as the book doesnt preach killing..'
Our urge to reason with such people comes from our own need to express our outrage and their mask of sanity and liberalism. This itself is another aspect of the psy-war..blunting any outrage with sweet talk leaving us in further despair. Talking to the killers themselves serves more purpose than this.
Ofcourse ignoring them completely doesnt cut it either as then the brainwash continues. The best recourse is to raise suspicions about their integrity to put them on the backfoot and under the scanner. Do a Tehelka on them. IF we at BR cant raise enough funds for a newspaper we can surely raise enuf money to expose them on grainy video and host it on the net for the world to see and judge.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2008 12:26 pm
BRF Oldie
Offline

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am
Posts: 5658
Vikramaditya wrote:
(Asked me to read his book "India after Gandhi" and claims BJP lost elections despite Ayodhya)


He can be delusional. He said public celebrations of Ganesh Charurthi stretching out to Dasara and Diwali are because of Advani and the BJP.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 18 Oct 2008 05:10 pm
BRFite -Trainee
Offline

Joined: 07 Dec 2007 03:08 pm
Posts: 87
Location: US
I saw this video and must admit that this is one of the most clear thinking and astounding presentation of the maladies of Hindu Society. The presenter is Smt. Radha Rajan. I have rarely seen such clarity even among the RSS folks. This presentation is a must watch for all intellectual warriors of the BRF.

This presentation is the best response to HFLs.

http://www.haindavakeralam.com/AV/ShowA ... =46&SKIN=V


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 18 Oct 2008 06:04 pm
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 30 Jan 2008 05:52 pm
Posts: 477
Quote:
claims BJP lost elections despite Ayodhya)


Without causing the diversion i would like to mention that BJP lost elections for the reasons given below.

Quote:
How the Rama card was thrown away

The truth of the matter is that the BJP leadership never had its heart in the Ayodhya campaign. When outside factors and the VHP brought the Ayodhya issue centre-stage in the mid-80s, the BJP joined the movement because of its apparent potential for mass mobilization. Yet, even after the VHP's Ram Shila Pujas (consecrating bricks in every village and taking them in procession to Ayodhya, autumn 1989) became a roaring success, it took Prime Minister V.P. Singh's prodding to get the BJP to organize the fabled Rath Yatra (October 1990). Singh had made the ludicrous promise to Imam Bukhari of securing the disputed site for the Muslim community, and he needed some serious Hindu pressure to provide him with an excuse to renege on his promise.[1] After riding the Rama wave to an electoral breakthrough in May-June 1991, the BJP started distancing itself from the Ayodhya issue. By 6 December 1992, many activists had lost patience with the BJP, and a vanguard group organized the historic instance of direct action, all while keeping the BJP leadership (deemed the weakest link in the Hindutva chain) in the dark.

Just like Congress has been capitalizing on the sacrifices of the Freedom movement for decades, the BJP tries to capitalize on its association with the Hindu cause. The equation of the BJP with militant Hinduism is now mostly kept alive by its enemies (who, fortunately for the BJP, dominate the media). The effect is that the BJP can take the Hindu-minded voter for granted all while fishing after the non-Hindu and the anti-Hindu vote, and making the concomitant concessions. But the real commitment to the Hindu cause is now as far removed from the BJP leadership's thinking as Gandhian ideals are from the most corrupt Congress leader.


http://www.bharatvani.org/books/bjp/section5.html


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 18 Oct 2008 06:34 pm
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 26 Feb 2008 12:48 am
Posts: 166
shiv wrote:
You CANNOT have "Hindu" liberals and "Muslim" liberals. Either you are a liberal or not. Once you start classifying yourself as a "Muslim" or "Hindu" as a liberal - your liberalism goes for a six.


Isnt liberalism necessarily relative to the pre-existing social and political standard of a particular society ?

That would necessarily mean that a "hindu" liberal and a "muslim" liberal and a "christian/western" liberal would be necessarily different ideologies withing general liberalism. What may be "liberal" for a Muslim may be common place for a Hindu or vice versa. A liberal Muslim might encourage the equal treatment of women while a liberal hindu might consider eating beef to be liberal. Again within each group there are degrees of liberalism as one person's leftist would be another person's conservative. I understand your point about an impartial view when talking against conservative dogma's but what you dismiss as merely cowardice could potentially also be due to self interest; as a hindu would be more obligated and concerned to set his house in order first. Also with all the vehement attacks by conservative elements on other faiths, a liberal hindu could find any further condemnation by him to seem superfluous and leaning towards conservative ideologies by his support for their views.

Similarly one cant compare a Hindu liberal to a Western liberal. The ideologies and points of reference are entirely different.

This thread and the earlier thread are quite like some of the same kind of threads one would find in an American conservative forums (like LGF or Ann Coulter's forum or the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh) where liberals (or those who according to the far-right are considered as "liberals") are dubbed as "communists" and "traitors" (much like here, where they are dubbed as "Islamic sympathizers" and "un-hindu" ) and irrationally vilified and their arguments and positions disregarded as seditious. Only here it is Hindu's and Indian's importing yet another social barrier as a tool to segregate thought and divide people. (As if Indians don't have enough barriers already!) I wonder if such vilification and labeling is really productive or academically informative or is it just the foundation for another pre-emptive blanket defense against any criticism against radical Hinduism from within Hinduism ?


Last edited by Brando on 18 Oct 2008 06:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 18 Oct 2008 06:39 pm
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 18 Sep 2006 02:15 pm
Posts: 308
I was so sickened by this news posted below
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/jamia-a-reality-check-to-cash-in-on-vote-bank/76186-3.html

that I refuse to believe it. Only thing is, I had the misfortune to spend an evening with some MPs, I had to face it, there seems to be a natural tendency to anti-nationalism among certain "Hindu" communities, they have no sense of identification with national goals, although perhaps they think they are being nationalistic when they propose communism, love thy neighbour etc... they seem to be automatically sympathetic to the communist/FHL agenda and sympathetic to every canard the Muslims spread.
(BTW as an aside I still hold that from the strategic point of view - we have opened up an unnecessary front on the Christian issue, however justified our view point may be, and I find some posts on this thread pretty cool and am saving them to later mull over, at a time world opinion had turned in our favour on the terrorism issue which we can exploit - and we should quickly resolve this issue).
Although individually nice, it was a semi-educated group (there are many other excellent individual MPs who see and talk sense), they were from the new generation, young, full of self righteous indignation and fire, which with the right leadership - could still be used for some good but was instead focused on this (i) they were happy Ratan Tata ran into trouble over the Nano and strongly supported forcing Indian corporates to buy land at market prices only, forget the fact that this would make us uncompetitive, that for some strange reason only an Indian company was targeted for such agitation, and that the Nano has made every Indian proud (2) they opposed opening higher education to private investment (3) they are opposed to acknowledging that the Kashmiris deserve a KUTA for agitating over a measly piece of land set aside for toilets!
No wonder the party leadership in both Cong and BJP is always dithering.
Look, we are in a minority - we have to bear the cross of decades of slow growth which has left this mass of poverty, unaddressed issues and confusion regarding means and ends, populism thrives in a democracy and thwarts progress, but it can be suppressed in China. I love our democracy, but something needs to be done about these misguided missiles.
Tell me I am wrong. I would love to be.

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/jamia-a-rea ... 186-3.html

Jamia, a reality check to cash in on vote bank?Pallavi Ghosh / CNN-IBN

New Delhi: Ahead of Assembly Elections in five states, the competition among political parties to tap into the unease in the Muslim community over the Jamia Nagar encounter has intensified. Late on Friday night, Samajwadi Party’s Amar Singh and Trinamool leader Mamata Bannerjee joined hands and demanded a probe into the encounter in which Delhi police lost their decorated officer MC Sharma. Even the Congress doesn’t want to be left behind. On Saturday, the party's minority cell met the Prime Minister asking for a re-look into the incident. “We are not doing competition for vote-bank politics, we are in competition for human rights,” said Congress leader Salman Khursheed. Caught in a bind, Congress is playing it safe. Home Minister Shivraj Patil and National Security Advisor MK Narayanan have ruled out a probe. At least as of now.

But with factions like Mayawati’s BSP upping its ante, Congress is seriously looking at saving face. One solution, sources say could be setting up of a committee to look into whether anything went amiss during the encounter. This, the Congress leadership hopes will soften the anger of the Muslims who have been seemingly unhappy with the party.

The BJP is playing the wait and watch game as of now. It hopes to counter what it calls minority appeasement with its resurgent Hindutva agenda. “Why can’t you pick up any other national issue to remain politically relevant?” asked BJP’s Ravi Shankar Prasad. According to the Sachar Committee report on the status of Muslims in India - which the government is using as a yardstick to provide facilities for the minority – says Muslims are economically and socially lagging. However, in an election year, development seems to be the last thing on the mind of the politicians.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 18 Oct 2008 07:09 pm
Forum Moderator
Offline

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 03:39 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: হ্যাংলা হাতী চ্যাং-দোলা, শুন্যে তাদের ঠ্যাং তোলা !
brando, I agree with what you are saying that the particular ideas of liberalism is subject to the environment of the liberal. that being said, the idea behind liberalism can't have different definitions at different places.
to put it simply, liberalism is subjective depending on the context, but objectively it has to be same everywhere.

this is where our liberals are being found wanting.
In the Indian context (a secular democracy by definition) a liberal claiming to uphold the 'secular tradition' of the country has to act as a secular liberal and not as a 'hindu liberal'.
this is what shiv ji is referring to above.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 18 Oct 2008 10:05 pm
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 07 Apr 2006 04:46 pm
Posts: 311
Location: Texas
GuruNandan wrote:
I saw this video and must admit that this is one of the most clear thinking and astounding presentation of the maladies of Hindu Society. The presenter is Smt. Radha Rajan. I have rarely seen such clarity even among the RSS folks. This presentation is a must watch for all intellectual warriors of the BRF.

This presentation is the best response to HFLs.

http://www.haindavakeralam.com/AV/ShowA ... =46&SKIN=V



Thank you for that link. I just watched the entire thing. Amazing. We need more such speakers to travel around India. This awareness is much needed. She nailed it pretty much what is happening.

I am passing that speech around to my friends.

Thanks again

MAnny


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 18 Oct 2008 10:08 pm
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 22 May 2002 06:01 am
Posts: 639
shiv wrote:
Rahul M wrote:
Quote:
Fact is they are too Hindu to be really liberal.

shiv ji, could you clarify this comment a bit ?


The Hindu fake liberal uses his standing within Hindu society to be critical of Hindu society. If was a true liberal, he would have no problem in being equally critical of conservatism and dogma in non-Hindu groups. But he does not do that. He treads with care and does not bother to hurt any non Hindu sentiment while he is scathing of Hindus - knowing that among Hindus he is safe and that his liberalism need not extend to his being critical of conservatism or extremism of other religions - which he expects will be dealt with, for example, by "Muslim liberals' ("Not my business - I am Hindu so I'll talk about shit in Hindu society"). In other words the Hindu who acts like this and calls himself a liberal is opposed only to what he thinks is Hindu conservatism. He will not utter a word about Muslim or Christian extremism or conservatism because he feels he is a Hindu and must not tread on the toes of "his Muslim and Christian brothers"



Shiv,

Guha has criticized Christian communal policies at St. Stephens. It is on video on either both on IBN or NDTV or on one of them. He has defended liberalism on that issue against fellow HFLs and Christians. I have personally watched that show and was so surprisingly agreeing with him.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2008 02:46 am
BRF Oldie
Offline

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am
Posts: 5658
Sumeet wrote:

Guha has criticized Christian communal policies at St. Stephens. It is on video on either both on IBN or NDTV or on one of them. He has defended liberalism on that issue against fellow HFLs and Christians. I have personally watched that show and was so surprisingly agreeing with him.


Am happy to hear this.

Surprising as it may seem - liberalism requires some guts and anyone who shows those guts gates my respect.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2008 02:50 am
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 07 Oct 2006 03:24 pm
Posts: 814
Quote:

("Not my business - I am Hindu so I'll talk about shit in Hindu society"). In other words the Hindu who acts like this and calls himself a liberal is opposed only to what he thinks is Hindu conservatism. He will not utter a word about Muslim or Christian extremism or conservatism because he feels he is a Hindu and must not tread on the toes of "his Muslim and Christian brothers"


Quintessential definition of a colonial-bug infested, self-loathing desparate for western recongnition, pompous, self-righteous COWARD.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2008 03:09 am
BRFite -Trainee
Offline

Joined: 07 Dec 2007 03:08 pm
Posts: 87
Location: US
Manny wrote:

I am passing that speech around to my friends.


Manny,

Thanks for doing so. It will be a great service to Sanatana Dharma.
Everyone of us must soldier on for our Dharma in our own ways to
counter the subversion that is going on.

It is heartening to know that there are such people with amazing
insight. I am guessing that she must belong to the Ram Swarup -
Sita Ram Goel brand of Hindu Revivalists. You find such clarity
only in their thinking.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2008 05:56 am
BRF Oldie
Offline

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 07:01 am
Posts: 5547
CRamS wrote:
Quote:

("Not my business - I am Hindu so I'll talk about shit in Hindu society"). In other words the Hindu who acts like this and calls himself a liberal is opposed only to what he thinks is Hindu conservatism. He will not utter a word about Muslim or Christian extremism or conservatism because he feels he is a Hindu and must not tread on the toes of "his Muslim and Christian brothers"

Quintessential definition of a colonial-bug infested, self-loathing desparate for western recongnition, pompous, self-righteous COWARD.


DIE !!


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2008 08:40 am
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 22 May 2002 06:01 am
Posts: 639
shiv wrote:
Sumeet wrote:

Guha has criticized Christian communal policies at St. Stephens. It is on video on either both on IBN or NDTV or on one of them. He has defended liberalism on that issue against fellow HFLs and Christians. I have personally watched that show and was so surprisingly agreeing with him.


Am happy to hear this.

Surprising as it may seem - liberalism requires some guts and anyone who shows those guts gates my respect.



Ok so I was able to track his specific comments:

Stephen Quota debate IBN

Quote:
Is this the death of brand St Stephen's? One of India's most prestigious colleges has introduced a 50 per cent quota for Christian applicants on the basis that it is a Christian minority institute. But there is a criticism that the college too may soon join the long list of centres of excellence whose standards have been irreversibly lowered by those practising the politics of religion or ideology on campus.

On Face the Nation, a CNN-IBN panel – comprising actor Kabir Bedi, historian Ramachandra Guha, Prof Nandita Narain and Former JNU Student Union President Albeena Shakil debated if quotas will destroy elite educational institutions.

Incidentally, Bedi, Guha and Narain were Stephanians and so was the moderator of the show, Sagarika Ghose.

A typical Devil’s Advocate argument for the pro-quota lobby would be: St Stephen’s was not built by Christians. It was founded by missionaries all right, but it has become an institution to reckon with because of the diversity that Indians – and not necessarily Christians – brought to it.

Narain kickstarted the debate by disagreeing with the argument. She argued there nothing wrong with the idea of quota and the General Category students have little reason to feel bad. “No one is above the law. And the law in 1992 clearly stated St Stephen’s was a minority institute. The number of Christian students kept increasing from that year – and there’s no denying it – till it reached 40 pc last year. But the General category quota has been kept to 40 per cent. So there’s no reason for General students to feel disappointed and let down,” she said, pointing out was a 2003 TMA Pai judgement that upheld the minority status of St Stephens, empowering it to admit more than 50 pc Christian students.

In the argument against quota in St Stephen’s, more often than not, elitism is confused with excellence. Narain warned against this line of thought and said dilution of elitism does not necessarily mean dilution of excellence.

The argument sounds a striking parallel with what the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena Chief Raj Thackeray has been insisting. Thackeray cites a Constitutional Article (that applies to both linguistic and religious minorities) and says Maharashtrian institutions of the state must admit only Maharashtrians people since they are a minority in that state.

Owe and Awe: Indebted to Christians?

But Narain did not take kindly to the comparison and said there was a difference between Raj Thackeray and the Supreme Court. “Sagarika, you and I are Stephanians. We owe the college for what we are today. The college, for 120 years, catered to us like foster mother,” she said. Narain also said we owed a lot to the Christian community. “Christian community has made significant contribution to education and health and we owe it to them, “she said.

Therefore, the question that most from the pro-quota are asking is: should we grudge if Stephen’s tries to help its own community?

Ramchandra Guha joined the debate on a very crucial note. He pointed out the difference between religion-based quota and “integrity-based” quota. Guha, a Stephanian himself, also pointed out the quotas in Stephen’s was different from quotas in IITs and IIMs. “The SC says that a minority institution may hike quote to 50 per cent. It does not say “must”. There’s a huge difference between the two. If it’s a religious purpose, it’s being read as “must” but for integrity purposes , it becomes may,” he said.

Guha also pointed out the fallacy of not being able to differentiate between “may” and “must”. “St Stephen’s, like the IIM, is funded by the state and two per cent of the population gets 50 per cent of the seats. This is because of the shoddy interpretation of the law,” he said.

Hence, the real winners in this process are the communalists, he said.

Standard deduction: Elite is excellent?

Actor Kabir Bedi – also a St Stephen’s alumni – on Monday said the quotas will not lead to a fall in the standards of the college. Bedi took on Guha’s argument and said St Stephen’s had the right to implement quota, regardless of it being an oversight in interpreting laws. He insisted the quality won’t suffer if quota was for the brightest students in the community. “Experience of IITs and IIMs has been that minority students there have a hard time in the beginning but in the end, their results are at par with others. In these competitive situations, the difference between getting and not getting through is narrow. So St Stpehen’s would rather have the brightest representatives from their community and there’s nothing wrong in that,” he explained.

The Sachar Committee says those wanting reservation for minorities were playing politics. Many Muslim intellectuals like Irfan Habib have argued that places like the Aligarh Muslim University should not be declared a minority institute.

However, Albeena Shakil disagreed and vouched for the rights of minorities. “In India, minorities enjoy only one right – to build their own educational institutions and administer them. Today, when Christians are coming under attack from all quarters, it’s okay to give them 50 per cent reservation,” she said.

Shakil also said the argument about merit being diluted was a prejudiced argument. She cited the example of southern states where minority institutes have quota up to 59-60 per cent and they are better educationally and fare better on the Human Development Index.

Shakil also said JNU too had a similar record. She wrapped up her argument on a rather strong point. “Quota will make educational institutes better.”

Guha responded to Shakil’s argument and said in southern states, backward castes formed a majority of the population and so it was natural for them to be featured prominently on toppers’ list. “Christians are 2 pc of population, only elite Christians get the benefits and Dalit Christians are not recognised by the government. So St Stephen’s is again going against the Constitution,” he said countering Narain’s earlier argument.

Major vs minor: Who's the winner?

An emotionally charged Guha also said T F Andrews, the founder of St Stephen’s ethos, will be “turning in his grave” at the “narrow communalism by those who run the college today”.

So is the St Stephen’s pro-quota lobby inadvertently strengthening the hand of majority chauvinists? Narain disagreed and put the onus on the media which, she alleged, was encouraging the Hindu Right where most of the backlash came from.

Shakil also took on Guha and said since St Stephen’s was a government-funded institute, it adhered to all UGC norms regarding teachers and syllabus. “Therefore, unlike other minority institutes that are not aided, St Stephen’s will stick to its quality,” she argued.

In fact, Shakil’s argument gains credit because there are no statistics to show that minority institutes or institutes implementing quota showed a decline in standards. Guha retorted, citing the example of Jamia Milia which had a world-class mass communication centre with representation from across communities without going the whole hog (50 per cent).

However, he seemed to have forgot that even Jamia has a 25 pc reservation for admission to the Mass Communication Research Centre (MCRC).

Bedi returned to the debate and made an interesting point. “The reservation issue has been decided by Supreme Court and by debates in Parliament. Let’s admit that we owe the Christian community for their schools and colleges and if they now choose to help members of their community in this competitive world, I see no harm in it,” he said, adding it was St Stephen’s responsibility to assure secularism as well.

Narain too agreed a balance needed to be maintained. “50 pc is okay but if you increase it, there’ll be a dis-balance. I am not for the ghettoisation of Christian community either because it will be counter productive,” she said. The prof also warned the right to free speech and expression also get hampered if the rights of minorities are misused to promote totalitarian systems.

So are quotas the only way to create rational, sensitive individuals? Guha insisted there had to be a balance in numbers. “Jamia reserves 25 per cent for Muslims – who are 50 per cent of the population – it’s just twice their number. St Stephen’s wants 50 per cent quota for two per cent of the population which is 25 times their number and that’s what is unfair,” he said.

However, none of the other panelists agreed with Guha and said he was making a flawed argument. The debate remained open ended with most among the panel – except Guha – approving of the college’s decision.



Another comment from Guha on this issue as reported by ToI.

Link - Stephen Alumni's Reaction - ToI

Quote:
Reacting to the 50% quota, Ramachandra Guha said, "How can there be 50% reservation for 2% of the population in a college that is 100% publicly funded? I have taught in the college and when I talk to my former colleagues, they are distressed."


From someone's blog
http://nanopolitan.blogspot.com/2007/07 ... ssion.html

Quote:
Remember Ram Guha's angry outburst two weeks ago? A brief summary: Guha is appalled by St.Stephen's new admission policy that 'reserves' 40% of its seats for Christians -- notwithstanding that a quarter of this quota going to Dalit Christians. He sees this policy as a first step towards 'Christianizing' the college: it's students today, but it's only a matter of time before it's extended to faculty. He also questions the ethics of using public money -- he claims 95% of the college's funding is from the government -- for favouring the Christian community.


Guha rightly predicted that first its students and tomm it will be faculty and that is what happened.

Infact he just didn't stop there, he wrote a full article in outlook. [I am unable to retreive the article since I am not subscriber to Outlook. But below is the link to comments on article and the page contains direct link to Guha's article.]

Stephen Murder in Cathedral, Outlook Comment Section Link


In short I would say that his criticism was not merely a show, he was sincere and really disheartened about activities of christian communal forces.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2008 03:05 pm
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 12 Jul 2007 07:09 pm
Posts: 1076
Location: La La Land
I liked Radha Rajan's speech so much, I have written it down word by word. Took the better part of the day, but it was worth it. Pls do paste it at various forums and email it to others. Thanks GuruNandan for the link.

Quote:
Intellectual Subversion in India

The following is a speech on “Intellectual Subversion in India” by Radha Ranjan, the editor of Vigil Online (http://www.vigilonline.com). Vigil Online has published a book called “NGOs, Activists and Foreign Funds: An Anti-national Industry” which exposes the nexus between foreign powers and Indian NGOs for the purposes of subverting India from inside.

I have been asked to speak upon intellectual terrorism. I will modify it slightly and speak of intellectual subversion, of which intellectual terrorism is one important dimension. When we say intellectual sub version, who are we holding guilty of intellectual subversion in this country? I for one hold academia, the media and the intellectual elite, those that have been educated in the English medium schools and institutions of higher learning. These are the three broad categories of people who I hold guilty of intellectual subversion in this country.

Subversion of Hindu Rashtra

What have they been subverting? They have been subverting the very idea of ‘nation’ that the Hindu community holds. When I say Hindu – let me make a few things clear here. I am going to be extremely blunt here. I don’t speak to please anybody, neither do I speak to offend anybody. I speak what I perceive to be the truth. When I say Hindu, I use it as the widely accepted term for those who practice Sanatana Dharma. Sanatana Dharma I say is Hinduism. People who practise Sanatana Dharma are Hindus.

It is a part of the intellectual subversion exercise that they have discredited the word Hindu so that we are nameless group of people. To this, I will come a little later in my talk. When I say Hinduism and Hindus, I mean Sanatana Dharma and Sanatana Dharmis.

So what has these intellectual terrorists perpetrated? They have subverted the idea of nation. What is a nation? “Nation” according to Hindu classical texts is “Rashtra.” Rashtra is both territory and the people. There is a historical sense of belonging of the people to that territory. It is a territory with well-defined borders. Rashtra thus has well-defined borders, and rashtra means the people with a historical and ancient sense of belonging to that territory. Indian classical texts speak of Hindu rashtra as being one of the seven components of” rajya.”

Hindus constitute 85 percent of the population of this country. We are a nation of Hindus, but we are neither a Hindu rashtra nor a Hindu rajya. And this is the success of the intellectual subversion – Hindus today have neither a Hindu rashtra, nor a Hindu rajya. What are the seven components of a Hindu rajya that our classical texts speak of? They speak of the Swami, Amatya, Durg, Kosha, Danda, Bala …

Swami or the king would be the state, the head of the government. The Amatya would the council of ministers. Durg is the capital. Kosha is the territory. Then you have danda and bala. Of all this, it is very important that you have the Hindu ethos truly reflected in at least some of these components. It is the success of intellectual subversion in this country that a person who attempts to be the Swami is a Roman Catholic European who has neither the historical sense of belonging to this territory, nor an understanding of what this rashtra is all about.

It is the success of intellectual subversion in this country that you have a council of ministers who actively propagates and perpetuates the politics of minoritisym in various spheres of national public life. If Danda can be interpreted in modern terms to denote the law and judiciary, you have a constitution and judiciary that is actively hostile to the Hindu community. Let me take this step by step. When I say a nation, I have an understanding of who belongs and who does not belong.

It is to the success of this intellectual subversion that Hindus constantly speak of Vasudeva Kutumbkam and think Sonia Gandhi and Mother Teresa are a part of this Kutumbkan inside this country. When we have a distinct sense of us and them, we must have a sense of who is a Hindu. The “them” is who is a non-Hindu. If we have a sense of “us” and “them” there is a sense of Indian Hindus and there is a sense of non-Indian people who profess the Hindu religion.

Kautilya’s Arthashastra did not deny the Vasudeva Kutumbkam principle at all. But Kautilya knew who was a national and who was not a national. Kautilya encouraged the Hindu way of welcoming refugees but he also said that keep the refugees out of your national borders. Provide for them, take care of them, see to it that they are comfortable and feel secure, but do not bring them inside national borders until their loyalties have been tested and found to be true. Vasudeva Kutumbkam does not mean opening your doors and allowing everyone to come inside, particularly when you are in a state of weakness.

Subversion through Historians

Let us take academia first. What are the falsehoods that they have propagated to subvert the very idea of a nation? They have I think done two things. They have fragmented the Hindu consciousness so that a very significant section of the Hindu community has been placed outside of national borders, and many other sections have been placed outside the Hindu community itself.

By propagating the theory of the Aryan invasion, Indian academia, dominated by the Marixists, have successfully placed a significant section of the Hindu community outside national borders. And this is not something peculiar to India. This Aryan Invasion Theory was a colonial construct. It is a White Christian construct. And they have played this game in North America too, where they have had this ridiculous Baring Straits Theory, which said that the native Americans whom they almost exterminated through genocide and Christian colonialism, where themselves were migrants from elsewhere.

That is to say they propagated the Aryan Invasion Theory here because the intellectuals among the Hindu elite who were in the forefront of resisting the colonial invasion, the colonial administration turned the argument back at them saying you yourself have come as a migrant to India, it is just that we have come a little more recently. To justify the genocide of the Native Americans, the White colonial research which came out of Harvard and Smithsonian placed the native American population outside the North American continent, and said that: “You people came here several centuries ago maybe, but you are as much migrants as we are. There is no such thing as a native American population. You are a migrant. We are a later-day migrant.”

Udyan Namboodri ji in the previous session said how could EMS Naboodripad have gone running to the Soviet ambassador when his homeland or motherland or matra-bhumi was being attacked. You must understand Islam, Christianity and communism (which was a virulent reaction to Christian capitalism), none of the three ideologies or philosophies subscribe to the concept of homeland, motherland or matra-bhumi. These are aggressive conquering ideologies. They believe all territories are open for conquest.

It is only the Hindus and Jews who are born into their faiths in a territory which they call their own who have the concept of matra-bhumi or homeland. The other three philosophies or ideologies do not subscribe to the idea of homeland. So by placing a significant section of Hindu community outside national borders, and by declaring that dalits and tribals are not part of the Hindu community, the Indian Marxist academia has fragmented the Hindu consciousness. This was their success number one.

Subversion Through “Pluralism”

They have propagated the untruth that the Indian civilization has always been pluaralist. This concept of pluralism, please understand, is a Western Christian colonial concept. Christianity also spread by the sword. Today, the developed Western nations may have succeeded in branding Islam a terrorist religion and the Western White Christian nations as defenders against terrorism, but let us not forget that Christianity also spread by the sword. It was also intolerant. With the advent of “democracy,” which is also a Christian construct when political Christianity had to accommodate people from other way so life and when Christianity devised other weapons of conquest like evangelization, they made pluralism a virtue in their nation states.

Hindu dharma has always believed in diversity. We don’t need this Christian colonial construct of pluralism inside India. We have always been diverse. Pluralism is “multi-culturalism” which is the new term in use in Western democracy. This pluralism or multi-culturalism is about accommodating the indigestible elements of your society who refuse to become part of the mainstream. These elements do not consider this territory as their matra-bhoomi and do not subscribe to Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism. These elements insist that they will live as indigestible elements but they seek accommodation within the broader diverse parameters of Hindu dharma.

These are the pluralist elements and when White Christian colonial Western democracies promote the concept of pluaralism, this is for non-White, non-Christian democracies like India whereas they are rejecting multi-culturalism in their own countries. The Australian prime minister is saying subscribe to the Australian culture. The British prime minister is saying, subscribe to the British culture. Australian culture, British culture, American culture, please understand, is White Christian culture, whether Catholic or Protestant. And immigrants or migrants who seek residence or citizenship in their countries, it is demanded of them that they have proficiency in the English language and they subscribe to the broad cultural values which are rooted in White Christianity.

And this pluralism they want India to accept as an integral part of Indian policy, and it is this intellectual subversion that has launched Sonia Gandhi into the forefront of Indian polity. I personally consider the presence of Sonia Gandhi in Indian polity as much an affront to my Hindu sensibilities as the mosques in Mathura, Kashi and Ayodhya. This is success number two.

The “South Asia” Subversion

The third idea they are propagating is the concept of South Asia. This concept of South Asia which has no legitimacy is a political construct with its origins in American think tanks where they seek to subsume -- Please understand one thing. If there is one thing both Islam and Christianity are afraid of, it is Hindu nationalism. Hindu nationalism poses the biggest threat to both Islam and evangelical church. They are propagating the concept of South Asia where they hope that India’s territorial borders and her Hindu identity will be subsumed in the larger Muslim-dominated region of Pakistan and Bangladesh. When they say South Asia, I don’t think they have Bhutan and Sri Lanka in mind. When they say South Asia, they primarily mean India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Hindu History is a History of Resistance

The most subversive act undertaken by Indian academia is the kind of history that they have written for us. It is a defeatist history. It is a history which says that the Indian nation was invaded by hordes and hordes of people and they emasculated the Indian society and that Hindu society was weakened by them. This way they put us in a defeatist frame of mind. But is this true? This is not true.

I have one of the most brilliant papers compiled by Dr. M.D. Shrinivas of Centre of Policy Studies in Chennai. And look at what he says, Islam had already over-run Europe, Africa and large parts of Asia. But the Hindu community kept off the Islamic invaders at bay. The Muslims couldn’t get a foot-hold in India between 600 and 1200 AD. Islam couldn’t get a foot hold here. And which were the rajyas and samrajyas which held them off? The Chalukyas, the Rashtrakutas, the Karkotas of Kashmir, the Rajputs – they kept Islam away from getting a toe-hold in India uptill the 13th century.

And once Islam did get a foot-hold here, there were still large parts of India which were never under their control. Large parts of South India, Orissa, Assam – they were never under the Muslim rule for any great significant period of time. The Madurai Sultanate was thrown out within 30 years. You have the Marathas, the Vijayanagar kingdom, you have the Budelas, the Sikhs, the Jats who raised powerful military organizations to combat Islam. And the Islam that came to India was Jihadi Islam.

Jihadi Islam is not a phenomenon of the 20th or the 21st century. When Islam came to India, it came as Jihadi Islam. It is only Jihad that the Hindu community has faced since 600 AD. We never allowed Islam to set up any kind of government here till the 1200. But even after we lost militarily to Islam … Islam was a world conquering force, let us not forget. And when we lost militarily, see what we threw up. Sanatana Dharma in the form of Acharyas, the Bhakti movement, the Shastras, the commentaries, the Bhasyas … it was the the abundance of Sanatan Dharma literature that came through after we lost militarily.

Sanatana Dharma has been the core of the Hindu rajya. It was also the core of Hindu rajya in South East Asia for over a thousand years between 300 AD to 1500 AD. The rajyas and samrajyas of South East Asia had the Sanatana Dharma as their core. And Sanatana Dharma influenced West Asia, East Asia, Central Asia and South East Asia. And we have an external affairs ministry today which has made sure that India is surrounded by ideologies and states actively hostile to Sanatana Dharma and Dharmis.

Nepal has fallen victim. Bhutan is well on its way to falling victim. Bangladesh, Pakistan, we have lost Sri Lanka also. India failed to step into Sri Lanka. Musharaff has stepped into Sri Lanka. India failed to step into Nepal. Chinese, Americans and Maoists have over-run Nepal.

Subversion of Polity

Hindu Rajya means territory under my control and territory under my influence. It is the subversion of intellectual India that we believe in Gujaral doctrine which says give-in, surrender, get over-run and welcome outsiders to come and decapitate us. What is destroying India today is intellectual subversion in polity which gives them the ideology upon which the UPA government and even the NDA government to a certain extent function.

How else can you explain the fact that the NDA government patronized Nirmala Deshpande? Or made M.K. Narayanan the member of the national security advisory board? We are so afraid of people calling us intolerant. When are we going to say, Yes! There is “us” and there is “them.” There are those who belong. There are those who do not belong. But you are welcome. You will be provided with all comforts and the freedom to practice your religion. But you cannot be a part of the Hindu rashtra. You cannot participate in power. Do we have the courage? We had the courage and that is why we remained the Hindu rashtra and Hindu rajya.

The day we opened our doors indiscriminately, the day we used Vasudev Kutumbkam as our defining characteristic not with strength but with weakness, we have allowed intellectual subversion to such an extent that 50 years after independence … The power at independence returned to the Hindus. But what kind of Hindus? It returned to those Hindus who were ashamed to be Hindus, regressive Hindus, deracinated Hindus, Hindus who had no faith in their own civilization. It is Hindus who speak badly of the caste system. It is Hindus who speak badly about our acharyas and gurus. It is Hindus like CP Ramaswamy Aiyar who advocated government control of temples. Intellectual subversion!

Subversion through Media

The media has played no less a destructive role. Please understand. The money for media. How many times have us or the Sangh Parivar bemoaned the fact that we are unable to bring out a national newspaper which will give leading Indian dailies a run for their money. Because we think we do not have the resources. Then think of the kind of money that is going into the Hindu, the Times of India, the NDTV, the CNN-IBN …

Please understand this is the money that is coming from the outside. When these channels function, they do not have national interest in mind. They do not care about national interest. They have to answer to the hands who are pumping money into their channels and papers. Is it any wonder that they are anti-Hindu?

Are White Christians our Allies against Islamic Terrorism?

A very very subtle intellectually subversive activity is taking place, and I am afraid there is a large segment of even very intelligent Hindus who have bought into this argument. That we need to partner the US and developed Western nations to fight Islam, not realizing that Jihadi Islam was first pacified and used by the Western nations in Afghanistan and in Kashmir. The West has pacified and subdued Islam to further Western colonial interests in non-White, non-Christian nations. If we understand this clearly, we will not make the mistake of thinking we have to partner Western nations in our war against Jihad.
Also understand that the Western nations are the most bitter critics of Hindu nationalism. You only have to read the annual report which the US State Deptt. churns out on religious freedom, human rights and patterns of global terrorism. The language it uses against the RSS, against Hindu nationalism … why did the US refuse visa to Narendra Modi? It was to send a strong signal to NRIs and would-be NRIs in India that if you want accommodation in the US, you have to distance yourself from Hindutva and Hindu nationalism.

No meaningful partnership or cooperation is possible with communism, Islam or Christianity. We must allow them to wage their cosmic wars and if they are warring with each other, sit back and enjoy the fight. Don’t think you are going to participate with one of them. None of the three is going to accept Hindu nationalist, Hindu nationalism, Sanatana Dharma or Dharmis as their equal partners. If anything, they will try to use the gullible section of the intellectual elite to server their own purpose.

The Subversion through IITians

The last section which parctises the intellectual subversion. I particularly hold a very large section of the IIT pass-outs who have relocated in the US guilty for this intellectual subversion. When I did some research on anti-Hindu NGOs and activists, I found that most of them like AID, Asha, Akhila Raman, Angana Chatterji and others are all entrenched in American universities.

These are communists who are functioning from American universities who write and work in support of Naxalism, who have participated in the CPI-ML Congress. Mahashweta Devi, Arundhati Roy, Praful Bidwai … you name them, all of them have links with Naxals and they are well entrenched either in American universities or they are encouraged by Indian communists working in American universities. And a very significant number of them are IITians. Raju Rajagopal, Ram Puniyani, Sandeep Pandey, Balaji Sampat, all are from IIT. There is thus a large section of our intellectual elite moving into intellectual subversion.

What is the remedy? I think it is going to stick in the throat of most of us who think tolerance is out defining virtue. I am afraid Hindu society forgot the valour of the Hindu rajyas and samrajyas which staved off Islamic rule, which fought the colonialists, which is even today fighting the communists at the level of the society. Hindu intellectual elite has a self-imposed image of tolerance which is not real. We have forgotten the Kshatriya blood which is intrinsic to both our intellectual activity and our public life. There is no Kshatriya blood in the Hindu leadership today.

Sabrimala happened. Pujya Kanchi Shankracharya episode happened. There is an EVR statue right in front of the Sri Rangam temple. What is the response of the Hindu intellectuals, Hindu organizations and Hindu society? Has there been a response? Has there been an intellectual response? Has there been a physical response? There are very highly respected voices from amongst the Hindu community that are actually saying we have no objection to the EVR statue anywhere in Sri Rangam, just not in front of the temple. We have forgotten the concept of the temple town. The whole town is a temple.

How the Public Spaces are Subverted

When I said Hindu rashtra, I mentioned territory. The territory also comprises the character and content of public spaces. Let me tell you the politics of public spaces and the intellectual subversion associated with it. In 1999, the Pope came to India two days before Diwali and he declared his intention of planting the cross in Asia in the 3rd millennium.

The first victim of the church-planting mission in Asia is South Korea. In 1900, South Korea was less than one percent Christian. In the seventies, it was about 18 percent Christian. In 1990, it is 40 percent Christian. Just as what is happening to Kerala. In Kerala, just over 50 percent are today Hindus. The rest are all gone.

In South Korea, from the heart of the Seoul city to the airport, it is a 20 km stretch. On either side of this stretch, at ever three feet there is a towering church. These are not small Christian prayer houses with thatched roofs or asbestos sheets. These are towering churches. There are scores of churches lining the stretch, which are totally out of proportion to the Christian population or the people who come to congregate there. Then why are these churches standing there? Public spaces! The churches are standing there as a symbol of subjugation, as a symbol of dominance, as a symbol of money power that says: “I will occupy your public space.”

The presence of EVR statue in front of Sri Rangam I am 100 percent sure it is the Christian money that has gone into the Dravidar Kazhagam and instigated them to plant a statue on the very entrance to the temple in front of Rajgopuram. The land was allotted to them in 1972. From that time to this time, they did not dare to plant the statue there. There was continuous Hindu resistance. All of a sudden how did they get the courage or the money to go and plant it? They did that in 2007, soon after the Kanchi-acharya issue, soon after the Sabrimala issue, soon after we showed them that you can keep rubbing our nose in the dirt but the Hindu community is today incapable of coming up with a Kshatriya response.

Towering churches in Seoul. You enter the Tambram railway station by train there is this huge cement pillar with a huge Jesus Christ. When you enter by train, this the first thing you see. Yesterday, I was horrified when I came to the Madras Central Station – I think this must have come up about a month ago. I am entering the station by train and right beneath the bridge I see a huge cement pillar with a huge Jesus Christ! This is called occupation of public spaces. This has a political intent. This is not a religious intent. The message is: ”I am dominating you, I am subjugating you.” Do we have the sense to see this?

I am told that the EVR statue in front of Srirangan temple is not the only perversion. I believe on the Thiruvanthapuram beach, there is a Devi temple. And right in front of this temple there is a 50 foot statue of a naked woman. Not far from the temple, there is a church and the mosque, but this naked woman is not standing in front of the church or the mosque, but only in front of the Hindu temple.

So when the communists speak of atheism, when the Dravidians speak of atheism, they do not speak against Muslim or Christian god. It is only against Hindu gods that they speak.

Intellectual Subversion is Behind all Other Subversions

Islam is a threat that you see as a sword against which we still do not have weapons. But Christianity is like cancer. It invades your body with sweet words. It tells you “I am a part of you” and then eats you away. Communism of course is a blight on humanity. I cannot have a partnership with any of the three. And all the three inside India have intellectual backing. If Arundhati Roy can write a book on Afzal Guru, if Nirmala Deshpande and Mahashweta Devi .. they have all been awarded the Padma Vibhushan by the Congress government. The participated in the Naxalite Congress.

If Christian conversion can be legitimized by India’s academia, the subversion of Indian nation – the Hindu rajya and Hindu rashtra – is backed only by intellectual subversion. If they are terrorists, blame us. We are happy victims of terrorism. What stops us from becoming Kshatriyas? What stops us from writing good books? What stops us from producing monograms which will threaten them? What stops us from physically removing these Jesus statues and EVR statues? Ask yourself this question, and you will understand why intellectual subversion has worked in this country. The victims of this intellectual subversion are the Hindu rashtra and Hindu rajya, and the Hindus have only themselves to blame.


If you want to read Radha Ranjan's book on NGOs, and especially about the msicheif and subversion of Harsh Mander, it is here:

http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?op ... Itemid=109


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2008 04:53 pm
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 07 Apr 2006 04:46 pm
Posts: 311
Location: Texas
CRamS wrote:
Quote:

("Not my business - I am Hindu so I'll talk about shit in Hindu society"). In other words the Hindu who acts like this and calls himself a liberal is opposed only to what he thinks is Hindu conservatism. He will not utter a word about Muslim or Christian extremism or conservatism because he feels he is a Hindu and must not tread on the toes of "his Muslim and Christian brothers"


Quintessential definition of a colonial-bug infested, self-loathing desparate for western recongnition, pompous, self-righteous COWARD.


The primary enemies of India today are not the desi Christians.. It is these HFLs. Hindus should focus on these HFLs.. and to tell you the truth, they won't find the kind of help or sympathies that the Christians get from outside. So taking the HFLs on should be the first priority.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2008 05:21 pm
BRFite -Trainee
Offline

Joined: 07 Dec 2007 03:08 pm
Posts: 87
Location: US
sanjaychoudhry wrote:
I liked Radha Rajan's speech so much, I have written it down word by word. Took the better part of the day, but it was worth it.


Sanjay,

That was a great effort. Thanks.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2008 05:36 pm
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 22 Oct 2000 06:01 am
Posts: 122
Sanjay
Great effort! Will do my bit..


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2008 06:57 pm
BRF Oldie
Offline

Joined: 18 Jan 2006 10:14 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Dark side of the moon
Radha Rajan nailed it then and there.

Merits widespread dissemination, IMO. Tks SanjayC for the effort, an yes, shall do my bit.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2008 02:07 am
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 22 May 2002 06:01 am
Posts: 639
From Radha Rajan's speech:

Quote:
How else can you explain the fact that the NDA government patronized Nirmala Deshpande? Or made M.K. Narayanan the member of the national security advisory board? We are so afraid of people calling us intolerant. When are we going to say, Yes! There is “us” and there is “them.” There are those who belong. There are those who do not belong. But you are welcome. You will be provided with all comforts and the freedom to practice your religion. But you cannot be a part of the Hindu rashtra. You cannot participate in power. Do we have the courage? We had the courage and that is why we remained the Hindu rashtra and Hindu rajya.



Who is you, who is us....... In today's context us are Indians as well as them are Indians also. How can you promote difference between Indian people themselves. We don't have foreigners from outside living and practicing Christianity & Islam in India. The fact of today is that some of Indians have chosen to follow these other religions. Why should we disown them ? There are many patriots amongst Christians. Recall recently IC [indian christians] were happy to receive to Indianized bible. Should we count them as 'us' or as 'them' ?

Also, Admins you must decide should we allow points like taking away voting power from Indians who practice non native Indian religion just because they are not one of 'us' to be propagated on BRF ? That being said there are points raised in that article with which I agree.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2008 02:54 am
BRF Oldie
Offline

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am
Posts: 5658
Sumeet wrote:
From Radha Rajan's speech:

Quote:
How else can you explain the fact that the NDA government patronized Nirmala Deshpande? Or made M.K. Narayanan the member of the national security advisory board? We are so afraid of people calling us intolerant. When are we going to say, Yes! There is “us” and there is “them.” There are those who belong. There are those who do not belong. But you are welcome. You will be provided with all comforts and the freedom to practice your religion. But you cannot be a part of the Hindu rashtra. You cannot participate in power. Do we have the courage? We had the courage and that is why we remained the Hindu rashtra and Hindu rajya.



Who is you, who is us....... In today's context us are Indians as well as them are Indians also. How can you promote difference between Indian people themselves. We don't have foreigners from outside living and practicing Christianity & Islam in India. The fact of today is that some of Indians have chosen to follow these other religions. Why should we disown them ? There are many patriots amongst Christians. Recall recently IC [indian christians] were happy to receive to Indianized bible. Should we count them as 'us' or as 'them' ?

Also, Admins you must decide should we allow points like taking away voting power from Indians who practice non native Indian religion just because they are not one of 'us' to be propagated on BRF ? That being said there are points raised in that article with which I agree.



Sumeet I think this needs to be looked at in perspective. The transcript is from a speech that is available online. Posting the transcript here does not mean that anyone is endorsing any such move.

However, there can be some debate on whether such a call (for exclusion of some people from some rights) is "gall" and "facetiousness" or whether it is a "natural demand" - but that would be splitting hairs.

The fact remains that there is a deep sense of grievance that is being felt by a large number of Hindus. In an email exchange with Ram Guha here is what I wrote in response to his Advani article- and I reproduce it here because I believe it is relevant:

Quote:
I believe that Hindus carry a huge chip on their collective shoulders. While I
have a family record of my own ancestors being chased away from Anegundi to
Mysore state by Muslims invaders, I was inclined to ignore these family tales
and forgive and forget until I realised that stories of Muslim atrocities are
handed down as family memories by thousands of Hindu families, starting from
centuries ago to 1947. Many of them see the record of history as grossly
unfair to Hindus - who have acquired a reputation for bigotry, weirdness and
tendencies that get sneered at like "polytheism".

A Hindu narrative has not been allowed to be recorded and that narrative
exists as family memories and folklore. Much of it will do nothing for
secularism, but avoiding it is the exact formula that feeds Advani's militant
Hinduism.

As you have yourself pointed out history ended in 1947 for India. I put up a
video clip of the Pakistani genocide on YouTube and linked it to the ***
alumni website. A man 20 years my junior expressed surprise and said that he
did not know that a genocide had occurred in Bangladesh. What kind of history
do we teach our children if we fail to mention the murder of several million
people in living memory? How can we even expect truth to be told by
historians?


Avoiding the discussion of a deep sense of grievance felt by a majority is, IMO the manner in which we allow lumpen elements to take the stage and engage in vandalism. The cause-effect relationship between vandalism and grievances is simple even if we don't admit it. (Muslim scholars regularly admit it though)

For example - I know there are angry young people and I use my influence to calm them down and oppose violence in public. But when things get so bad that my own anger is pushed beyond a point I stop caring if a group of Bajrang Dal go and wreak some havoc.

This may be called a form of subtle blackmail and it is. You have to allows the majority to have a say and speak about the world they way they see it. In the same email to Ram Guha I wrote (regarding his respect for Gandhiji):

Quote:
Gandhi was an extremely intelligent man and the politicians who use his name
and try and use his methods nowadays are laughable parodies. I believe they
do not have a clue.

Gandhi of course managed to have most Hindus solidly behind him, save the few
who ultimately killed him. Gandhis "Ishwar-Allah tere naam" was a slap in the
face of Islamic exclusivism and changed the psyche of Hindus - but could not
prevail over hard-core Islamist ideology. But Gandhi carried through these
things with a degree of elan and facetiousness that no one can match.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2008 02:57 am
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 20 Feb 2001 07:01 am
Posts: 157
Wow! That video is suspect. I accept that there are few points in that speach with which i agree - But there are plenty of points in there that makes me cringe hearing them.

Not sure if I can agree with her views of treating "others" as them and treating them outside of "national Borders" - Nothing but the parellel of the Muslims and dhimmis in here and cannot be endorsed at all.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2008 02:59 pm
BRFite
Offline

Joined: 02 Aug 2008 06:17 am
Posts: 440
Location: Deep Freezer
sanjaychoudhry wrote:
The Subversion through IITians

The last section which parctises the intellectual subversion. I particularly hold a very large section of the IIT pass-outs who have relocated in the US guilty for this intellectual subversion. When I did some research on anti-Hindu NGOs and activists, I found that most of them like AID, Asha, Akhila Raman, Angana Chatterji and others are all entrenched in American universities.


Does anyone know what is the specific role played by organizations such as ASHA that Radha Ranjan has mentioned? Is ASHA anti-hindu or linked to Naxals? I am shocked to find its name here since a good indian friend of mine doing PhD at Univ Illinois at Urbana Champaign was very actively involved in fund raising for ASHA. And he always said that it is an organization for education of children in backward areas and I am sure that's what he has been told. He used to run in the fund raising marathons too.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2008 03:50 pm
BRF Oldie
Offline

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 07:01 am
Posts: 5547
Sumeet wrote:
From Radha Rajan's speech:

Quote:
How else can you explain the fact that the NDA government patronized Nirmala Deshpande? Or made M.K. Narayanan the member of the national security advisory board? We are so afraid of people calling us intolerant. When are we going to say, Yes! There is “us” and there is “them.” There are those who belong. There are those who do not belong. But you are welcome. You will be provided with all comforts and the freedom to practice your religion. But you cannot be a part of the Hindu rashtra. You cannot participate in power. Do we have the courage? We had the courage and that is why we remained the Hindu rashtra and Hindu rajya.



Who is you, who is us....... In today's context us are Indians as well as them are Indians also. How can you promote difference between Indian people themselves. We don't have foreigners from outside living and practicing Christianity & Islam in India. The fact of today is that some of Indians have chosen to follow these other religions. Why should we disown them ? There are many patriots amongst Christians. Recall recently IC [indian christians] were happy to receive to Indianized bible. Should we count them as 'us' or as 'them' ?

Also, Admins you must decide should we allow points like taking away voting power from Indians who practice non native Indian religion just because they are not one of 'us' to be propagated on BRF ? That being said there are points raised in that article with which I agree.


It is not about religion but the political ideology practised by the foreign groups and countries which is seeping inside India.
Indian nationalism will always be connected to the Indian history, religion, race and experience.
Political ideology of India cannot be subverted because you belong to some religion.

Quote:
In today's context us are Indians as well as them are Indians also. How can you promote difference between Indian people themselves. We don't have foreigners from outside living and practicing Christianity & Islam in India. The fact of today is that some of Indians have chosen to follow these other religions. Why should we disown them ? There are many patriots amongst Christians.

They have to decide and keep their political ideology away from their religion. They have to Indianize their political ideology.
Those religions come with political ideology


Last edited by Acharya on 20 Oct 2008 04:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers