HFL 5

mayurav	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 03 Oct 2008 05:59 pm
BRFite Joined: 15 Apr 2006 01:17 am Posts: 198 Location: Banavasi	IMHO if the Indian state had truly been secular and enforced laws strictly against Islamic rioting, against denigration of other religions by the EJ, not appeased Muszlims and Communists, then forces like BD would not have had the need and opportunity to indulge in alleged violence.
Top

ramana	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 03 Oct 2008 06:41 pm
Forum Moderator Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 8631	ramana wrote: One thing the Jamia case highlights is the fact that a uty founded by Mahatma Gandhiji and a group of enlightened IMs who wanted to provide an alternate to the Aligarh Muslim Uty has also been hijacked by fake liberals like Mushirul Hasan and his ilk. They have managed to give the perception which might be inocrrect that jamia is a sectarian school. This the HFL are unable to see. Mushirul Hasan managed to do this by rushing to offer legal aid to the students accused of terrorism only. He could have bolstered the uty's liberal credentials by offer legal aid irrespective of the offences and to all the Jamia students. Pioneer has similar theme! Pioneer, 4 oct., 2008 Quote: Why Jamia has let down India Ashok Malik Running an energetic and high-visibility media campaign, the faculty and administration of Delhi's Jamia Millia Islamia are striving to present terror suspects as victims. There is every possibility, it is being asserted, that the two Jamia students arrested for probable links with Indian Mujahideen -- and being investigated for their role, if any, in the September 13 terrorist bombings in Delhi -- are actually innocent. Such logic, devoid of any supportive evidence, mixes well with street emotionalism. It panders and offers legitimacy to a cult of denial -- whether in the bylanes of a Muslim quarter in Delhi or in a village in Azamgarh. It rejects any notion of local support for acts of terror and prefers to see both the original crime and the police measures following it as some sort of a conspiracy. In the long run, this New Left-Islamic alliance is not serving ordinary Muslims. It is pushing them, as it did in Gujarat in the years following 2002, into a trap. An entire community, with its good and its bad, its attributes and its angularities, is being boxed in to suit the smug postulates of 'Left-secular' academics and drawing-room activists. There is, of course, a difference between Jamia Millia, the university and Jamia Nagar, the residential area that neighbours it. However, by their actions and arguments, the faculty and Academic Council of the educational institution are doing their utmost to efface that divide. In the popular perception, there is no substantial difference between the sloganeering of Jamia Nagar and the rhetoric and op-ed articles from Jamia Millia. They are both feeding off each other. It is nobody's argument that every Muslim in Jamia Nagar or every student in Jamia Millia is a terrorist or even a potential sympathiser of Indian Mujahideen. They may have their prejudices -- and, indeed, which human being, irrespective of religion or nationality, doesn't? -- but that is very different from seeing them as terrorists or facilitators of bombings or anything but horrified by the murder of ordinary people. Yet, it is equally true that somewhere in the confines of Jamia Nagar and Jamia Millia some people who are affiliated to the terror cause have found sanctuary. The community in the neighbourhood refuses to believe this. The university, rather than nuance and modulate that mood, is reinforcing it. Consider an analogy. The historian David Irving and Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad both deny the Holocaust and insist Jews fabricated stories and so-called evidence to unfairly discredit the Nazis and Adolf Hitler. Both are, of course, talking rubbish. Yet, should we discriminate between their essential theses only because one is an otherwise well-known writer and the other a back-alley polemicist? Is the David Irving Centre for Negationism the new academic school at Jamia? In its open letter -- published in this newspaper on October 3 -- the Academic Council of Jamia Millia Islamia proudly and somewhat hyperbolically states: "We embody the idea of India." Fair enough, but do all those who disagree with Jamia's Millia's recent conduct, who are disappointed by the manner in which it has made provocative gestures, represent an idea hostile to India? Any defence of Jamia makes three essential points. First, its past history is that of a nationalist institution, founded by enlightened Muslims who followed Gandhi and rejected Pakistan. This is an unimpeachable legacy but it is, broadly speaking, irrelevant to the current debate. Second, if a student gets into trouble with the law, the university authorities cannot abandon him. He probably lives far away from his family, it is important for the university, its Vice-Chancellor and the student's professor or hostel warden to look after him, to function, in the words of Mukul Kesavan -- the Jamia faculty member who wrote in the Telegraph on October 2 -- "in loco parentis". The Academic Council's open letter complemented this belief when it said, "A student of London School of Economics was found guilty of being a terrorist. Does that turn such a prestigious institution into a terrorist camp? Then why Jamia?" These questions are persuasive. However, there is one crucial inconsistency: Jamia is refusing to look inward. If a college student gets into a brawl or runs over a pedestrian thanks to drunken driving, he is guilty of a crime. Both examples would suggest a wayward individual who needs counselling along with legal action. There is no widespread sentiment anywhere -- at no university certainly -- that actively promotes brawling or drunken driving as an ideology and a way of life. However, terrorism or sympathy for terrorism flowing from a certain perverted interpretation of faith and a jihad-fixated mind implies not one person's recklessness but a larger social problem of indoctrination. It is now clear that there are individuals in Jamia -- and without doubt they make up only a small number -- who are misusing it to spread their negative gospel and win adherents. Is it not incumbent upon the university authorities to take action to stop this, or to at least investigate this phenomenon? Don't they owe an explanation of why they are not even addressing the issue to the rest of the city of Delhi, to the other stakeholders of the "idea of India"? Third, Jamia justified its initial decision to pay for the legal defence of the student-terror suspects on grounds of principle. It said every accused person was entitled to a fair trial and a legal counsel. If no lawyer represented an accused, it was obligatory for the state to hire one. In the case of the September 13 suspects, the Jamia Vice-Chancellor made several leaps of judgement. He presumed no lawyer would defend 'the boys' because of a prejudiced atmosphere. He presumed the Government would then have to appoint lawyers and pay them. He decided that he would take a short cut, appoint the lawyers himself and that, since Jamia was a public-funded institution, he could act in lieu of the Government. Today that plan has been aborted. A semi-official committee of Jamia staff and students will pay for the defence. Contributions are being solicited, and fairly openly, by Jamia students at mosques and namaaz congregations for the 'Students' Legal Aid Fund'. Is this not a denominational, religion-specific appeal? How do the Jamia authorities explain it? Perhaps, like in the case of the consortium of newspapers and civil society groups that collected a purse for Brig-Gen RE Dyer after Jallianwalla Bagh, they have simply lost all sense of proportion. I had posted it was Mushirul Hasan's rush to legal aid that was troubling. Had he announced that he was for supporting all his students, even if all were Muslims, I would have no problem. What troubles me his rush in this particular and only this instance. Keshavan should stick to cricket and not stuff beyond his ken.
Top

venkat_r	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 03 Oct 2008 06:45 pm
BRFite Joined: 20 Feb 2001 07:01 am Posts: 157	First of all, though there is a Hindu element to this, it is better to remove the religion name to that and call them "Fake liberals". But Fake liberals does not seem to anyway indicate the amount of harm/mischief them seem to cause. So a better word that might stick is needed here. Something in the lines of "Rouge liberal" which seem to capture and potray them in true light. Some other terms are welcome, but this one came to my mind first. Because, anyone trying to defend against their onslaught, seemed to be directly called "Hindutva vadi" - a title they conviniently propose.
Top

JwalaMukhi	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 03 Oct 2008 08:07 pm
BRFite Joined: 28 Mar 2007 12:57 pm Posts: 421	The point that needs to be emphasized is that the True Hindu Liberal (unlike HFL) should not get his/her chaddi in a twist, due to the actions of fringe elements such as BD. For a HFL, the actions of BD are the bonus, to portray "tail wagging the dog scenario". Even in absence of the antics of the fringe elements, the HFL would invent the "ghost", no surprises there. The true HL should take note of fringe elements, but not be bogged down by it, and never loose focus on what is more critical. In other words true HL should refrain from falling into the trap of "collective guilt" because HFL wants to pin it on, and spend reams and reams of discussion on antics of hooligans. If it was so easy that if not for the hooligans, the HFL would turn into true HL, we are in luck. Just taking care of the hooligans would magically solve the problem of HFL. i.e., the hooligans are not the lifeline of HFL. The true HL should be adept at performing triage. The true HL cannot and should not be addressing the collective guilt, as it is a baseless charge. Hooligans does it, hooligans answers for it; period. Till the HFL gets sense to accept what should be the focus during triage, there is no sense in True HL aiding the HFL by stepping in tandem with him/her about the "problems due to hooligans". The question is why is HFL allowed to set the framework of focus, and true HL is merely on a reactionary mode.
Top

Sumeet	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 12:15 am
BRFite Joined: 22 May 2002 06:01 am Posts: 639	Encountering the truth -- Barkha Dutt Quote: A Wednesday may as well have been a Saturday. Or so goes the cynical and not–altogether-funny joke in newsrooms across Delhi, in nervous anticipation of the weekly terror call. Naseeruddin Shah and Anupam Kher’s opus on terror may have been set against an innocuous Wednesday afternoon in Bombay. But the bombs in Ahmedabad and Delhi (twice over) went off on a Saturday evening in a chillingly repetitive pattern. And suitably, it was a Saturday when the police declared that they had cracked not just one, but the entire series of serial blasts this year. So, why are we not comforted by the fact that the ‘masterminds’ have been killed or caught and their modules broken? It’s because we don’t know yet if the right men have been caught. Our eyes glaze over as investigators connect the dots to suggest a common hand in blasts separated by geography and months. We now know the names and faces of the bombers. But ask us to tell the difference between Atif, Touqeer, Bashr and Saif, and watch us flounder. These may be the men who plundered our sense of well-being, but our minds are lost in a maze of detail that we can neither comprehend nor contest. We try to rewind feverishly to 24-hours after Varanasi, Hyderabad, Jaipur and Ahmedabad. Hadn’t similar Machiavellian masterminds been paraded for the cameras back then? Could it be possible that a 13-member squad of terrorists successfully exploded bombs and killed people in major cities and then settled into a regular life in Delhi, straddling university programmes and management schools in between planning the next assault? The truth is that the Delhi encounter that led the police to India’s ‘serial bombers’ is still steeped in far too many unsolved mysteries. But, sadly, the opposite is not true either. If we don’t know whether the cops have the right men, we certainly don’t know whether they are innocent either. Yet, not for the first time, the terror debate has been ensnared by a horrifically polarised and politicised discourse. The overweening political corre-ctness of liberal protests has declared innocence with as much alacrity as the police announced guilt. And so, we are back again to the game of predictable label tagging. Those who are questioning the police are being branded as ‘anti-national’. And if you dare argue that the police may have a point — after all they lost one of their own men — the dissenters dismiss you as unquestioning parasites of the state who feed off sarkari handouts. The two major political parties have also found their preferred places along this axis. The BJP believes that for the Jamia Millia Islamia University to provide the arrested men legal aid is an act of sedition. The Congress — pussyfooting as always — has still not taken a clear position on whether the Students Islamic Movement of India is dangerous enough to remain a banned outfit. And as the two slug it out over the encounter, continuing attacks on Christian minorities shame us on the global stage. This only propels another round of your-wrong-makes-my-wrong-right-brand of political abuse. Both sides reflect a twisted sort of intellectual fundamentalism — and both are equally dangerous to the increasingly fragile amity between Hindus and Muslims. There is also a definite degree of denial about the vulnerability of the Indian Muslim to radical orthodoxy. For so long, we have believed that our secular democracy has kept us safe from the influences of global jehad. But think Glasgow, and you can no longer argue that no Indian Muslim has ever been implicated in a global terror attack. Think about the Mumbai blasts and you confront homegrown terror that has an educated, urbane face and cannot be hidden away behind the usual finger-pointing at Pakistan. Conservative religiosity — even fanaticism — is certainly not equivalent to terrorism. Yet, the self-appointed spokespeople of Indian Muslims do their people no justice when they go on TV and rationalise Osama bin Laden’s hatred for america or pronounce 9/11 to be the handiwork of the international Jewish mafia. Indian Muslims are not a monolith and none of us can or should speak on their behalf with exactitude. So, why can’t we accept that we don’t know enough about this much-hyped encounter without being boxed into categories? Since when did public debate in India become an improvised version of George Bush’s you-are-with-us-or against-us diktat after 9/11? And more pertinently, who is the ‘us’? Why must we be asked to take sides in this battle of extremes? In this fight between the establishment and anti-establishment, I would wager that most commonsensical Indians want a much more transparent investigation and a higher certainty of truth. We can certainly believe that the State sometimes does lie or pretends to know the truth when it doesn’t have a toss of evidence. But at other times, and in other ways, we can also empathise with the pressure on soldiers and cops to fight a battle that they are not empowered to win. It’s the reason the funeral of Inspector M.C. Sharma evoked the emotion that it did; he became symbolic of the ordinary person’s fight against the hidden hand of terror. And yet, when we watched a young boy called Zeeshan break down on camera and proclaim his innocence with detailed accounts of where he was on the day of the encounter, we were confused all over again. And actually, that’s how it should be. Our confusion is healthy because it speaks to our basic need for a State that acts with firmness but honesty. At the moment, the choice is being positioned as mutually exclusive. That is why the polarisations are so insidious. This is not the India we want. Barkha Dutt is Group Editor, English News, NDTV
Top

G Subramaniam	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 12:17 am
BRFite Joined: 26 Apr 2006 12:28 pm Posts: 828	telegraphindia FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS - Are Indians rethinking the equality of minorities? Sunanda K. Datta-Ray Though it’s a cliché that bombs have no names and terrorists no religion, the muffled drumbeat of religious wars can be heard beyond the clash of Durga Puja cymbals. Not only of Muslims pitted against a secular State but, more ominously, of Hindus whose wrath is as much against Muslims and Christians as against a State that allows minorities to practise, preach and propagate their faith. This latest development presents India with a stark challenge. The desecration of St James Church in Bangalore, the murder of a nun and priest in Uttarakhand, rape, lynchings, vandalism, and the bomb blasts only three days before Id-ul-Fitr in Muslim-dominated towns suggest one of two explanations. Either they reflect a spreading popular mood or they are the handiwork of criminals. The state must decide and respond accordingly. Happily, there are still pockets of tranquillity left in the country. No echo of violence in Kandhamal or Karnataka or of explosions in Mehrauli, Malegaon and Modasa disturbs the serenity of Guwahati’s Ward Memorial Church. In a further manifestation of the secularism that Jawaharlal Nehru dreamt of but Indira Gandhi institutionalized with her controversial 42nd amendment, the pastor is called Aziz-ul Haque. Yet, recalling the charges that were levelled against missionaries during Assam’s “Bangal kheda” movement long before the illegal influx from East Pakistan or Bangladesh, the American Baptist, William Ward, after whom the church was named long after his death in 1873, might have met Graham Staines’s fate if he had been living today and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. No doubt the murder would have been condemned as the handiwork of ‘miscreants’ — that favourite word of police and press — by citizens who murmur in private that while killings cannot be condoned, over-zealous victims asked for it. The internet, that great communicator of the modern world, bubbles with anger over a pamphlet titled “Satya Darshini”, apparently denigrating Hinduism and apparently distributed by Mangalore’s New Life Church. Both claims may be untrue, but the accusation confirms perception. Nehru’s view that the Muslim question was really a Hindu one (reflecting Sartre’s belief that France’s Jewish question was a Gentile one) was possibly justified in the age of innocence before jihad was rediscovered. But the corollary that majority communalism would disappear as educated Hindus reinvented themselves in his enlightened image was never realistic. Nehru’s daughter understood the temper of her countrymen better, which is why she codified what the Constitution’s minority community chairman, Harendra Coomar Mukherjee, a devout Christian, did not think necessary. Christians at the receiving end acknowledge messages of sympathy and support as well as physical help from Hindus, which disposes of any notion of a pogrom. But even many apolitical and secular Indians tend to look askance at converts, partly perhaps as a carryover of the British Raj’s class dismissiveness of what it called “rice Christians”. It’s more serious when the state shares this prejudice, as evident from the ban on foreign missionaries, stringent rules governing foreign remittances, and attempts since 1954 to outlaw conversion. Orwellian Newspeak ensures that all the Freedom of Religion Acts mean exactly the opposite of what they say. Even iconic Mother Teresa, honoured with a diplomatic passport and Bharat Ratna, was refused permission to visit Arunachal Pradesh where churches were under attack. That’s where Ward comes in. He and two colleagues translated the Bible and hymns into Assamese, launched Assam’s first news magazine, Orunodoi, published dictionaries and grammars, and established that Assamese is a distinct language and not a Bengali dialect. Bengalis resented the resultant awakening and blamed missionaries for fomenting anti-Bengali sentiment. Missionaries were similarly accused of encouraging Nagas to secede by converting them to Christianity though the rate of conversion rose with Indian pastors who could travel more freely in the interior. Christianity brought education to Adivasis and Dalits in Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh, resulting in a greater awareness of the legal rights that caste-Hindu landowners, contractors, employers and officials denied them. In a variant, the caste establishment branded landless labourers who demanded their wage entitlement as Naxalites. Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati’s murder might have been relevant to the need to take a hard look at the character of the Indian state if it had been indisputable that Christians killed him and that the action says something about the Christian community. If both points are proved, logic would demand that Christians be accorded the treatment that British India reserved for communities that were notified under the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, replaced in 1952 by the Habitual Offenders Act. Apologists for anti-Christian violence plead it is reprisal for the swami’s death. It offends India’s sense of justice that open-ended vengeance should be wreaked on Christians all over the country for a crime their Oriya co-religionists are supposed — and it is only a supposition — to have committed. It also strengthens the suspicion that Christians are only the first target. The fundamental question is: are more and more Indians rethinking a dispensation that allows Muslims, Christians and other minorities equal status with the majority in all matters? Is that why so many internet bloggers rail against secularism? Constitutional logic is not expected from Bajrang Dal hit-men, but their sophisticated patrons can argue that a nation must reflect majority thinking, no matter how twisted it might seem to others. Malaysia is an Islamic country though it is doubtful if the majority of Malaysians are Muslim. In contrast, Hindus account for 80.5 per cent of India’s population against 13.4 per cent Muslims and 2.3 per cent Christians. One wonders why the National Democratic Alliance did not pursue this argument to its logical conclusion when it had the chance. But though the Constitution review committee it set up mulled over matters for two years, its report was silent on Hindu Rashtra. The constitutional status quo was no impediment. Men make laws, not the other way round. Instead, the committee discussed the right of “non-Indian born citizens” to hold the highest offices of state and prescribed mandatory imprisonment for election campaigning on the basis of caste or religion. The only conclusion is that even Lal Krishna Advani knows, first, that the sangh parivar still does not speak for all Hindus, and, second, that the Muslim backlash would be something to be reckoned with. So, the attempt to smuggle through the back door — tinkering with history texts, selective violence – the saffronization that cannot enter through the front door. It is assumed that most bombings are by Muslims who are instruments of Pakistani devilishness, probably because they are secretly disloyal. Circumstantial evidence certainly supports this, but Milan Molla’s ordeal and the Jamia Millia Islamia vice-chancellor’s brave response warn of the extreme danger of rash conclusions. I, for one, find the Azamgarh conspiracy theory a shade too glib. Nor does the distinction sought to be drawn between Christians and converts make sense in a country that boasts one of the world’s oldest churches, founded by Christ’s disciple, St Thomas. Either the animist Adivasis who are listed as Hindu converted at some stage or official records knowingly misrepresent them. Technically, all those who inhabit the land of the river that was called Sindhu in Sanskrit and Hindu in Persian (including Pakistanis and Bangladeshis!) are Hindus. It may well be that more and more voters are veering to the view that they should also follow the sanatan dharma that is popularly called Hinduism. But if the government feels the violence is only the mischief of a fanatic core whipping up lumpen elements, vote-bank politics and imminent Lok Sabha elections should not deter it from taking the strongest legal and political action even against the highest. Already, mosque and mullah seem to be replacing church and cleric as targets of attack. That way lies civil war.
Top

Sumeet	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 12:29 am
BRFite Joined: 22 May 2002 06:01 am Posts: 639	JwalaMukhi wrote: The point that needs to be emphasized is that the True Hindu Liberal (unlike HFL) should not get his/her chaddi in a twist, due to the actions of fringe elements such as BD. For a HFL, the actions of BD are the bonus, to portray "tail wagging the dog scenario". Even in absence of the antics of the fringe elements, the HFL would invent the "ghost", no surprises there. Well I agree that we don't have to get our chaddi in a twist and be crushed under burden of guilt but what should exactly be reaction of true HL when a bunch of [hindu] fanatics go on vandalizing statues of [non violence preaching] saints/deities & and hurting people who are peaceful, patriotic minority of this country just because some foreign evangelical/missionaries motivated folks who happen to be their co religionists & sadly fellow Indians have indulged in shrewd yet narrow minded & hate filled criticism of hindu deities, illegal conversions and heinous murder of a hindu god men ? Should we not see to it that Govt [BJP @ state level, Congress @ central level] should carry out a thorough investigation into activities of these unscrupulous Indians who have foreign help behind them and at the same time make sure that those who are guilty of assaulting faith and personal well being of patriotic minority should face rigorous punishment and be charged under a non bailable offense ? Shouldn't true hindu liberal == true indian nationalist/patriot. ?
Top

shiv	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 01:05 am
BRF Oldie Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 5658	JwalaMukhi wrote: The point that needs to be emphasized is that the True Hindu Liberal (unlike HFL) should not get his/her chaddi in a twist, due to the actions of fringe elements such as BD. For a HFL, the actions of BD are the bonus, to portray "tail wagging the dog scenario". Even in absence of the antics of the fringe elements, the HFL would invent the "ghost", no surprises there. The true HL should take note of fringe elements, but not be bogged down by it, and never loose focus on what is more critical. In other words true HL should refrain from falling into the trap of "collective guilt" because HFL wants to pin it on, and spend reams and reams of discussion on antics of hooligans. If it was so easy that if not for the hooligans, the HFL would turn into true HL, we are in luck. Just taking care of the hooligans would magically solve the problem of HFL. i.e., the hooligans are not the lifeline of HFL. The true HL should be adept at performing triage. The true HL cannot and should not be addressing the collective guilt, as it is a baseless charge. Hooligans does it, hooligans answers for it; period. Till the HFL gets sense to accept what should be the focus during triage, there is no sense in True HL aiding the HFL by stepping in tandem with him/her about the "problems due to hooligans". The question is why is HFL allowed to set the framework of focus, and true HL is merely on a reactionary mode. You say that the Bajrang Dal are "a fringe element" I accept that and ask (rhetorically) "How many pieces can you tear from a Chapati and still have a complete chapati left?" While the real answer is "none" - in practice - the more you tear off the less complete your chapati is. First the Bajrang Dal "fringe elements" piss off the fake liberals, then they piss off the liberals for some other reason. they piss off all Muslims and all Christians - the former hardly being a "fringe element". Who is left after pissing off all these people? What kind of chapati is left when you tear off these fragments? . If there is a suggestion that there is a huge solid core of "Hindu conservatives" left standing solidly behind the Bajrang Dal - I would put it to you that this notion may need some rethinking. It's one thing if it were true, but there is no proof that it is true. It is only a statement of hope. Did I read a suggestion from you that there is some kind of "nationalist fervor" that is being displayed by Hindu conservatives in supporting a Bajrang Dal that successfully pisses off a large segment of the population of India leaving a core majority who remain silent - and neither support not actively oppose the actions of the Bajrang Dal. Counting that majority as "Nationalist Hindu conservatives" is a convenient political trick - but it will work only if that political sleight of hand translates into votes. This has not yet worked on a longterm basis in India and it is my observation that political forces who use elements such as the Bajrang Dal rapidly ditch them when they are no longer convenient if their vote losing potential is fairly robust. I think that we still must define the core of Hindu conservatism. I brought up the topic of sexual mores because it came to my mind. The history of sex in the Hindu mind has changed over the centuries from liberalism to conservatism. The conservatism of today is somehow painted over with the claim that Hindu sexual mores used to be liberal. But if they were liberal why are they conservative now? The simplest and most reasonable answer that I can think of is that people can move from liberalism to conservatism and vice versa. If someone pins a label on me that names me as "Prakash" I will not spend the rest of my life calling myself Prakash. So individual conservatives and liberals may display variable behavior, but if you look at society as a whole and then judge that society to see if its behavior is liberal or conservative - then you get some ideas of what is going on. The behavior of a society is the sum total of the "average" individual behavior of everyone in that society. If 25% of that society suddenly change their behavior, then there will be a perceptible change in the outwardly visible behavior of that society. If a large number of Indian girls start exposing skin as a result of "modernity" and free choice, more exposed girls will be seen. If people who have not seen exposed skin on girls claim that "Hindu society" does not like that - they are stuck with the problem of explaining why Hindu girls are exposing themselves if Hindu society does not do that. Have those girls become non-Hindus then? The most idiotic of conservatives (of any religion/faith/group) resort to violence to try and change some element of society. If a significantly large number of people use violence - that violence becomes apparent on the outside as the "overall behavior" of that society - and one might say "Pakistani society is a violent society" If Indian Muslims resort to violence and that violence is seen on the outside - the violence can be pinned on Muslims to say that "Muslims are violent" and controlling Muslim violence can bring down violence in Indian society But if Hindu fringe groups are also violent and have the support (imaginary or real) of "nationalist conservative Hindus" then it means that the violence of society in India is not Muslim violence alone, but Hindu violence too. And this violence is touted as "staunch nationalist violence" The reaction of the fake liberal to this is ROTFL which is exactly what we see in the media. My reaction - (since I consider myself a Hindu true liberal) is horror and sadness.
Top

Acharya	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 02:47 am
BRF Oldie Joined: 09 Feb 1999 07:01 am Posts: 5547	G Subramaniam wrote: telegraphindia FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS - Are Indians rethinking the equality of minorities? Sunanda K. Datta-Ray Though it’s a cliché that bombs have no names and terrorists no religion, the muffled drumbeat of religious wars can be heard beyond the clash of Durga Puja cymbals. Not only of Muslims pitted against a secular State but, more ominously, of Hindus whose wrath is as much against Muslims and Christians as against a State that allows minorities to practise, preach and propagate their faith. Most stupid article
Top

G Subramaniam	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 03:00 am
BRFite Joined: 26 Apr 2006 12:28 pm Posts: 828	The HFL uses his command of english ( due to convent education ) to twist and turn to exonerate and absolve ROP Kashmiri Pandit 1990, Godhra 2002, Marad 2003 Numerous bomb blasts, Numerous IM initiated riots, Some years ago, Radha Rajan on Vigilonline, had a nasty article on how VR.Krishna Iyer, a commie fellow traveller and his gang of human rights scum bags twisted and turned to avoid using the M ( ROP ) word on the Marad Massacre
Top

shiv	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 03:09 am
BRF Oldie Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 5658	Acharya wrote: G Subramaniam wrote: telegraphindia FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS - Are Indians rethinking the equality of minorities? Sunanda K. Datta-Ray Though it’s a cliché that bombs have no names and terrorists no religion, the muffled drumbeat of religious wars can be heard beyond the clash of Durga Puja cymbals. Not only of Muslims pitted against a secular State but, more ominously, of Hindus whose wrath is as much against Muslims and Christians as against a State that allows minorities to practise, preach and propagate their faith. Most stupid article Acharya - the article is stupid, but calling it stupid is not sufficient. The article is swollen with fake liberal rhetoric that cover a few points that are difficult to rebut. That is the style that is used and understanding and copying the "style of argument" is more important than agreeing or disagreeing. The idea in such an article is to pick upon a single fact that cannot be denied - eg "Bajrang Dal attacked churches" and then decorating and embellishing that fact with a litany of accusations and innuendoes to create an enormous number of strawmen.(Like why are internet blogs full of Hindu fundamentalists) It is necessary to 1) Take down all the straw men one by one, but doing that leaves us with a core fact that needs to be defended - that is 2) The Bajrang Dal attacked churches. That is what makes this writing style difficult to rebut. In my way (my style if you like) is not to try and defend the indefensible, but to take the argument into the other person's court by stating a fact that he cannot rebut and covering it with a thousand "decorations" of strawmen that will irritate him. When you rebut strawmen - you exhaust yourself - only to be left facing a core central fact that cannot be denied "The Bajrang dal attacked Churches" Libearals or Conservatives score over others in structuring theri arguments well. Part of the process has to be structuring of arguments. Unfortunately I see more attempts to defend the indefensible than an effort to take facts that are indefensible by your opponents and coveringthat with strawmen just teh way this article has been structured.
Top

Acharya	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 03:27 am
BRF Oldie Joined: 09 Feb 1999 07:01 am Posts: 5547	shiv wrote: Acharya wrote: Most stupid article Acharya - the article is stupid, but calling it stupid is not sufficient. The article is swollen with fake liberal rhetoric that cover a few points that are difficult to rebut. Your arguments dont work here. It is simple - it is stupid. You are over analysing here
Top

shiv	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 03:39 am
BRF Oldie Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 5658	Acharya wrote: Your arguments dont work here. It is simple - it is stupid. You are over analysing here Correct. It is simple. It is stupid It is effective. It gets feeble cop out reactions like : Quote: The HFL uses his command of english ( due to convent education ) to twist and turn to exonerate and absolve ROP None of these funereal arguments changes the fact that the article successfully smears a whole lot of people and completely fails to lay blame where blame needs to be laid. That is an excuse to say why Hindus get kicked up their backsides and mourn. All I am trying to do is point a way in which the same Hindus can kick backside without giving excuses. It is overanalysis with a definite purpose. Who learns from that overanalysis is a moot point. I certainly intend to hone my own convent educated rhetorical skills to pose arguments in the way this "stupid article" has done. I see it as an excellent tool if it can make entire groups go on the defensive or into denial mode.
Top

JwalaMukhi	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 03:59 am
BRFite Joined: 28 Mar 2007 12:57 pm Posts: 421	shiv wrote: Did I read a suggestion from you that there is some kind of "nationalist fervor" that is being displayed by Hindu conservatives in supporting a Bajrang Dal that successfully pisses off a large segment of the population of India leaving a core majority who remain silent - and neither support not actively oppose the actions of the Bajrang Dal. Counting that majority as "Nationalist Hindu conservatives" is a convenient political trick - but it will work only if that political sleight of hand translates into votes. Shivji, I am not sure how you came to this deduction, that I was suggesting "nationalistic fervor". It is amply clear in my statements that the core majority does not need to carry the burden of guilt due to actions of BD. BDs indulge in something for which they alone are responsible and have to face the music for that. When did BD get promoted to being representatives of core majority? What I was stating is, in a triage situation why there is overwhelming desire to focus on antics of BD when the terrorists have struck by the true HLs? I can understand the shifting of focus by the HFLs but from true HLs? Quote: I think that we still must define the core of Hindu conservatism. I brought up the topic of sexual mores because it came to my mind. The history of sex in the Hindu mind has changed over the centuries from liberalism to conservatism. The conservatism of today is somehow painted over with the claim that Hindu sexual mores used to be liberal. But if they were liberal why are they conservative now? Could you please define what Hindu conservative is and also what Hindu Conservatism means to you. Thanks.
Top

SSridhar	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 05:20 am
Forum Moderator Joined: 05 May 2001 06:01 am Posts: 4315 Location: Chennai	From an article in a local 'suburb newsletter' Quote: A Christian once approached the Kanchi Paramacharya and expressed his wish to embrace Hinduism. The acharya advised him to stay put in his present path; in the revered seer’s world view, one does not have to switch faiths to attain God and can very well achieve the objective through one’s own religion. That in a nutshell is what Hindus call secularism and tolerance. Guess what is the Pope’s biggest bother today ? Christians converting to Islam in Europe ! True leaders of Hindus are true liberals of the highest order.
Top

Dileep	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 06:21 am
BRFite Joined: 04 Apr 2005 02:47 am Posts: 1330 Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي	shiv in TSP thread wrote: Beef is eaten in many parts of India by people who call themselves Hindu. They have learned to be apologetic and defensive abut it because of Gandhi. Trying to push them out of the Hindu fold because they eat beef causes some interesting reactions that should really be discussed in the fake liberal thread Well, here it is, and I have a beef (pun intended) in this argument. I couldn't figure out where exactly Shiv stands with this. He normally makes very clear statements, but I couldn't get this one. I eat beef (and any meat that is generally served in the eateries here in Kerala). Most of my extended family (except some old people) does. I am a hindu, and I am never apologetic or defensive about eating beef. So what is the big deal here? Is "eating beef" considered a litmus test for hindu ness? Or hindu liberal ness? or HFL ness? I don't think so. That brings me to a new term. Hindu Fake Conservative (HFC) Taking "eating beef" as a parameter, my definition is: Quote: An HFC is someone tells me that I am less, or none, of a hindu because I eat beef.
Top

Vikramaditya	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 06:31 am
BRFite Joined: 07 Sep 2008 01:52 am Posts: 166	Quote: It is amply clear in my statements that the core majority does not need to carry the burden of guilt due to actions of BD .BDs indulge in something for which they alone are responsible and have to face the music for that. When did BD get promoted to being representatives of core majority? Again a fundamental mistake in letting the HFL's get away with painting you as guilty. The right way to go about it would be to publicly stand stoutly behind all those who are fighting for the sake of Hinduism (whatever be the means) . Its a simple case of United we will win else we will get roasted. Never let your displeasure of how BD goes about its business get into public domain. Differences can always be resolved behind closed doors but always present a united front to your enemies .... simple Unity 101 fundas. I know these things evade us by a country mile but its about time we digest this very simple concept quickly given what has happened to us in the past millenium. And done forget who is on the frontlines of this ugly battle. Its about time the vigilantes get their due. To heck with the "log kya samjenghe Bakwas"
Top

munna	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 07:32 am
BRFite Joined: 17 Nov 2007 11:33 pm Posts: 461 Location: Jambudweepum	Thanks Shivji for telling such a wonderful way of negotiating the HFLs argument of BD attacks prayer halls hence all attack Hindus! Thanks
Top

vera_k	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 07:43 am
BRFite Joined: 20 Nov 2006 08:15 am Posts: 335	harik wrote: I hope GOI is working towards ban of of above mentioned louts including Rss orgs. Imagine kind of embarrasment Prime Minister Singh had to go through in US and France. If embarrasment of PM Singh is to be the standard, then GOI better work towards a way of banning itself alongwith Rss orgs. GOI has presided over the state of affairs that made India a laughing stock worldwide with the country having the largest number of illiterates and sub-Saharan living standards.
Top

sanjaychoudhry	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 08:08 am
BRFite Joined: 12 Jul 2007 07:09 pm Posts: 1076 Location: La La Land	Quote: Imagine kind of embarrasment Prime Minister Singh had to go through in US and France. It has been 60 years since independence. It is time we stopped worrying about what the Gora Christian bigots think of us. We don't have to take their approval and character certificates to make life bearable. It is amazing. These people fund missinoaries and insurgencies, and send them to India to uproot all our native faiths lock stock and barrel and make us their cultural colony. And they merely have to let out a howl of protest for us to prostrate ourselves in front of them and spend sleepless nights worrying about what they think of us. I am sure Chinese premier too must be turning in his bed all night thinking about what France and Timbuktoo think of China, and how he must allow missionaries to run amock all over lest they think Chinese are bad people. Ever heard about the fine art of showing the middle finger, especially to jokers who are trying to set fire to your house? As for MMS, his biggest embarrassment seems to be that Hindus continue to exist in this world.
Top

munna	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 10:28 am
BRFite Joined: 17 Nov 2007 11:33 pm Posts: 461 Location: Jambudweepum	munna wrote: Thanks Shivji for telling such a wonderful way of negotiating the HFLs argument of BD attacks prayer halls hence all attack Hindus! Thanks No sarcasm meant, on second reading of the post I felt the tone of the post was bit derisive, completely opposite of my thoughts. I actually liked Shivjis way countering of one's indefensible position with opening of another indefensible position on HFLs front. The fact is that BD or in fact a lot of assorted angry men of faith will over step the boundaries and we cannot escape the duty to discipline them while at the same point of time no need to devote excess time and mind space to the defence of BD but let us attack the defences HFLs. Consensus and not in fighting is the way forwards.
Top

shiv	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 02:26 pm
BRF Oldie Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 5658	Dileep wrote: shiv in TSP thread wrote: Beef is eaten in many parts of India by people who call themselves Hindu. They have learned to be apologetic and defensive abut it because of Gandhi. Trying to push them out of the Hindu fold because they eat beef causes some interesting reactions that should really be discussed in the fake liberal thread Well, here it is, and I have a beef (pun intended) in this argument. I couldn't figure out where exactly Shiv stands with this. He normally makes very clear statements, but I couldn't get this one. I eat beef (and any meat that is generally served in the eateries here in Kerala). Most of my extended family (except some old people) does. I am a hindu, and I am never apologetic or defensive about eating beef. So what is the big deal here? Is "eating beef" considered a litmus test for hindu ness? Or hindu liberal ness? or HFL ness? I don't think so. That brings me to a new term. Hindu Fake Conservative (HFC) Taking "eating beef" as a parameter, my definition is: Quote: An HFC is someone tells me that I am less, or none, of a hindu because I eat beef. Dileep the expression you have used "Litmus test" is exact. "Will not eat beef (will not eat meat?)-and worships cows" is one of the stereotypes of "the Hindoo". Where and how did this impression arise? I suspect Gandhi had something to do with it. Anyhow - for all the beef eating that people may do in India and for all the eateries that actually serve the stuff - it is hardly advertised openly. Pork is advertised in Karnataka. Not beef. But beef is available. I see a degree of "apology". OK maybe my choice of word is wrong. People are not "apologetic" - but they are "sensitive" to the sentiment that says that "beef eating should not be done" that is rampant in India. Of course antagonism to meat eating is not merely a Hindu trait - but an "Indic" trait - with some Buddhists and all Jains being technically vegetarian. But I see a "side effect" of the lack of public and blatant beef eating in India - and that is an impression that beef eating is a trait that rules out "Hindu"or "Indian". That is wrong. A lot of Indians do not eat beef but there is no "Hindu fatwa" against beef eating. There are social fatwats and government fatwas and Gandhi related anti-beef fatwas. But no Hindu fatwa. What has this got to do with liberals. Hindu "liberals" may eat (nibble at) beef and use the fact that they sometimes nibble at beef as a kind of brownie point to taunt non beef eating Hindus as though the latter are somehow deficient or inferior. This actually causes people anger and leads to reactions that put normal beef eaters under needless pressure. Beef eating should never be used as a brownie point either way because Hindus of both kinds exist.
Top

shiv	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 02:50 pm
BRF Oldie Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 5658	JwalaMukhi wrote: Quote: I think that we still must define the core of Hindu conservatism. I brought up the topic of sexual mores because it came to my mind. The history of sex in the Hindu mind has changed over the centuries from liberalism to conservatism. The conservatism of today is somehow painted over with the claim that Hindu sexual mores used to be liberal. But if they were liberal why are they conservative now? Could you please define what Hindu conservative is and also what Hindu Conservatism means to you. Thanks. This is easier said than done. I asked because I am not able to put down a definition and I am still "working on it" to see if there is any "exact" definition. There are certain types of reactions and behavior that tend to get classified as "Hindu conservatism". Typically Hindu conservatism is an expression used by liberals and non Hindus to classify Hindu behavior that they do not like. The problem as I see it is that there may be no stereotypical "Hindu conservative". Hindus do not exist as a monolithic entity because "Hinduism" is not a monolithic "religion" but is a coexistence of multiple tribes and customs - any one of which could be "typical Hindu" I see a self goal being scored by Vedic Hindus who insist that Vedic hinduism (Brahmanic?) is "the only genuine Hinduism" The problem is Hindus exist in so many forms that trying to push them all into the mold of "vedic Hinduism" becomes impossible and that is exactly where religions like Islam and Christianity come in and say "OK these people are not really Hindu - they need a new God" If one really wants to look at Hinduism as a whole one must go back to Vivekananda (and incidentally Gandhi to an extent) and look at it from their eyes. Looked at in that way "Vedic Hinduism" is an important development and unique refinement within a broader Hindu whole. A refinement that stands out as unique in the world and is definitely "uniquely Hindu". But Hinduism is not merely vedic Hinduism. I believe Hindus organized even before the Vedas came and created the society that gave rise to the Vedas. But this only means that the stereotypical conservative Hindu does not exist and needs to be cooked up as an excuse for something. The excuse can be a "pro Hindu" excuse such as "beef eating" or it can be an "anti Hindu" excuse to bash Hindus for being conservative. Hindus have a wide variety of opinions and traits, but they invariably hate being dictated to in terms of belief and habits. The tribal (sub-community - jati) structure of Hindu society accepted differences as long as those differences existed in a particular jati and were not forced on others. Judaism and Zoroastrianism did not force their beliefs on others and existed like "one more community". Evangelical Christianity and Islam are both a problem because they are expansionist. They impose their dogma on others. Hindus are equally stubborn in demanding no such imposition - i.e. it is wrong to imagine that Hindus are pushovers. Islam and Christianity too are "accepted" as long as they exist as separate communities. It is the imposition on others that is resented. The big fight here is that Islam and Evangelical Christianity resent being restricted and not allowed to expand. These differences are so deep and fundamental that Hindus themselves find it difficult to explain to other Hindus. But too many Indians are deluded by the "stereotype Hindu" that they have been taught to think of: 1) Discriminates on basis of caste 2) Worships animals and many armed gods 3) is vegetarian 4) is non violent and believes in non violence Each one of these stereotypical descriptions in not merely what "others think" or "others have said". they are beliefs that have become commonplace among Hindus themselves. When they are asked to describe teh Hindu - these are the things that many Hindus say. When asked if they are like that themselves they say "Oh I am not a practising Hindu because I eat meat, I am an atheist and do not discriminate on the basis of caste" But the one core issue that Hindus still haven't figured out is that they are not non violent either. Somehow Gandhi got Hindus to believe they were non violent. Balls. That is as far from the truth as you can get. But yes - they are "realtively non violent" because there is no Hindu dogma that demands violence in certain situations. But still - Hindu get all upset and worked up (chaddis in a twist) when it is pointed out that Hindus can be violent. BNote that i still do not have a definition for "Conservative Hindus"
Top

Manny	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 03:01 pm
BRFite Joined: 07 Apr 2006 04:46 pm Posts: 311 Location: Texas	The HFLs are either duffers or purposefully ignoring the fact that Christians are not minorities when it comes to Evangelism. The Hindus are the minorities in relation to the world Christians who have declared war on Hindus to exterminate their religion and culture. Every editorial written by these HFLs (Kushwant Singh on yesterdays TOI article too) keep mentioning that these Christians are minorities! What BS!
Top

narayanan	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 03:08 pm
Forum Moderator Joined: 06 Jul 2008 02:55 pm Posts: 2255	I did a GOOGLE search (what else?) for "Conservative Hindu". Enjoy 1 Enjoy 2 Enjoy3 Enjoy 4 Enjoy 5 Enjoy 6 Enjoy 7
Top

Vijay Hirani	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 05:01 pm
BRFite -Trainee Joined: 16 Apr 2005 07:53 pm Posts: 18	Shiv, The analysis in your latest mail is right to the point. Hinduism cannot not be put in a similar bracket as the monotheistic faiths. Hinduism also includes the beliefs of tribes from the Andamans / Nicobar to the Himalayas. I would go as far as saying the Charvaka, Buddhism and Jainism are in the Hindu fold, even though they don't agree. I frequently go to interfaith dialogues in the U.K. Regarding conversion, I take a rough line and make it very clear that conversion by asking one to deny his / her native faith / beliefs is a violation of one Human rights. This really freaks outs the evangelical Christians and some Muslims. They find it very insulting. The problem we have in the U.K is that many hindus are scared to defend Hinduism. In one discusson I had in a school with a good minority of Muslims. When ever I get asked denigrating questions from muslims like " Why Hindus like Gays" and other silly questions many hindu children, just become shy and start giggling. Quite sad. If Hindus are really become confident, we will need many more Vivekanadas .... I wonder how would you categorise these intimited, shy and scared Hindus?
Top

venkat_r	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 06:44 pm
BRFite Joined: 20 Feb 2001 07:01 am Posts: 157	Acharya wrote: G Subramaniam wrote: telegraphindia FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS - Are Indians rethinking the equality of minorities? Sunanda K. Datta-Ray Though it’s a cliché that bombs have no names and terrorists no religion, the muffled drumbeat of religious wars can be heard beyond the clash of Durga Puja cymbals. Not only of Muslims pitted against a secular State but, more ominously, of Hindus whose wrath is as much against Muslims and Christians as against a State that allows minorities to practise, preach and propagate their faith. Most stupid article Acharya, After reading the article, I cannot Immediately categorize it as a "Most stupid article", but i do not like the conclusions drawn from it either. Such articles are not straight forward to dissect for all as it might seem to you, it is possible that you might have internalized some red flags to look for in such articles, I suspect that is the case for all. FHLs connect different data points of interest and draw out conclusions (and even make them seem logical) that might seem stupid or even extreme to some of us. But this is what needs to be brought out. Shiv is correct in saying that, just calling the article is stupid is not sufficient. The author has connected the dots of some data points which are themselves irrefutable, just to draw out his conclusions. Good research is - Get the data and based on the data, draw out the conclusions for truth's sake and use these conclusions to make the future descisions or for future policy of the govt/or the debating points for us. But FHLs do it the other way, their research is based on ideology and so the conclusions are predrawn. With these conclusions in mind, there can be plenty of data points to choose from. It is easy to connect the data points and draw out the conclusions that one wants. For example the author of the above author concludes such an absurd conclusion that India is heading for a "Civil War" - anyone who has been living in India or following the news knows what kind of an absurd assumption it is. Some other authors even conclude that India is breaking up under the weight of all these religious and caste divides. But if you read that article, the author is slowly, but consistantly building up to that conclusion all along. His wonder at why NDA did not pursue for "Hindu Rashtra" shows how out of touch with reality he is and the kind of naive (and devilish) idea that NDA did not do that for the fear of Muslim reprisal (and not fairness) shows poop that is in his mind, which he spills out regularly on the pages decorated with sprinklers. One has to be very well prepared for these debates. This FHL is very very well educated, has fair control of language, has good number of facts at hand and quotes them frequently and has number of similar writers to back him up, likes to show that he is being fair and balanced, but has some preconceived notions which are bizzare and no factual base. Thinks that Hindus are broadly divided into Hindutva types, Liberals like him or the silent Hindus ("citizens who murmur in private about being happy with the killings of Muslims and Christians"). He is always ever ready to push you into one of the categories and will label you in public saying "You are a Hindutva" or even better a third person who does not agree with him as Hindutva, without appologizing. One better be prepared with very very factual information if you want to deal with these. This is the reason why they go generally unchallenged as people who can really challenge them few and far between.
Top

Acharya	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 07:29 pm
BRF Oldie Joined: 09 Feb 1999 07:01 am Posts: 5547	Are you explaining to me. Such articles are dissected in many forum for a long time. http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... entry88760 Richard Crasta, USA http://mangalorean.com/browsearticles.php?...&articleid=1365 Last edited by Acharya on 04 Oct 2008 07:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

nkumar	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 07:35 pm
BRFite Joined: 05 Jul 2007 08:44 pm Posts: 280	Acharya, what is your email? Need to contact you.
Top

Acharya	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 07:37 pm
BRF Oldie Joined: 09 Feb 1999 07:01 am Posts: 5547	nkumar wrote: Acharya, what is your email? Need to contact you. lacharyaji AT gmal.
Top

Manny	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 04 Oct 2008 10:15 pm
BRFite Joined: 07 Apr 2006 04:46 pm Posts: 311 Location: Texas	HFL's spin Maoists claim responsibility for killing of VHP leader http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/05/stories ... 400800.htm Here is why thats BS! 1. Christians have been converting Tribals all over and the Maoists haven't killed any of them. When the Maoists does that in the future, we can then believe this BS 2. IF the Maosits feel that its ok for Christians to convert them but that its not ok for a Hindu to convert them ....the n there is no difference between Maoists when it comes to "Hate the Hindu" crowd. And it may as well make no difference whether its a Maoist or a Christian who did the deadly deed and spilt First blood! 3. If Hindus had wanted to convert Tribals...they would have dont it a long time ago! So HSLs, FU!
Top

venkat_r	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 05 Oct 2008 12:49 am
BRFite Joined: 20 Feb 2001 07:01 am Posts: 157	Acharya wrote: Are you explaining to me. Such articles are dissected in many forum for a long time. http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... entry88760 Richard Crasta, USA http://mangalorean.com/browsearticles.php?...&articleid=1365 Acharya, My point was not made to explain you, though that is what it might seem , probably more of a reflection of recent understandings of mine, but to ask you to please give a point or two of disagreement when commenting on such articles which might help everyone to develop a better filter when reading such articles. - No hurt intended.
Top

Sumeet	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 05 Oct 2008 07:18 am
BRFite Joined: 22 May 2002 06:01 am Posts: 639	shiv wrote: But the one core issue that Hindus still haven't figured out is that they are not non violent either. Somehow Gandhi got Hindus to believe they were non violent. Balls. That is as far from the truth as you can get. But yes - they are "realtively non violent" because there is no Hindu dogma that demands violence in certain situations. But still - Hindu get all upset and worked up (chaddis in a twist) when it is pointed out that Hindus can be violent. Somewhere in a comment section I read that this is such an irony. I mean if you see pictures/statues of hindu gods/godesses almost all of them carry weapons and thats not merely for decoration purpose. They are there to serve some purpose which is indulge in violence when required. But still people manage to promote their own foolish version of non violence principles and make people fall for it as if that is their religion. They simply need to look at their deities to realize hindu stance on violence.
Top

sanjaychoudhry	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 05 Oct 2008 09:49 am
BRFite Joined: 12 Jul 2007 07:09 pm Posts: 1076 Location: La La Land	Quote: If Hindus had wanted to convert Tribals...they would have dont it a long time ago! Tribals are already Hindus. Don't fall for missionary propaganda. The word "animist" was coined by missionaries in about 1910 and inserted in the census to detach tribals from Hinduism and convert them (in the same way that some Christian websites have now begun to claim that "dalits" are not Hindus. Arun Shourie has written a very good book on this method of British. It is called "Harvesting our Souls." Be careful of these kind of psyops. Last edited by sanjaychoudhry on 05 Oct 2008 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

SSridhar	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 05 Oct 2008 09:56 am
Forum Moderator Joined: 05 May 2001 06:01 am Posts: 4315 Location: Chennai	Shashi Tharoor has gone totally imbecile Quote: Let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that Christian missionaries are indeed using a variety of inducements (development assistance, healthcare, education, sanitation, even chicanery - though there is only anecdotal evidence of missionary ‘‘trickery’’) to win converts for their faith. So what? If a citizen of India feels that his faith has not helped him to find peace of mind and material fulfilment, why should he not have the option of trying a different item on the spiritual menu? Surely freedom of belief is any Indian’s fundamental right under our democratic Constitution, however ill-founded his belief might be. And if Hindu zealots suspect that conversion was fraudulently obtained, why do they not offer counter-inducements rather than violence? Instead of destroying churches, perhaps a Hindu-financed sewage system or paathshala might reopen the blinkered eyes of the credulous. Better still, perhaps Christians and Hindus (and Muslims and Baha’is, for that matter) could all compete in our villages to offer material temptations for religious conversions. The development of our poor country might actually accelerate with this sort of spiritual competition.
Top

Suppiah	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 05 Oct 2008 10:18 am
BRFite Joined: 03 Oct 2002 06:01 am Posts: 498 Location: -	And when RSS or others open schools, the Stalinist mass murderers, traitors, rapist goons and their yellow press as well as apologists call them 'hate schools' that need to be shut down.
Top

SSridhar	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 05 Oct 2008 10:36 am
Forum Moderator Joined: 05 May 2001 06:01 am Posts: 4315 Location: Chennai	From an article written by T.R.Jawahar Quote: The biggest cover for conversion is the right to Religious Freedom enunciated in the constitution. But, by elementary English grammar, the right is for 'me', in first person singular, now how can an evangelist exercise my right ? But, their flippant claim is that the right to convert 'others' is Constitutional. The misinterpretation and misuse of the Constitution is just not on that count. The Constitution categorically states that the right to religious freedom is subject to 'morality and public order'. The assumed right to convert all and sundry would fall flat on these counts too. Conversion disturbs all the order that a peaceful land and a peace loving person would value: the social order, the demographic order, the political order, the family order, and of course law and order. An individual too goes completely out of order with his self, with his near and dear, his ancestry, and his own lifestyle , all in turmoil. One cannot find a more disruptive phenomenon of life and community, nay, the counry itself, than conversion.
Top

Tamang	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 05 Oct 2008 11:36 am
BRFite Joined: 19 Jun 2002 06:01 am Posts: 339 Location: Nai Dilli, Bharatvarsh	sanjaychoudhry wrote: Quote: If Hindus had wanted to convert Tribals...they would have dont it a long time ago! Tribals are already Hindus. Don't fall for missionary propaganda. The word "animist" was coined by missionaries in about 1910 and inserted in the census to detach tribals from Hinduism and convert them (in the same way that some Christian websites have now begun to claim that "dalits" are not Hindus. Arun Shourie has written a very good book on this method of British. It is called "Harvesting our Souls." Be careful of these kind of psyops. This reminds me, I remember reading a small news item in a corner in Hindustan Times few days ago with caption "Dalits and Hindus clash in Tamil Nadu"...
Top

ramana	Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 05 Oct 2008 02:58 pm
Forum Moderator Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 8631	Tamang wrote: sanjaychoudhry wrote: Quote: If Hindus had wanted to convert Tribals...they would have dont it a long time ago! Tribals are already Hindus. Don't fall for missionary propaganda. The word "animist" was coined by missionaries in about 1910 and inserted in the census to detach tribals from Hinduism and convert them (in the same way that some Christian websites have now begun to claim that "dalits" are not Hindus. Arun Shourie has written a very good book on this method of British. It is called "Harvesting our Souls." Be careful of these kind of psyops. This reminds me, I remember reading a small news item in a corner in Hindustan Times few days ago with caption "Dalits and Hindus clash in Tamil Nadu"... sanjay is right. The tribals are Hindus. All their deities are variations or earlier forms of Shiva and Parvati. Pupul Jayakar wrote a book called "Earth mother' that shows this very clearly. I watched a Gond tribal dance which is an enactment of Shiva Parvati parinayam but using their deity names and the development officers in charge were unable to recognize the roots.
Top

G Subramaniam

Post subject: Re: Hindu Fake Liberal-2 Posted: 05 Oct 2008 03:14 pm

BRFite Joined: 26 Apr 2006 12:28 pm Posts: 828

Actually even during colonial rule, when there was much more poverty, conversions were less Consider what happens as the west gets slowly impoverished due to wall street mess $700 billion and counting, and the Indian economy differentially grows The differential impact of missionary dollars is neutralised Gujurat is an example where economic growth has neutralised EJ Sita Ram Goel wanted to attack EJs by attacking the bible His articles are online at hamsa.org The other aspect, that most HFL are saying is that EJ is not a threat since xtianity is only 2% whereas if you read the history of Rome, Xtianity siezed power by Constantine, when it was only 4% of the Roman Empire