Indian Interests

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RajeshA » 26 Jan 2013 17:19

harbans wrote:
So mentioning the context is more than sufficient. The context however is the "Bharatiya Civilization" which also forms our identity.


Rajesh Ji, the civilization came about because of the primacy to these very values, not because of their absence. Irony is the more we move away from these values the more we fritter away our ethos and civilization. The more we move towards giving primacy to them, the nearer we move to them. Our Rishi's and Muni's became what they were not because they were dogmatic, but because they pursued truth, knowledge, reason most objectively. Thousands and thousands of our texts give primacy to these value systems..Rama and Krishna too fought to uphold these. We keep hearing Dharma protects Dharma. But we don;t have faith that upholding value systems will give us rootedness and strength to ward off attacks on them?

And you repeat here the pattern I told you. You again explain the context of your values to me, as if in appendix, but do not attach the context to your "value" labels in your list of labels.

Without the context, your "value labels" can come from Bharatiya Civilization or Islamic Civilization, one can't say, and they can be interpreted by each according to his own perspective of it.

RajeshA wrote:Rajesh Ji, the civilization came about because of the primacy to these very values, not because of their absence.

The issue is not what came first or came next, for that is a hen and egg question; the issue is in what context the "value labels" are to be understood.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 26 Jan 2013 17:46

Rajesh Ji, lets not be dense here. Islam does not give primacy to Truth. Dharma, Bharatiya Civilization whatever terminology you feel comfortable with does give primacy to Truth. Again and again i have related and posted Truth == GOD in the Bharatiya context. It is given that high a primacy. Except in Dharmic tradition nowhere is God referred to as the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. So when we are being truthful we develop. We come closer to the God according to our own ethos.

It is only by breaking the yoke of dogmatic Christism hold that Europe crashed through to progress, laid out on pursuit of truth through science and objective thinking. Breaking those moulds of dogmatic tradition that Europe and the new world was possible only when they got wedded to concepts and values systems of truth, equality, liberty etc. While they kept peeling of layers and bettering themselves, it is no surprise that enlightened people give weightage to dharmic tradition. The enlightenment philosophers in Europe gave ample acknowledgement of borrowing from us. The ancient Rishi's too came with insights when rulers like Rama showed the path by protecting contrasting philosophies such as expounded by Vishwamitra and Vashishta. Values like plurality were engrained from the Rig Vedic times we know. So there is no question that these values being subservient to some civilization. Truth is not subservient to Bharatiya Civilization alone.

The values BTW i have posted come from the Bhagavad Gita themselves. And the words of the great Sages and ancients of Bharat are not for dogmatic Bharatiya's alone. They are for humanity. So are the values systems universal and not just for Bharatiyas.

Second: If you think an Islamic State or Christian State will put Truth as a primary constitutional cornerstone you are sadly mistaken. It has NEVER happened. It will never happen, because it contradicts the charter. There is not a single nation on the planet as yet that has all these value systems as it's corner stone. Some are closer though. And these have progressed remarkably. Hence it is obvious these value labels just don't originate anywhere. Certainly not in the deserts of Arabia, the slums of Karachi, Cants of Islamabad or the politburo's or Beijing. But they must and should from Bharat.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RajeshA » 26 Jan 2013 18:14

harbans wrote:The values BTW i have posted come from the Bhagavad Gita themselves. And the words of the great Sages and ancients of Bharat are not for dogmatic Bharatiya's alone. They are for humanity. So are the values systems universal and not just for Bharatiyas.

I know. But in Bhagavad Gita, those values are surrounded by context. In your list, the "value labels" do not have any context.

harbans wrote:Rajesh Ji, lets not be dense here. Islam does not give primacy to Truth. Dharma, Bharatiya Civilization whatever terminology you feel comfortable with does give primacy to Truth. Again and again i have related and posted Truth == GOD in the Bharatiya context. It is given that high a primacy. Except in Dharmic tradition nowhere is God referred to as the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. So when we are being truthful we develop. We come closer to the God according to our own ethos.

While they kept peeling of layers and bettering themselves, it is no surprise that enlightened people give weightage to dharmic tradition. The enlightenment philosophers in Europe gave ample acknowledgement of borrowing from us. The ancient Rishi's too came with insights when rulers like Rama showed the path by protecting contrasting philosophies such as expounded by Vishwamitra and Vashishta. Values like plurality were engrained from the Rig Vedic times we know. So there is no question that these values being subservient to some civilization. Truth is not subservient to Bharatiya Civilization alone.

Second: If you think an Islamic State or Christian State will put Truth as a primary constitutional cornerstone you are sadly mistaken. It has NEVER happened. It will never happen, because it contradicts the charter. There is not a single nation on the planet as yet that has all these value systems as it's corner stone. Some are closer though. And these have progressed remarkably. Hence it is obvious these value labels just don't originate anywhere. Certainly not in the deserts of Arabia, the slums of Karachi, Cants of Islamabad or the politburo's or Beijing. But they must and should from Bharat.

harbans ji,

for Muslims, Allah is the Truth and Prophet Muhammad narrated the Truth about Allah's will. What you speak above is perhaps your Hindu truth. Allah has said, let others believe the lies they want to, for even after hearing of the Truth of Allah if they still reject Him, they will burn in hell and all that jazz! :P

harbans wrote:It is only by breaking the yoke of dogmatic Christism hold that Europe crashed through to progress, laid out on pursuit of truth through science and objective thinking. Breaking those moulds of dogmatic tradition that Europe and the new world was possible only when they got wedded to concepts and values systems of truth, equality, liberty etc.

You should come and visit the OIT thread sometime and get some taste of European love for Truth. :)

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 26 Jan 2013 18:37

for Muslims, Allah is the Truth and Prophet Muhammad narrated the Truth about Allah's will. What you speak above is perhaps your Hindu truth.


Tell me Rajesh Ji, how many people really do believe Islam is a peaceful religion? Islamists keep harping Islam=Peace. History does not bear that out too. So unless one is deluded, one cannot conclude Islam has been a peaceful religion.

Also tell me, when it is acceptable to lie in Islam's cause, which is greater. Islam or Truth? The dogma wins in this case. You too indulge in similar play when to Truth you give a dogma a Hindu Truth. If you do so, then the equation becomes Islamic Truth is there, HIndu Truth is there. ==. Truth is neither Hindu or Islamic.

When there was outrage against the Rape victim, this was not Hindu outrage or Muslim outrage. Some Hindu leaders like Assram took the same stance as Muslim ones as blaming the victim. So the values within individuals that generated the disgust and outpouring of grief, were not offshoots of some dogma. The cannot be subservient to dogma.

You cannot say Truth is subservient to my civilization. Sorry it is not. As you mentioned OIT, i told you before that i am not interested in proving that Bharatiya Civilization developed the Veda's by hook or crook. I am interested in the TRUTH who actually developed it. Even if it is say logically and convincingly proved that the Veda's upanishads, BG, all Sanskrit and everything under the sun we called Bharatiya civilization came from the white man..and it ultimately causes much heart burn, i will accept it because it is the truth. I don't accept AIT because i know the kind of thinking prevalent in the 18th century that led to assumptions that all good things in India must have come from outside.

You don't ground yourselves in value systems you will get burned and destroyed in time. Throughout history it has always been the more compassionate state that has won over the harder one in the long run. Pandava's over Kaurava's, Rama over Ravana, Allies over Axis, US over the USSR and so on. Who do you think of South Korea and North is the harder. Who do you think will ultimately win in a conflict between the two.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5835
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Interests

Postby vishvak » 26 Jan 2013 18:56

Manish_Sharma wrote:
RamaY wrote:Finally were you not the one who threatened to report posters who criticized the very leadership system that allowed the partition, that forced us to economic depreciation to suit its world-view, that allows and encourages religious conversions by NGOs, that failed to provide the minimum civic amenities and rule of law and that is telling us to make peace with the Islamic hordes across the border? On top of it you have the temerity to say "we" failed in protecting our dharma, "we" allowed the partition, "we" didn't make best of past 60 years of independence, "we" wrote a dhimmi constitution and now "we" are weaklings and deserve the thugs?

Uttishta Bharata!


Beautiful post RamaYjee,

These gurmeet kanwals and shauryat-s , they project their own stupidities and dhimmitudes of vacating Siachin (garbed under chanakianness), while all these sharm-al-shiekhs, siachin-withdrawal, playing dirty with Army's preparation (first Shri V.K. Singh's exposure of only two days of ammunition, then denying army the additional mountain strike-corps, when pressed sending back the proposal that all 3 services should present it together, finally when jointly presented , cut the funds with excuse of economy), now isn't ShauryaT thinking Bharatvasis getting offended about him making nasty remarks about our forefathers? So is there a fear in him that someone may take him to court over such accusations, like there was a fear in him about remarks made about g-kanwal?

If funds are cut under excuse of economy, Army should raise 6 instead of 3 mountain corps( or 10 etc as general planning by the Army), with funds post-training for the best of the lot while remaining could provide backup etc. Otherwise how do you deal with such excuses.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RajeshA » 26 Jan 2013 19:18

harbans wrote:
RajeshA wrote:for Muslims, Allah is the Truth and Prophet Muhammad narrated the Truth about Allah's will. What you speak above is perhaps your Hindu truth.


Tell me Rajesh Ji, how many people really do believe Islam is a peaceful religion? Islamists keep harping Islam=Peace. History does not bear that out too. So unless one is deluded, one cannot conclude Islam has been a peaceful religion.

harbans ji,

1) When you speak of "how many people really do believe", are you also including Muslims or do you consider only non-Muslims as "people"?

2) When you say "unless one is deluded", why do you look upon that scenario as something out of the ordinary. There are many people who are deluded. In fact I would say each one of us, Dharmics and Adharmics, are in some form or another deluded. After all "Maya" is everywhere! Right? So yes, delusion is a highly probable occurrence.

harbans wrote:Also tell me, when it is acceptable to lie in Islam's cause, which is greater. Islam or Truth? The dogma wins in this case. You too indulge in similar play when to Truth you give a dogma a Hindu Truth. If you do so, then the equation becomes Islamic Truth is there, HIndu Truth is there. ==. Truth is neither Hindu or Islamic.


Well isn't it a Hindu Truth, as also expressed by you above, that Truth is independent of one's beliefs, independent of Hindu or Muslim?

harbans wrote:When there was outrage against the Rape victim, this was not Hindu outrage or Muslim outrage. Some Hindu leaders like Assram took the same stance as Muslim ones as blaming the victim. So the values within individuals that generated the disgust and outpouring of grief, were not offshoots of some dogma. The cannot be subservient to dogma.

If the girl had been Muslim and her rapists Hindu, you would have seen that Assram and all Muslims would have been looking at the incident very differently. Would the "disgust" and "outpouring of grief" then have been offshoots of some dogma or some value? And if it were because of value, why the difference in reactions?

harbans wrote:You cannot say Truth is subservient to my civilization. Sorry it is not.

I did not say "Truth is subservient to the Bharatiya Civilization". What I said is that that the semantics of "value labels" such as "Truth" need to be qualified by context. It could be that in culture X and Y the meaning may have substantial overlapping while in culture Z, it could be used totally differently.

harbans wrote:As you mentioned OIT, i told you before that i am not interested in proving that Bharatiya Civilization developed the Veda's by hook or crook. I am interested in the TRUTH who actually developed it. Even if it is say logically and convincingly proved that the Veda's upanishads, BG, all Sanskrit and everything under the sun we called Bharatiya civilization came from the white man..and it ultimately causes much heart burn, i will accept it because it is the truth. I don't accept AIT because i know the kind of thinking prevalent in the 18th century that led to assumptions that all good things in India must have come from outside.

In a debate, there is room for speculation, room for guesses, room for propaganda, and room for truth. Would you say, that if our history has been scrubbed away with the rubber gum of time, vandalism and willful destruction, and the truth is not apparent, then one should simply accept all the agenda-driven theories of others who are trying to package them as the "truth"?

Truth is not only a function of your honest pursuit of it, but also a function of how much the universe is willing to lay open to you!

So in our rush to idealism, let's not forget that too!

harbans wrote:You don't ground yourselves in value systems you will get burned and destroyed in time.

So is any criticism of some method here on how to formulate aspirations in the Constitution same as admitting that I'm not grounded in any value system!

harbans wrote:Throughout history it has always been the more compassionate state that has won over the harder one in the long run. Pandava's over Kaurava's, Rama over Ravana, Allies over Axis, US over the USSR and so on. Who do you think of South Korea and North is the harder. Who do you think will ultimately win in a conflict between the two.

Okay if you say so, but I'm sure if you look hard enough, you will find other examples! Pakistan and Bangladesh, I presume were always Islamic, right?

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 26 Jan 2013 19:58

Rajesh Ji, lets not spin this. First you say there is an Islamic Truth, Hindu Truth. You yourself make that distinction. Before that you mention value systems but only in context to a civilization. Sorry but it's apparent you are making the same mistake that the Islamic or Christist makes. You did the ==, not me.

As for Islam, how are you certain all it's adherents do believe truly in it's every word. Why does Islam use fear then as a means to keep it's flock together. I gave you the examples last post that just mouthing inanities like Allah is merciful and compassionate in every second verse does not cut much ice on Islam being either a Merciful or compassionate religion too for that matter for example. As for Islam it is 1/6th of humanity. I have traveled most of the globe, nowhere do i find people equating Islam with either Mercy, Compassion, Peace or Truth. I don't consider opinions emerging from Islamic states valid as fear is a factor why Truth is not much prevalent.

After all "Maya" is everywhere! Right? So yes, delusion is a highly probable occurrence.


I understand Rajesh Ji you don't have much faith in Truth standing for itself and needing a prop from Bharatiya or Hindu civilization. But i do know that yes removing Maya requires pursuit of Truth. Truth is not some single dimensional entity that is to be mouthed with inanity and hey presto all is OK and hunky dory. It requires application. Some Truths are bitter and will emerge. However from it's pursuit and application will emerge solutions and a better society.

Well isn't it a Hindu Truth, as also expressed by you above, that Truth is independent of one's beliefs, independent of Hindu or Muslim?


No it is not a HINDU truth. It is a universal one. It will always be there irrespective of whether Hinduism exists or does not. Gravity is not a Newtonian truth. It will be there irrespective whether Newton discovered it or not, or whether it was discovered itself or not.

If the girl had been Muslim and her rapists Hindu, you would have seen that Assram and all Muslims would have been looking at the incident very differently. Would the "disgust" and "outpouring of grief" then have been offshoots of some dogma or some value? And if it were because of value, why the difference in reactions?


The question is moot. The outrage had little to do with the fact that one perpetrator was a Muslim. The outrage is addressed to making all Indian women safer on our streets..so why the hypothetical strawman communal dimension to the outrage?

Truth is not only a function of your honest pursuit of it, but also a function of how much the universe is willing to lay open to you!

So in our rush to idealism, let's not forget that too!


Incorrect. Truth is NOT= f(x)+f(y)/f(z). The best pursuit of Truth is an honest approach. That is what is expected of GoI institutions in whatever sphere policy making to running the state whatever. It's institutions must reflect honestly the best value systems.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RamaY » 26 Jan 2013 20:33

Harbans ji,

Why don't you present your dharmic code to a Muslim or Christian (one doesn't have to be the so-called "practicing" type) and ask them if they stand by your dharmic code (which they will agree) even against fellow muslims or Christians (which they will not).

Your dharmic code is only for feel-good purposes when it comes to non-Hindus. Only Hindus will say that they will not only agree to your dharmic code but also fight with fellow Adharmic Hindus on that basis.

After reading past few pages, I am forced to ask this question again. What is your prejudice against hinduism?

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 26 Jan 2013 20:39

After reading past few pages, I am forced to ask this question again. What is your prejudice against hinduism?


Why don't you present your dharmic code to a Muslim or Christian


Tell me what they feel about your Hindutva code, then talk to me about what they feel about 'my' Dharmic code.

Ramay can you stop frothing for a while. Whatever i had to say about Hinduism i have said quite openly. There is nothing hidden. This is about Indian interests and not Hindu interests alone. So cut that crap trying to insinuate me about being prejudiced.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RamaY » 26 Jan 2013 20:49

There are Christian/Muslim interests beyond Indian interests and you better know that. But there are no Indian interests beyond Hindu interests.

I am challenging you to prove what you are saying. Show me the Muslims/Christian dharmics who will stand against their Islam and Christianity for that dharmic code.

I will show you millions of Hindus who will stand for dharma even against their own Hindu brothers.

Show me a dharmic principle that you invented beyond what is in Hinduism. You list a part of Yama/Niayama and think you are an intellectual?
Last edited by RamaY on 26 Jan 2013 20:53, edited 1 time in total.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RajeshA » 26 Jan 2013 20:52

harbans wrote:Rajesh Ji, lets not spin this. First you say there is an Islamic Truth, Hindu Truth. You yourself make that distinction. Before that you mention value systems but only in context to a civilization. Sorry but it's apparent you are making the same mistake that the Islamic or Christist makes. You did the ==, not me.

harbans ji,

On the contrary, I agree there is a "Satya" independent of our beliefs, something we should all strive for, but that is my belief as a Hindu. A Muslim may have a different definition of Truth.

Actually you're the one doing an "==", because you are saying Hindus and Muslims have the same idea of what "Truth" is!

harbans wrote:As for Islam, how are you certain all it's adherents do believe truly in it's every word. Why does Islam use fear then as a means to keep it's flock together. I gave you the examples last post that just mouthing inanities like Allah is merciful and compassionate in every second verse does not cut much ice on Islam being either a Merciful or compassionate religion too for that matter for example. As for Islam it is 1/6th of humanity. I have traveled most of the globe, nowhere do i find people equating Islam with either Mercy, Compassion, Peace or Truth. I don't consider opinions emerging from Islamic states valid as fear is a factor why Truth is not much prevalent.

You don't have to convince me of that. That is common knowledge here! But if I brought this up in some form, then it must mean something other than what you are addressing!

harbans wrote:
After all "Maya" is everywhere! Right? So yes, delusion is a highly probable occurrence.


I understand Rajesh Ji you don't have much faith in Truth standing for itself and needing a prop from Bharatiya or Hindu civilization. But i do know that yes removing Maya requires pursuit of Truth. Truth is not some single dimensional entity that is to be mouthed with inanity and hey presto all is OK and hunky dory. It requires application. Some Truths are bitter and will emerge. However from it's pursuit and application will emerge solutions and a better society.

There was a joke by Khushwant Singh (yes I used to be a fan of his, long time ago). He was invited to "Bhojan" once by a Bengali, and he went there hoping for some lavish meal, but all he got was some prayers! He later understood that the Bengali gentleman meant "Bhajan"!

So even though all humans understand the concept of Food, there was still some misunderstanding.

What I am trying to tell you, but you are obstinately ignoring is that you need to write down what concept of Truth you are talking about when you include it in some list of "value labels".

So whereas Truth may stand on its own, the concept of Truth you are referring to needs explanation. Such explanation you are willing to give me in abundance, in fact more than I need, but you are refusing to qualify the concept of Truth you propose in the list of "value labels" which should become part of the Constitution according to you.

harbans wrote:
Well isn't it a Hindu Truth, as also expressed by you above, that Truth is independent of one's beliefs, independent of Hindu or Muslim?


No it is not a HINDU truth. It is a universal one. It will always be there irrespective of whether Hinduism exists or does not. Gravity is not a Newtonian truth. It will be there irrespective whether Newton discovered it or not, or whether it was discovered itself or not.

This is the kind of misunderstanding I speak of. Sure Gravity is independent of Newton's discovery of it. But if Newton had not called it Gravity, today the word Gravity could have meant something different - it could have meant perhaps that your Chicken curry needs a little thickening!

Newton's formulations helped us understand what he meant by the word "Gravity" and how the phenomenon is to be understood.

You on the other hand refuse to qualify your "value labels"!

harbans wrote:
If the girl had been Muslim and her rapists Hindu, you would have seen that Assram and all Muslims would have been looking at the incident very differently. Would the "disgust" and "outpouring of grief" then have been offshoots of some dogma or some value? And if it were because of value, why the difference in reactions?


The question is moot. The outrage had little to do with the fact that one perpetrator was a Muslim. The outrage is addressed to making all Indian women safer on our streets..so why the hypothetical strawman communal dimension to the outrage?

Of course the question is moot! The discussion is not about the case. You brought it up!

The discussion is whether your list of "value labels" are immune to misinterpretation and misrepresentation depending on the cultural background of the reader.

And I say, that that is not the case!

harbans wrote:
Truth is not only a function of your honest pursuit of it, but also a function of how much the universe is willing to lay open to you!

So in our rush to idealism, let's not forget that too!


Incorrect. Truth is NOT= f(x)+f(y)/f(z). The best pursuit of Truth is an honest approach. That is what is expected of GoI institutions in whatever sphere policy making to running the state whatever. It's institutions must reflect honestly the best value systems.

See how you talk about things without context! And without context, how harmful quotes and labels can be!

Truth being a function, was said in another context, that of the OIT Thread. So I ask you straight away - please state the truth about India's history - about the "Aryans", "Vedics", "how big India was", "when did migrations take place", etc. Don't give me some answer that you don't know. Can you tell me with absolute certainty that you can give me the Truth about any question I have, say about the past! Can you tell me with absolute certainty that such a "Truthful" answer is available or will be available.

If you cannot give me the Truth on that, then what is the need for the above bhashan about "Truth is NOT= f(x)+f(y)/f(z)."

Some answers the universe will not give us, especially about the past! THAT is the TRUTH, that you can't find the TRUTH about everything. And just by repeating Truth, Truth, Truth like a mantra, it doesn't mean it would solve any problems.

I'll leave it here. If in so much writing I could not convey the point that I do not oppose "Truth" but am just criticizing your context-free use of the word "Truth" without any further elaboration, how it is to be understood, e.g. in the context of some Indian texts, or in context of how some community understands the word, then I probably will not succeed in further posts either. You made it a discussion about Truth and its relevance, which is rather a moot point, as that is hardly something I or anybody would disagree with.

Just as you say "secularism" and "socialism" in our Constiution have been abused, tomorrow some Islamic regime in India can use the word "Truth" in the Constitution as well to ram Islam down our throats saying we have to accept the "Truth" about Allah, otherwise we are all wajib-e-cutlet! Then your protestations about "Well that is not how I meant it" would not cut much ice!

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 26 Jan 2013 21:11

Actually you're the one doing an "==", because you are saying Hindus and Muslims have the same idea of what "Truth" is!


Rajesh Ji, any truth about any matter will be an absolute. Maybe we can with honesty only unearth a fraction. I never said Hindu's or Muslims have the same idea of Truth. I said the Truth will remain same irrespective of who has what ideas. 2 and 2 will remain 4, and the Earth is round irrespective of whether the church burns Copernicus or not. That is not an == between Christians and Scientific thinkers of that era.

Anyways, as you're talking about giving a constitutional context to explaining Value systems, i think that's possible too. Though many would stand by themselves. I am not writing a constitution here. I am trying to say India's interests are best served if value systems are put at the cornerstone before we put up terms like Secularism and Socialism in the preamble.

So let's try and say OK India is a State that believes in so and so values. The contexts for the values are these. So what kind of contexts should be the guide. Do suggest.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RajeshA » 26 Jan 2013 22:19

harbans wrote:So let's try and say OK India is a State that believes in so and so values. The contexts for the values are these. So what kind of contexts should be the guide. Do suggest.

harbans ji,

earlier on, may be 3-4 years back, I used to have faith that through Constitutional changes, we would be able to effect political and social change for the better.

In the meantime today I think we are simply 63 years too late for that.

Still if there is one ideal I would like included in the Constitution, then it would be

Maximum support to all innovations in areas of art, culture, philosophy, literature, science and technology which have taken place in historical Bharat, and strengthening of unity and identity of the country based on that.

If you ponder over the consequences of such an agenda, you will see that it would strengthen Dharmic principles in a practical way!

AbhiJ
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Contact:

Re: Indian Interests

Postby AbhiJ » 26 Jan 2013 22:30

Saudi Barbarians have a Special Dedicated Page for Indian Republic Day.

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cf ... 3012642334

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RamaY » 26 Jan 2013 23:13

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cf ... 0126150631
Its driving principle was a compact between state and citizen, a powerful public-private partnership nourished by justice, liberty and equality

<snip>

There is a law of the land. But there is also a higher law. The sanctity of a woman is a directive principle of that larger edifice called Indian civilization. The Vedas say that there is more than one kind of mother: birth mother, a guru’s wife, a king’s wife, a priest’s wife, she who nurses us, and our motherland. Mother is our protection from evil and oppression, our symbol of life and prosperity. When we brutalize a woman, we wound the soul of our civilization.

It is time for the nation to reset its moral compass.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Interests

Postby svinayak » 27 Jan 2013 01:49

harbans wrote: Whatever i had to say about Hinduism i have said quite openly. There is nothing hidden. This is about Indian interests and not Hindu interests alone. So cut that crap trying to insinuate me about being prejudiced.

Indian interest is derived from the Hindu civilization ideals and historical tradition of the land.
It has to take care of all of the Indian geographical regions and Indian view point. Foreign views and foreign interests have no place in India. Due to colonization is has taken a long time for the Indian elite to shed the foreign interests out of India.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 27 Jan 2013 02:20

Indian interest is derived from the Hindu civilization ideals and historical tradition of the land.


You have to expound more clearly what Hindu civilizational ideals mean.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Interests

Postby svinayak » 27 Jan 2013 03:04

Whole of India is there to define that.
It is beyond the scope of this forum and also this thread. This discussion should be in another thread.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 27 Jan 2013 03:22

Whole of India is there to define that.


Convincing indeed.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4563
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Interests

Postby Manish_Sharma » 27 Jan 2013 04:05

RamaY wrote:Harbans ji,

Why don't you present your dharmic code to a Muslim or Christian (one doesn't have to be the so-called "practicing" type) and ask them if they stand by your dharmic code (which they will agree) even against fellow muslims or Christians (which they will not).

Your dharmic code is only for feel-good purposes when it comes to non-Hindus. Only Hindus will say that they will not only agree to your dharmic code but also fight with fellow Adharmic Hindus on that basis.

After reading past few pages, I am forced to ask this question again. What is your prejudice against hinduism?


RamaY jee have you gone through this pdf, which clearly proves that word hindu existed long before aagman of mlechhas, it gives the sanskrit slokas and name of shastras taken from proving harbans wrong that word hindu didn't exist before abrahmics :

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5283&p=781421#p781421

gandharva wrote:Sharma Ji this is for you.

Quote:
Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu'
http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 27 Jan 2013 04:58

Manish Ji, thanks for the link. From your link:

Another goes by values:
(Hindu is one who discards the mean and the ignoble.)


(Hindu is one who with penance washes one's sins and evil thoughts and with
arms destroys one's enemies.)


(One who meditates on Omkar as the primeal sound, believes in karma &
reincarnation, has reverence for the cow, who is devoted to Bharat, and abhors
evil, is deserving of being called Hindu.)


Brihaspati Agama points to geographical area.

Jains too believe in meditating on Om and have been as devoted to Bharat. Yet they like Buddhists too have started to classify themselves separate. You must ask a fundamental question, why are different groups that have been in Bharat too for long, not want to be classified as Hindu.

If one wants to redefine Hindu even with the long past in perspective, and not as the constitution defines it as a negation of Abrahmics, the exercise somehow still excludes many Dharmics. Either of their own volition or by Hindu's themselves.

Even if there is confusion there..why not identify what kind of state Hindu's want for themselves. We have seen one Hindu state and that fell to Maoists with ease. And ultimately when one comes about trying to define a states' principles for citizens, even if a Hindu one, ultimately one must be clear what values a state has to run by. Just saying HIndu interests are Indian interests won;t cut the ice with most, even Hindu's. What kind of state does HIndu India imply. What values? What i s the impact on Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Arya Samaji's, Dalits, Tribals, apart from obviously Xtian and Islamic minorities. Presently we have a consititution which gives primacy to secularism and socialism. What kind of primacy will be given to what under a HIndu dispensation?

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RamaY » 27 Jan 2013 06:29

Ashish Nandy's comments

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 199594.cms

Pls note the names mentioned....

He said: "I said that if people like me or Richard Sorabji [who was a fellow panelist] want to be corrupt, I shall possibly send his son to Harvard giving him a fellowship and he can send my daughter to OxfordBSE 0.00 %. No one will think it to be corruption. Indeed, it will look like supporting talent. But when Dalits, tribals and OBCs are corrupt, it looks very corrupt indeed. However, this second corruption equalises. It gives them access to entitlements, allows the underprivileged to partake of the loot. And as long as this equation persists, I have hope for the republic."

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Indian Interests

Postby johneeG » 27 Jan 2013 09:22

RajeshA ji,
+108 to your posts in reply to Harbans. Very clearly explained the flaw.

Indeed, a value can have different definitions based on the interpretations.

For example, 'compassion' can mean different things to different people.

Just look at X-ian history. 'Heretics', 'witches' and others were burnt on the stake 'for their own good'. They were tortured to 'save their soul'. Inquisition was an expression of X-ian compassion as far as the perpetrators were concerned. So, generic values have no meaning unless explicitly defined.

Similarly, 'truth' can have different definitions depending on people. The definitions of 'truth' can vary so widely that can lead to sectarian war, leave alone inter-religious confrontations. The 'truth' that will be acceptable to shias, will not be acceptable, in its entirety, to sunnis, ahemedis, and others.

There is no universal definition of 'compassion', 'truth', and other such generic values acceptable to all. So, when someone proposes a value, they must also define it very clearly. Explicitly clarify the conditions when that value will apply and when it will not. All this exercise is nothing short of creating a new constitution/religious text.

Actually, this argument is not even hypothetical. This problem of lack of proper definition for 'values' that are supposed to guide a nation are already manifest in India and pakiland.

Infact, one can say that the core of India and pak's problem is exactly this. In India, secularism and socialism have been inserted into the preamble of constitution. They have been accorded great position. India is governed by these values. But, these 'values' have not been defined clearly. Their boundaries have not been clarified. This creates confusion and opportunity to create confusion. This is one of the core problems. Similarly, in pak, Islam has been accorded the same high pedestal that has been given to secularism in India. But, Islam has not been defined.

johneeG wrote:I think I have zeroed in on the root of all the problems of the pakis(imagined or real) which has lead to its present state and which will lead it to further ruin(unless and until it is addressed).

I think the problem started right at the time when the idea of Pakistan(as an islamic state) started. No, I am not opposing 2 nation theory(and no, I am not supporting it either). I am not going into the merits or demerits of two nation theory. I won't criticize the idea of religion as the basis of a nation either.

Let us, for the sake of analysis, make some assumptions:
a) 2 nation theory is valid(or justified).
b) the idea of religion as a basis for a nation is also flawless.
c) Islam is perfect and muslims don't kill each other(and further, that muslims love each other).

I know that each of the above assumptions is bogus(or at least highly debatable). But, lets assume them regardless, because I wish to make a different point.

Now, people may complain that if we assume all that there is nothing left to criticize. I disagree.

Anyway, the important point is that a regular paki has made all these assumptions. So then, what is the source of his takleef?

The root of all the takleef is that no one has yet clearly defined what is 'Islam', who are 'muslims'. In any other country, this may not be a major issue. But, in a country which claims to be founded for 'muslims' by 'muslims', this becomes a major issue.

The sectarian war that we are witnessing within Pak is the direct result of this lack of clarity.

This question should have been raised when the idea of pakistan was first floated. The Brits or the Congress must have asked the 'muslim' league to define 'muslim'. They did not. Jinnah claimed that muslims were completely different from Hindus in every way(and hence, need a diffewent nation). But, curiously, he never defined what is 'Islam' according to them.

One may ask, "Why is there a need to define 'Islam' or 'muslim'?"
The simple answer is that because there are diverging definitions of what constitutes 'Islam' or 'muslim'. Each sect has its own definitions of 'Islam' or 'muslim'. Each sect considers other sects as 'munafiqs'. Munafiq means a religious hypocrite who pretends to be a 'muslim' when he is not. And in Islam, the only people who are hated worst than kafirs are munafiqs.

Some of the major sects that claim to be 'muslims' are: Sunni, Shia, Kharijis, Druze, Alawi, Ismali, Ahmadiyyah, Sufi ...etc. I have come across one site that claims there are 73 sects in Islam.

What is more, each sect has many different schools. Each school again differs with others on the definition of 'Islam' or 'muslim'. To give an example: Deobandi, Barlevi, Wahabi, Salafi...etc are all sunni schools.

Among all these variant claimants, who is correct? Whose version of Islam is correct? The importance of this question cannot be over-estimated, especially when a nation itself claims that it is primarily based on this idea.

It should have been properly defined at the time when the idea of Pakistan was first floated. That was not done. Maybe muslim league wanted as many people to support the idea as was possible. So, they may have cunningly and/or cautiously avoided defining 'Islam'. But, once they achieved their goal of carving out a new country from India, they should have legally(and constitutionally) defined terms like 'Islam' and 'muslim'.

They did not do that. Instead, there was power struggle between various regional factions. Mohajirs had the initial grip on power. Very early, pakjabis(using their control of on army) sidelined the mohajirs and seized the power. Large demographics of Bangladeshis(or East Pakis) was becoming a threat to the pakjabi domination. So, there was a power struggle which culminated in the genocide of east pakis by the pakjabi army. Ultimately, east pakistan seceded.

The country was broken. As a direct reaction, the islamization of pakistan was further fueled. Pakis believed that they failed because they were not 'islamic' enough(not because of pakjabi genocide of banglas). So, there was further radicalization of paki society and state(including army).

But, the basic question was not raised by anybody: what is 'Islam'? or who is 'muslim'?

Without answering this question, pakis assumed that they had to resort to 'more Islam'. So, each sect (and each school within a sect) radicalized itself. Over time, the clash was inevitable.

Even in a liberal polytheistic environment(like Hindu society), such differences can lead to irritation. In a monotheistic environment, the affects are amplified. In a radicalized situation, they most certainly lead to violent clashes.

Since there is no clear definition(especially by establishment), the only other way to prove that one sect/school is right and others are wrong is by defeating it(or eliminating it) in a war. This is the idea prevalent in that society.

This has resulted in its present chaos. Each week witnesses at least one major sectarian incident killing people. There are bombs blasting each other's 'mosques'.

Right now, sunnis have control of the establishment, so they are ahead in the race. Others are suffering heavy causalities. They face either subjugation or elimination unless they are able to reverse the trend.

The full extent of effects of differences among the various schools has not yet come forth. It is another time bomb ticking.

In conclusion, even if we assume that:
a) 2 nation theory is valid(or justified).
b) the idea of religion as a basis for a nation is also flawless.
c) Islam is perfect and muslims don't kill each other(and further, that muslims love each other).

pakis first have an important task of defining 'Islam' and 'muslim'. Once they define them, then the assumptions can be put to test.

-------
Unless there is an equal equal of every paki problem eith corresponding Indian problems, the WKKs are not happy. So, let me give an equal equal of the above paki problem:
India's social and political problems are partly due to lack of official definition of 'secularism'.

Let us assume that 'secularism' is perfect and it is the correct method for India. But, there must be official definition of 'secularism'.
What is 'secularism'? How will it be implemented?


These two questions must be answered in detail. Without an official definition, each one(person/party/community) comes up with their own definition of secularism which leads to confusion.

Of course, some sections prefer this confusion(just like in pakiland some people prefer confusion over what exactly is 'Islam'). At the same time, they will claim that 'secularism' is absolutely above reproach (just as they claim the same about 'Islam'). The essential goal is to keep the idea of 'secularism' flexible enough to twist it to suit their needs (the same purpose is served by 'Islam' for establishment in pakiland)

Link

johneeG wrote:^^^

My thoughts related to the similar topic:

SSridhar wrote:
1) There were two dominant groups of Muslims, among others,among the Muslim population of India (in the Yamuna-Ganges belt) of the 30s & the 40s. One was communal and the other was Islamist. The communal people wanted a separate Pakistan because they wanted to partake power which had slipped from their hands two or three hundred years back. The 'communal' group sided with the British because they knew that without their munificence a separate Pakistan was impossible. However, the Islamist ulema opposed the creation of Pakistan, and they were anti-colonial. Jinnah had to do two things to garner their support. One was to promise Islamist Pakistan and the other was to 'manage' their sectarian differences by resorting to a larger cause, namely claiming that 'Islam was in Danger'. A glaring example is Jinnah's accommodation with Mawdudi who once called him Kafir-e-azam This is the compromise he made with Ahl-e-Hadiths sect.

It is also relevant to remember what Jinnah told Maulana Abu Ala al Mawdudi's representative as far back as c. 1941. I quote from 'Prelude to Partition 1941-1947'.

[quote - Soon after the formation of the Jama‘at in 1941, Qamaru’ddin Khan, the secretary-general of the Jama‘at, was dispatched to Delhi to meet with Jinnah. Through the good offices of Raja Mahmudabad—a deeply religious and generous patron of the League—a meeting was arranged between Qamaru’ddin Khan and Jinnah at the latter’s residence. During the meeting, which lasted for forty-five minutes, Qamaru’ddin Khan outlined the Jama‘at’s political platform and enjoined Jinnah to commit the League to the Islamic state. Jinnah responded astutely that he saw no incompatibility between the positions of the Muslim League and the Jama‘at, but that the rapid pace at which the events were unfolding did not permit the League to stop at that point simply to define the nature of the future Muslim state: “I will continue to strive for the cause of a separate Muslim state, and you do your services in this regard; our efforts need not be mutually exclusive.” Then he added, “I seek to secure the land for the mosque; once that land belongs to us, then we can decide on how to build the mosque.” The metaphor of the mosque no doubt greatly pleased Qamaru’ddin Khan, who interpreted it as an assurance that the future state would be Islamic. At the time, the Jama‘at decided not to make this meeting public, although it had served to quell the anxieties of the pro-Pakistan members of the Jama‘at and had been seen as a green light for greater political activism by the party. If anything, Jinnah had hinted that his task was only to secure the land for the “mosque”; its building, the Jama‘at concluded, would be the work of the religiously adept. What this meant for the Jama‘at was that a continuum existed between the activities of the Muslim League and those of the Jama‘at; where one ended at partition the other began: the Jama‘at-i Islami was to inherit Pakistan. The symbiotic relationship between the League and the Jama‘at, within a communalist framework, was strengthened. /quote]

Another was his close association with Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, rabid Deobandi fundametalist. This is his accommodation with the Deobandis and Wahhabis. His promise to pir of Manki Sharif. This was his accommodation with the Sufi Berelvis. The Raja of Mahmoodabad, his closest adviser, was a Shi'a. The point is that he promised an Islamist governance to the various sects. As was the practice in Muslim League, nobody paid attention to details or developing a roadmap for Pakistan, whether in spheres of governance, economy, or religion. All these three unravelled shortly after the creation of Pakistan. Jinnah knew long before that he would not have to carry the cross because his days, due to TB & Cancer, were numbered anyway.

2)The 1953 Ahmedi riots and the report of the Enquiry Commission that came to the conclusion that it was impossible to define who a Muslim was.



I did not know any of the details mentioned by you in point 1&2. Point 1 gives a good background details of the evolution/challenges/compromises of the idea of Pakistan. Point 2 corroborates thew point that there is no such thing as 'Islam' or 'Muslim'. There are only claims and counter claims. And worse, there is no mechanism to address or reconcile these claims and counter claims. So, physical elimination of the opposing group is seen as the only solution.

The most essential point is that Pakistan is an 'Ummah project'. Perhaps, the largest of its kind in terms of population/area (I don't know). All the 'muslims' of India(before 1947), were united under this idea and it was success with the active blessings of the Brits. Perhaps, it was a brit idea through and through. Regardless of whose idea it was, its basis is 'Ummah'.

The present failings of Pakistan(where muslim groups are fighting among each other to the extent that one group even seceded) shows that the idea of Ummah is impractical and unworkable unless a formal definition of 'Islam' and 'muslim' is created. This task is impossible without diluting the monotheisitic claims of 'Islam'(as corroborated by point 2).

My objective was to expose this fatal flaw in the idea of 'Ummah' or 'a separate country for muslims'. The idea of 'Ummah' or 'brotherhood of muslims' is advanced by a simple bogus claim: 'a muslim does not kill a muslim'. This innocent sounding claim is the basis of the idea of 'Ummah'.

So, the single objective of my post was to question who this 'muslim' is?

When they say, 'a muslim does not kill a muslim'.
One asks, "which muslim? Shia? Sunni?....?"
Of course, the catch here is that they cannot accept the people of other sect as valid muslims without going against the claims of their own sect.

So, I concentrated only on that aspect without deviating to other critcisms(even though they are valid).

johneeG wrote:Let us assume that 'secularism' is perfect and it is the correct method for India. But, there must be official definition of 'secularism'.
What is 'secularism'? How will it be implemented?

These two questions must be answered in detail. Without an official definition, each one(person/party/community) comes up with their own definition of secularism which leads to confusion.

Of course, some sections prefer this confusion(just like in pakiland some people prefer confusion over what exactly is 'Islam'). At the same time, they will claim that 'secularism' is absolutely above reproach (just as they claim the same about 'Islam'). The essential goal is to keep the idea of 'secularism' flexible enough to twist it to suit their needs (the same purpose is served by 'Islam' for establishment in pakiland)


The above confusion on what exactly constitutes 'Secularism' is the crux of India's problem. This confusion is the main reason why India is unable to expose the flaw(i.e. lack of formal definition of 'Islam') in Paki and Ummah context.

And this confusion on 'secularism' is a inheritance from Congress before 1947. It is precisely due to this confusion that Gandhiji and Chachaji could not demand Jinnah to explain what he meant by 'muslim' in 'muslim league'. And it would be interesting to know whether the confusion is deliberate or coincidental.

Link

----
Manish Sharma ji,
thanks a ton for that pdf. Really thanks... And also thanks to Gandharva saar. :) I downloaded it. Saar, would you like to post it in OIT thread? I think the whole thing can be copy pasted in OIT thread and other threads dealing with the issue.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21160
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Interests

Postby Prem » 27 Jan 2013 11:38

Bose’s stature reduced
MJ Akbar

Why was Subhas Chandra Bose struggling among the also-rans in the Bengal Republic Day tableau? Swami Vivekananda, understandably, had pride of place. But it might have been better to keep Bose out of the jumble rather than literally reduce his stature. If Bengal forgets, how long will India remember the only Indian to head a government of united India?

Bose declared independence before the British gave it in 1947. His government in exile did not have Gandhi’s sanction. It fought on the wrong side of the Second World War: but it was a proud and free government whose contribution to our freedom has been reduced by the domestic political forces he challenged.

Bose is an embarrassment to Congress because he challenged Gandhi, and was a powerful parallel icon to Nehru. Bose asked Indians to give him their blood, and he would give them freedom. Gandhi promised freedom without violence. Gandhi refused to join the British war effort in 1939; Bose went a step further, and led Indian troops on the side of the Germany-Italy-Japan axis. However, their horizon, freedom, was the same.

More than six decades later the argument might seem pedantic, and yet it is worth revisiting. Invaluable Indian blood and treasure helped Britain win the First World War. After victory, Britain reneged on its commitment to Indian self-rule within the empire without batting an eyelid. Instead of dominion status, Indians got vicious brutality at Jallianwala Bagh and the pernicious Rowlatt Act.

It is not generally known that Gandhi was not a pacifist: he served on British frontlines in the Boer and Zulu wars in South Africa, and was very eager to lead a medical unit to the killing fields of France in 1914, at the onset of the First World War. In 1918, Gandhi worked so hard as a recruiting agent for the British army, urging Gujaratis to prove they were not “effeminate” by picking up a gun, that he almost died of exhaustion. Farewell bhajans began to be sung before he recovered. Gandhi lost hope in Britain.

Britain had as much to protect in 1945 as in 1918. London knew that its empire would unravel at the point where it had begun, in India, once India became independent.
What pushed Britain towards the exit gate? Of course there was the irresistible momentum of Gandhi’s nationwide struggle. But the British had faced this challenge before, in the non-cooperation movement 25 years before.The significant difference was the nationalist sentiment unleashed by Bose among Indians in uniform. Bose’s Indian National Army (INA) showed them where their national loyalties should lie. Bose’s war also inspired the young to surge beyond the confines of Congress.Even Gandhi, who only had faint praise for Bose in a 1945 obituary (“Subhas Bose has died well. He was undoubtedly a patriot though misguided”), had to admit in an article published on Feb 15, 1946: “The hypnotism of the Indian National Army has cast its spell on us … [Netaji’s] patriotism is second to none…He aimed high but failed.ho has not failed? … The lesson that Netaji and his army brings to us is one of self-sacrifice, unity irrespective of class and community, and discipline….”When the British put three INA officers — Shah Nawaz, a Muslim, Sahgal, a Hindu, and Dhillon, a Sikh — on trial for sedition, India exploded in wrath. Nehru said on Dec 24, 1945: “The INA trial has created a mass upheaval.”Bose broke the backbone of British rule when he destroyed trust between the British Raj and its armed forces. The eminently sensible Sir Claude Auchinleck, commander in chief, accepted that any extreme punishment for INA officers would make governance impossible, because Indians adored them as national heroes. This, he said, was the “general opinion held in India, not only by the public, but … by quite a considerable part of the Indian Army as well”.

AbhiJ
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Contact:

Re: Indian Interests

Postby AbhiJ » 27 Jan 2013 19:09

Something what Atriji said:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6513&start=80#p1395667

What about the splinters, Rajesh ji? The cure for Sindhu valley goes via Ganga valley only. The proposition which you gave forth (in managing tsp failure dhaga) has this drawback.

Even if TSPA is dismembered and "enclaves" for "minorities" are set up in pakjab and Sindh, the preferential treatment towards "Dharmiks" to such an extent for such a length of time that RoPers start converting to Indic fold (within 20 years, you say) can happen only when Ganga is cleared off.

I would like to make a statement. The spiritual father for "idea of Pakistan" is not 3.5 fathers, it is Upper Ganga valley. It is from here, that this idea arose, it is here that sought legitimacy (in principle, not political). the 3.5 men are merely the foster-fathers of this Child of Ganga.

The fathers in Ganga valley will not allow this child to die so easily because it then means that the guns will turn towards them. TSPA is an insurance for many other players apart from Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It is primary insurance of string-holding Islamists of upper Gangetic plains. The child and father will have to be addressed simultaneously.

There cannot be a "serial" algorithm to tackle this problem. This is an "Accumulated Junk" of 1000 years. It has to be addressed in parallel. This is again what I emphasized in my previous post. The "confusion of Pune" was precisely this in 1700's.


Image

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 27 Jan 2013 19:17

There is no universal definition of 'compassion', 'truth', and other such generic values acceptable to all.


JohneeG, i understand the imperative to cloud simple values under which a State must carry out it's imperatives. Adherence to truthfulness is an evolution. Both for an individual and for a State. Truth does not carry versions and i too explained why to Rajesh Ji. However i will leave it at that.

Firstly it is important to realize that ALL conflicts are rooted in a clash of value systems. They may be triggered, hastened by imperatives for material resources but ultimately at the core it is about what an individual or state stands for.

The faster the State or organization realizes what exactly it stands for, the better is the decision making. The better and easier it is for Institutions to find roots and make objectives. It also makes it easier for us to choose who our allies are and who our enemies.

Without that fundamental realization what one stands for there is rootlessness and confusion. This is India's biggest predicament today. The GoI honcho's just see the Isms of Socialism and Secularism and are acting in accordance to it alone. That is driving almost every GoI run institution to go by these rather than common sense values that could have made life easier for commoners. Thus every groups with an agenda today can hijack institutions and make a mockery of truth.

Rajesh Ji wants investment for Innovation done millenia ago. I want investment for innovation being carried out today.

Hindu groups say tribals are Hindu's, but the links that Manish Ji gives say that Hindu's meditate on OM. So how come tribals, animists are Hindu? Many HIndu's here don't consider Jains who meditate on Om too as HIndu. Certainly not Buddhists. Can you not see, uniting people under a 'HIndu interest' platform which has yet to be identified even here, is well nigh impossible in this country. So what platform do you think that people of diverse hues in this nation could be united under? Ritual? What? Why don't you and others try and identify what 'Hindu Interest' means?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RajeshA » 27 Jan 2013 19:36

johneeG ji,

Context-free use of values always always leads people to think how they can use the slogan only to their advantage. For example, the West has imposed on itself so many "liberal" minded ideals for their internal societies, that everything is going downhill - the Islamics are using every loophole to suck Western societies dry - social benefits; rape of 13 year olds and then claiming ignorance due to Madrassa study; free homes, making 10s of children and getting paid for it by the state, job protection due to discrimination claims, and so on.

Context-free values have also been used by the Americans, e.g. for invading foreign countries - all in the name of freedom.

The idea should be to make India deeply Bharat.

1) Make Sanskrit the official single language at the Center. Do away with English as the primary medium for administration, education, business and even science.

2) Give maximum support to all innovations in areas of art, culture, philosophy, literature, science and technology which have taken place in historical Bharat, and strengthening of unity and identity of the country based on that.

3) Give intensive education to children in an Indo-centric history (i.e. non-AIT) which emphasizes the 26,000 years of Indian Civilization and its innovations.

4) Make knowledge of Sanskrit, Bharatiya history and Bharatiya culture mandatory for all government jobs.

5) Expand the above with manifold effort among the Muslims and Christians of India.

6) Physically remove the hard core Islamist constituency in India.

However all that cannot be done with an Islamo-Christianist Mafia Alliance ruling over in India in the form of Pakistan National Congress.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RajeshA » 27 Jan 2013 20:12

harbans wrote:
There is no universal definition of 'compassion', 'truth', and other such generic values acceptable to all.


JohneeG, i understand the imperative to cloud simple values under which a State must carry out it's imperatives. Adherence to truthfulness is an evolution. Both for an individual and for a State. Truth does not carry versions and i too explained why to Rajesh Ji. However i will leave it at that.

Nothing wrong with truthfulness. But why not say - "Truth as understood in the sense of 'Satya', a concept as developed by various streams of Dharmic traditions - like Sanatan Dharma, and various offshoots like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism." Now that Truth may be some universal quantity, but it needs to be correctly identified and described.

harbans wrote:Firstly it is important to realize that ALL conflicts are rooted in a clash of value systems. They may be triggered, hastened by imperatives for material resources but ultimately at the core it is about what an individual or state stands for.

Value systems only decide how a conflict plays out, but the conflict is rooted in identities and group interests.

harbans wrote:The faster the State or organization realizes what exactly it stands for, the better is the decision making. The better and easier it is for Institutions to find roots and make objectives. It also makes it easier for us to choose who our allies are and who our enemies.

That is top-down thinking, with the top layer based on "context-free value labels" without any catalyst or motor to turn the wheels.

The state would work when the people don't leave it any other choice, when they enforce their collective will and values upon those who choose to lead them.

The reins have to be in the hands of an enlightened populace.

harbans wrote:Without that fundamental realization what one stands for there is rootlessness and confusion. This is India's biggest predicament today. The GoI honcho's just see the Isms of Socialism and Secularism and are acting in accordance to it alone. That is driving almost every GoI run institution to go by these rather than common sense values that could have made life easier for commoners. Thus every groups with an agenda today can hijack institutions and make a mockery of truth.

The values are inculcated in society, through parents, through relatives, through neighborhood, through paathshaala, through the media. Depending on the input and one's own genetic predisposition one becomes the person one becomes.

Later on if he is a "leader", part of GoI, or whatever, it doesn't really matter what "isms" he sees before him. If his personality's inclination is to thievery and deceit, he will do it regardless of what is written in the Constitution. So the theory of "isms" is really a strawman argument.

harbans wrote:Rajesh Ji wants investment for Innovation done millenia ago. I want investment for innovation being carried out today.

In order to jump high you first need a firm footing on the ground.

Teaching Bharatiyas about their past, telling them what unites them, telling them what makes them one of the finest, does not in any way stop them from reaching new heights.

It is hypocrisy of West-enamored Indians that that what they grant the "modernist" Europeans, they do not want to avail for themselves. Can we really be so blind as to not see how much investment the Europeans have really put in into research about their past, and even going as far as to manufacture a past of grandeur for themselves. But our investment should be for the future onleee! :roll:

harbans wrote:Hindu groups say tribals are Hindu's, but the links that Manish Ji gives say that Hindu's meditate on OM. So how come tribals, animists are Hindu? Many HIndu's here don't consider Jains who meditate on Om too as HIndu. Certainly not Buddhists. Can you not see, uniting people under a 'HIndu interest' platform which has yet to be identified even here, is well nigh impossible in this country. So what platform do you think that people of diverse hues in this nation could be united under? Ritual? What? Why don't you and others try and identify what 'Hindu Interest' means?


Hindu has two meanings, the cultural-ethnic and the religious. As cultural-ethnic Hindu means Bharatiya, not just in citizenship but in outlook, one who sources his identity from the philosophical innovations in the land of Bharat, one who identifies himself with this land first and foremost, one who believes that all cultures that have come up originally from Bharat belong to Bharat.

In the religious sense, today the word Hindu has been constrained to refer to only the major streams of Sanatan Dharmics. That is because Sanatan Dharmics have always stood by the designation Hindu without any sense of alienation or othering. Other schools of philosophical thought, say Jains, Buddhist Indics or Sikhs may have tried to look for an identity outside the word Hindu. That is their choice. But the term Hindu has never been withheld from them by the Sanatan Dharmics. They are still free to use it if they wish, for first and foremost it has the cultural-ethnic meaning, as Bharatiya.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 27 Jan 2013 21:27

Later on if he is a "leader", part of GoI, or whatever, it doesn't really matter what "isms" he sees before him. If his personality's inclination is to thievery and deceit, he will do it regardless of what is written in the Constitution. So the theory of "isms" is really a strawman argument.


Rajesh Ji, i won't argue with you more on this if that is what you feel. Some time you will have to learn and accept that the Ism that forms the core preamble will get the better. It will run it's course and throw up people who show better allegiance to the ism. Mostly honest and sincere to the ism kind of folks. So when the Fascists came to power, it threw up people dedicated to that Ism in positions of power. The rest who knew their chances in that system were limited, left or faded away.

In India this too has happened. Socialists and Seculars and very honest people to boot in their convictions regarding the same happen to litter the top. Laws are made in accordance with institutions upholding those Isms. IN the Indian context it means providing reservations, quota's, doles. The Government and INC are being honest to the Constitutional script. Like Himmler was to the Nazi manifesto. Like extremely dedicated honest to the core Generals and Soldiers to the Japanese regime.

Naivette is thinking all constitutions are goody goody good and it's bad leaders due to which the country is facing problems. Paki's say that all the time. Many Indians too tell me that. Corruption is bad, leaders are corrupt we will rally like a herd and shout against gold smugglers as we did in 80's, scream, holler and make movie after movie against gold smuggling.Yet when it was to be stopped, all it took was a single line notification in law reducing import duty post PVNR liberalization. Yet the very same crowd that hollered against corruption and smugglers opposed tooth and nail any liberalization of the economy that led to the death of gold smuggling. It was not Amitabhs antics and angry young man fighting all over Bombay docks that finished the menace, but something quite different. Something that most society in their naivette assuming all was hunky dory with law and constitution, and all it required was extremely honest people at the top for all to be OK. Unfortunately the reality is different.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RajeshA » 27 Jan 2013 21:55

harbans ji,

you fail to make distinctions among "values". For you it is all "values".

Socialism and Secularism are not values as such. They are (ideological) frameworks in which policies are made and executed. The "-ism" at the end signify "belief in those frameworks" as ways of organizing society and state.

On the contrary, the value list you put up are considerations which should moderate our thinking, our judgments and our actions, as individuals and as a society.

But from your posts, it seems it is all the same. You don't wish to make these fine distinctions, as long as one can throw some nice sounding labels at the Constitution.

In the Constitution should stand frameworks according to which a state and society proposes to organize itself and provide itself with an agenda.

For otherwise we can throw anything inside - getting up early, brushing one's teeth regularly, taking a walk after dinner, etc. All are good principles, so why not put them all into the Constitution. How about cutting down on carbohydrates, saturated fats and smoking? Can that be in the preamble as well?

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 27 Jan 2013 22:19

How about cutting down on carbohydrates, saturated fats and smoking? Can that be in the preamble as well?


Rajesh Ji, you simply don't realize how many Companies have Safety and Health as the first preamble in their charters. For what i do for a living, i change Companies the way they function by tweaking on their charters. Next i never said Secularism or Isms are Value systems. You just assume something and start to demolish that. The idea is that pursuit of certain values are sacrosanct above the Isms. In many companies Safety for example is sacrosanct. The charter when it puts Safety at the preamble, may demand bankruptcy but no compromise or laxity on safety. After fulfilling only those norms, can one go the stated aim of the company that is to make profits. So when politicians acting on the Isms outrage common value systems as expressed in multiple outrages we keep seeing, i talk about the State putting certain value norms ahead in their charters. I gave examples of modern states that prove in reality that it helps. Yet i cannot help if people believe the Constitution is all hunky dory and it just requires honest people at the top. What one is witnessing is the just the enthusiastic fulfillment of the constitutional preamble by assorted parties.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RamaY » 27 Jan 2013 22:24

Let us observe our own history and see how the dharmic codes and isms influenced the direction of the nation.

Pre-Dwapara Yuga - The people who deviated from the underlying Vedic principles are labeled Asuras and are defeated. If we study the puranas, all these individuals gained power using the materialistic arms of Vedic dharma (I will call Hinduism = Vedicism from this point) but as soon as they achieved the critical mass, they propagated a non-Hindu ism/world-view. This is where we see the repeated attempts to destroy Yajnas, kill/harass Brahmins/Risis, Monotheism (even if it is for shiva/Chandramauliswara) and rejection of Vishnu (the other). 

The nature of the asura determined the amount of violence and extent of collateral damage to the associated civilization.

Current Dwapara-Yuga - Mainly MB war. It is a culmination of the conflict between anti-Hindu world-view (Jarasamdha's and Kasi kings - 1008 human sacrifice tantric ritual) and Adharmic/Charvaka materialistic world view (Dushtachatustaya). Here the major conflict is in the realm of rashtra (not society) (for reference pls read the speech of Pranab Mukharjee i posted above - constitution being the "contract" betwen state and citizenry) but the roots are in the anti-Hindu worldview. That is the main reason why Sri Krishna had to re-establish vedic/Hindu preeminence thru his Gitopadesa.

Buddhist period - Buddha followed the very Vedic principles (of penance and contemplation) to achieve self-realization. But since he did not believe in Eeswara he didnt try to connect that self-realization with god-realization. So he claimed self-realization as the ultimate goal (same way our communists talk about destroying the ruling class, but doesn't realize/accept the fact that after that, the party becomes the new ruling class). He came up with the dharmic code that stops with self-realization. This is nothing but Charvaka world-vew which is followed by dustha-chatustaya before him (rastra is different from society).

Ashoka is the one who put this principle in practice. After Kalinga war, he realized that mere destruction is not the only way to occupation. But he didnt know what the alternative can be. By choice or karma, he came under the influence of Buddhism and we know how it ended Bharatiya preeminence after it reached a it's zenith. The success of Buddhism during the short-lived ashokan dynasty is not because of Buddhism, but because of Ashoka's samkalpa. Later Buddhism became its weakest link of that empire.

VijayaNagara empire - this empire is built upon Vedic principles. But when faced with the ultimate decision in BeDanda (viewtopic.php?p=1290581#p1290581) Krishnadevaraya went with a half-way approach. He didn't reconvert the population back to hinduism, which eventually brought down the entire VijayaNagara empire. 

Islamic invasions - the Islamic invasions tried to subdue the underlying Hindu civilization in wherever they ruled, but they didn't stop at that. They forcibly converted the populations and the end result is today's Pakistan. Even if all Pakistanis strictly follow a dharmic constitution while staying back in Islam, they will never become Bharatiyas. Now the question is are we happy with Pakistanis becoming dharmic even if they stay separate from Bharatiyas?

Sikhism - this is a supposedly nationalistic stream which vowed to fight Islamic invasions with its life. It drew strength from mainly the underlying Hindu society but wanted to keep a separate identity. One wonders why the Sikh gurus wanted to build a separate identity instead of bringing separate dynamism in Hindu society. Did they think they are separate kind, by defining a separate Ism for them, then how did they think they can protect hindu interests by being separate from it? Did they think they are protecting the Hindus by drawing the ire of Islamists away from overall Hindu society? Then why did the guru parampara ended with 10 gurus? Why couldn't it continue in perpetuity? Did the underlying society lost its vigor to produce a guru-like leader after the 10th guru or is guru-parampara diverted from its original objective and became another ism? 

We can see the repercussions of this separation from Hinduism in past century. The khalistanis see more common things with Pakistanis than their own Sikhs of India and Hindus. 

British Rule - British during their rule did multiple things. The first wave of Europeans saw forceful conversions of locals. But by the time british became sole rulers of India, secularism hit them back at home. The result is imposition of secular education (christianity without church) and laws in India. If we see contemporary India, we see two groups of Indians that are connected to the past colonial masters.

1. Christian Indians - these people remain faithful to their Christian masters and wherever they are majority, they are like mini-Pakistans (example Nagaland etc) of Vatican verity. 

2. Secular Indians - these are the people who prostrate to their British masters to date and white wash all British misrule.

These two groups remain anti-Hindu as long as they are not forcibly brought back to Hinduism.

***

Thus any code/worldview that tries to define separate from Hinduism is not in Hindu interests. Since there exists no Indian interests beyond Hindu interests, such a code is against Indian interests. 

Now let us refer Pranab Mukharjees republic day speech I posted in this page viewtopic.php?p=1399873#p1399873. He says constitution of India is a "contract" between the state and citizenry. That shows multiple things

1. The state is different from citizenry, eventhough it draws its financial, human and military strengths are drawn from that very citizenry

2. Citizenry cannot demand anything from the state beyond the agreed-upon contract. (here Pranab Mukharjee is referring state's inability to solve social problems such as the Delhi rape, because it is not part of the contract)

3. The contract stipulates that the citizenry doesn't have the right to revolt against state and the only way for them to influence the state is thru elections. The state's escape mechanism is to manipulate elections by controlling the candidate list (eligibility criteria, expulsion based on court cases, EVMs etc, and even controlling the election results)

That is why he was talking about resetting Moral Compass because the state cannot be separate from the citizenry (society). Positively taking, this means undoing secularism (separation of state and church/ism/society). Now the question is which ism should be the foundation of the state in India? The majority community or violent community or influential community?

- Uttishta Bharata!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RajeshA » 27 Jan 2013 23:08

harbans wrote:
How about cutting down on carbohydrates, saturated fats and smoking? Can that be in the preamble as well?


Rajesh Ji, you simply don't realize how many Companies have Safety and Health as the first preamble in their charters.

Which makes sense because "Safetyism" can be considered as a framework for organizing the company.

harbans wrote:For what i do for a living, i change Companies the way they function by tweaking on their charters. Next i never said Secularism or Isms are Value systems. You just assume something and start to demolish that. The idea is that pursuit of certain values are sacrosanct above the Isms. In many companies Safety for example is sacrosanct. The charter when it puts Safety at the preamble, may demand bankruptcy but no compromise or laxity on safety.


No, I know that you didn't say that "Secularism" or "-Isms" are a value system. That is why "Secularism" being a framework for organizing state and society has a reason to be in the Constitution, whereas values such
1. Satyam (Truth)
2. Dhrti (patience)
3. Ks’ama (forgiveness)
4. Dhama (self-control)
5. Shaoca (cleanliness)
6. Dhii (benevolent intellect)
7. Vidya (knowledge)
8. Karuna (Compassion).
9. Samatha (Equality)


do not. It is a different thing that we should have had a secularism focusing on Bharatiya traditions, and wary of foreign predatory ideologies which have foreign centers of power and influence.

The above values should be taught to all Indians, they being a part of our philosophical heritage and just plain common sense. But you want to put them in the Constitution. Are they a contract between the state and the citizen?

harbans wrote:After fulfilling only those norms, can one go the stated aim of the company that is to make profits. So when politicians acting on the Isms outrage common value systems as expressed in multiple outrages we keep seeing, i talk about the State putting certain value norms ahead in their charters. I gave examples of modern states that prove in reality that it helps. Yet i cannot help if people believe the Constitution is all hunky dory and it just requires honest people at the top. What one is witnessing is the just the enthusiastic fulfillment of the constitutional preamble by assorted parties.

Your whole focus is on the wrong thing. It is not the "-Isms" that cause problems, but rather

  • the wrong, not thought through "-Isms";
  • going overboard with "-Isms" thinking them to be universal;
  • not setting out the conditions the people have to fulfill to qualify to treated according to the "-Ism" and
  • the people manning the levers of power.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 27 Jan 2013 23:21

Which makes sense because "Safetyism" can be considered as a framework for organizing the company.


NO safety is not some ism like framework. It is taught and ingrained as a value system. It takes a lot of conscious effort to make people 'Safety' conscious. It needs constant reminders, signed framed commitment posters hanging on the CEO's wall. You show ignorance talking of safety as an Ism. Remember Safety is not an ISM! It is an ingrained Value System. Forget it, Rajesh Ji. I don't think you will follow as yet.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RamaY » 27 Jan 2013 23:33

:rotfl:

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 27 Jan 2013 23:43

Why the mirth Ramay Ji? That safety is not an Ism? No wonder you are revolted at having values such as truth precede your Hindutva agenda. That is a primary for you not values. I realize you wouldn't mind a Government rooted in your ideal to lie, cheat, be dishonest as long as it pushes your favourite ism down everyone's throat.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RajeshA » 27 Jan 2013 23:45

harbans ji,

you do take up certain points from my responses, but somehow you ignore the rest of the post, as if they did not have any valid criticism of your position.

Any "Safetyism" leads to a contract between the company and the workers, and as such it is okay to have that in the preamble. I know you don't like "-Isms", but "-Ism" means basically a belief in a way to organize state/society/group according to some principles. It is the content of "-Isms" which make them desirable or not.

Anyway, just another question, if "compassion" can be part of the Constitution, can "love" also be a part? Perhaps by anchoring "Love" right there in the Preamble, we will be making less war, No?

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Interests

Postby RamaY » 27 Jan 2013 23:54

harbans wrote:Why the mirth Ramay Ji? That safety is not an Ism? No wonder you are revolted at having values such as truth precede your Hindutva agenda. That is a primary for you not values. I realize you wouldn't mind a Government rooted in your ideal to lie, cheat, be dishonest as long as it pushes your favourite ism down everyone's throat.


My mirth is about the discussion of your "crusade" of so-called Dharmic code without any ISM and RajeshAji's contention that it is also an ism. You are allergic to the word Hindu not the Ism. You are hiding behind the Ism suffix by repeatedly adding it to Hinduness. I am just laughing at your allergic thought process. Please continue your debate.

Sikh dharma/code became an ism when it stopped identifying the next guru. Buddha dharma became an ism when it couldn't find the next Buddha. Christianity became an ism when it started and stopped with Christ. Islam became an ism when its kalima began with the finality of the prophet and so on.. Even the constipation of India became an ism when people made secularism and socialism the foundation and non-negotiable of it.

It is evident that you didn't think/contemplate about Hindu dharma except that you stopped with the word Hindu-ism. I wonder how you got the understanding that a Hindu govt will support lying, cheating and dishonesty.

It is silly that you define Hinduism == other isms, and you portray a Hindu governance system with lies, cheating and dishonesty. Which govt you are talking about?

By the way, safety of who/what? Exclusivist isms like Islam, Christianity, communists, seculsrs, liberals etc., or the rapists and goons or the politicians and their die-nasty's? Is their safety guaranteed in your saf-e-ti-Stan? Or is the safety limited to the formal and visible followers of your aDharmic code? :rotfl:

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 28 Jan 2013 00:07

you do take up certain points from my responses, but somehow you ignore the rest of the post, as if they did not have any valid criticism of your position.


Rajesh Ji, no i don't even say something and you go to that and ask me my reactions to that. I know you prefer quick fix scheme kind of solutions. However, my point was not to write a Constitution here and defend it. Answer as truthfully in Yes or No to these.

1. That the GoI has been faithful to it's constitution. That of aspects of Socialism and Secularism.
2. People are outrage because they 'feel': This is not proper Socialism or proper secularism.
3. People are outraged because the GoI and it's institutions is/are not truthful/ honest in matters.
4. Truth and Honesty in approach to the consumer/ people is not an imperative in any way on the GoI or it's institutions.
5. But people want Truth and honesty in the way GoI and it's Institutions approach them.

Now you will say NO to any of the above only if you want to argue for argument sake. Ministers, PMs, MPs don't even give proper media briefings. Transparency is close to zero. Don't you feel that some value systems are much needed in prominence in our core charter that somehow are drilled, ingrained at least in our politicians in the first place? When one can make perfectly greedy corporates and personnel heads mouthing safety as an ingrained value system and holding them accountable for charter violations and as a result improve the set up, don't you think the same can be done with a Government set up? Or any kind of suggestion here should be shot down as long as it does not carry the mandatory Hindutva in the clauses.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Interests

Postby harbans » 28 Jan 2013 00:17

I am just laughing at your allergic thought process. Please continue your debate.


What allergy? The fact that every post you are seething at other fellow non Hindu Indians. Obviously they are not Indians or Bharatya's according to you. That you cannot make one post without pushing in Hindutva. NO the way you base yourself, i am convinced Dharmic values and Hindutva don't go together. Your core angst is that primacy of value systems such as Truth, compassion will hurt your ideology. Your core weakness is there.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest