Calvin wrote:Valkan - Falsely "Crying fire" in a theatre is different from falsely "crying fire" in a parking lot. This is simply because in the former, the people are led to believe that their *life* is at risk, and that they have to act immediately without thought.
Suppose that I condition people with false cries of "Fire" ( like Cry Wolf parable ) inside a theater like a Pavlovian experiment, and they begin to realise that "Fire" shout does NOT automatically mean fire, would they act immediately in case of yet another "Fire" shout ?
No, right ?
Moreover, if they didn't, they'd die if REALLY there was a fire.
So, the govt. can't take that chance, and makes shouting "Fire!" illegal, because it is the duty of the govt. to prevent death and injury.
Similarly in "cow slaughter" there is no imminent threat to life or liberty of any human community, that should cause these people to act immediately without thought.
Try molesting a woman in the street, and there will be a thousand people - not necessarily her relatives - baying for your blood. There is no immediate danger to their lives, but they involuntarily do it!
It is past conditioning that is important. the Govt. knows that a REAL OR FALSE allegation of cow slaughter can lead to mob violence, and innocent people will die or be injured, as had happened in the past.
So, the Govt. says "let's not take chances", and institutes the law.
I will ignore your gratuitous "a typical book-fed Christian" but focus on your comment that "Hindus don't think like that" in response to my commentary on kar sevaks. Is it your contention that they were not Hindus, or that they were operating on an imperfect understanding of Hinduism and DHarma?
Bajrangis operate on the principle of "Hinduism is in immediate danger", much like Cow-belt Hindus acting against cow slaughter.
And their hardened beliefs are conditioned by the historical experience of "Give the Muslims an inch, and they'll take a mile, and destroy Hindus and Hinduism".
That is qualitatively different from the thinking of a majority of Hindus from places which have historically seen little Muslim persecution, especially in the South and East.
That's why I differentiated between them.
Now, the article does not come from a site that intends to ridicule the Hindu faith, so what shall we make of these assertions? Shall we say that they too, do not understand the difference?
See the reasons I mentioned for Bajrangi behaviour.
Now, they have a vested reason - not entirely illogical - to believe that the violent minorities ( Muslims especially ) need to be united against by Hindus at large.
And scriptural arguments can be very strong, especially when more than 90% of the people don't understand the original vedic Sanskrit, even if some of them understand the "reformed" ( Samskritam ) language of the post-Vedic era ( under the compilation of Panini ).
The "thinkers" among the Bajrangis may or may not understand the difference.
For example, "Go-Brahmana Hitaya" in Sanskrit actually refers to "welfare of the world and Self-realized people" and NOT "Cows and Brahmin priests" ( Go means 'the world' ).
But that would necesarily weaken their position against Muslims, and hence they stick to the mass-market interpretation.