Atri wrote:
Hence Anna Hazare said it right when he said this is second independence struggle. Whether or not he knows the implication of what he said, I do not know. So it is natural that British will try to protect their assets in India.
I think Anna knew what he was saying. And Anna must be given credit for what he did. Similarly, Baba Ramdev must be given credit for what he did and is doing.
Atri wrote:
I have been saying this for years here. There is uncanny similarity of dienasty with TSP. Both arise from Mughal power structure which british continued and modified and are twin brothers. One will not let oyher die. Good that this line is getting popular on BRF. I have stopped considering INC as Indian and think of them as brit-mughal satrapy. This makes my conscience better.
+108. Indeed paki state and deshi state act like co-joined twins.
Deshi state has been bequeathed to kongis by the brits. Kongis have kept it more or less intact in terms essential behaviour.
johneeG wrote:In India, 'secular' has meant anti-Hindu. And it has been justified by arguing that Hindus are majority(metaphorical elder brother) and therefore minorities(metaphorical younger brother) must be showered with goodies by the state(metaphorical parent) even if the majority has to be denied their legitimate needs and minority have to be condoned their illegitimate desires. The same theory gets repeated in India-pak relations. Hindu is replaced by India, minority is replaced by pak and state is replaced by west.
johneeG wrote:
Singha wrote:
Shiv whatever be the fakeness or realness of history, how exactly do you think TSP, let alone the entire cabal of islamic nations will reach an accomodation with India and give up their dependence to the west?
if there is no realistic chance of this happening (without India agreeing to be ruled by Islamabad and come under sharia) what is the point of proposing it as a solution?
shiv wrote:
I never said it would happen so I am not going to say how it can happen. I want to point out that this is not a two way game of Islam and Hindu. There is a third player - the West whose historic role was that of the "Superior White Christian West" that set off these conflicts and play a role in preventing resolution. I am blamed for "complaining too much" for pointing out that minus US aid Pakistan would be sorted out more easily by India. What sort of dhimmitude to the USA is this? US actions in supporting Pakistan is clearly against india. The US should have absolutely no justification for supporting a blatantly Islamist Pakistan. Why does the USA support Pakistan's Islamist bigotry against India? How much of a US asslicker must an Indian be to not realise what is going on?
Call it white Christian racism or great power games, unless Indians are willing to keep their eyes open we will only be monkeys being played by the west. The fact that the west's dominance came on the back of colonialism justified by military power supported by theories of white christian dominance are easily forgotten. But heck man if we are going to "forget" such an important historic fact we can also "forget" Islamic murders no? Why have selective memory?
It seems to me that the conflict between Islam and Hindus was already there before the 'superior white christian west' came in. The conflict was initiated by the Islam against Hindus with the goal of conquering and converting them just as they have done elsewhere. But, unlike others, Hindus offered stiffer resistance and refused to be converted even when conquered.
Under their long rule, islamics tried to convert Hindus or to exterminate those who didnt convert. And mostly they failed because of the geography(discussed during Rudradev's model), large population and strong adherence of Hindus to their religion. As it happens for everyone, Islamics also neared the end of their good times. And it looked like a begining of their end. Hindus were set to regain the lost ground(and population).
This is the time when 'superior white christian west' entered the conflict. This made the conflict 3 way. The crucial point is that they did not set off the conflict. They simply became one more participant. Their goal was to loot and convert, very much same as the Islamics. Only the methods seem different.
Another important point is that the entrance of 'superior white christian west' gave a crucial lifeline to the islamics and stopped the resurgence of Hindus. Ultimately, the 'superior white christian west' established their rule. For most part of their rule, they supported the Islamics against the Hindus. The Islamics were also eager to collude with the 'superior white christian west' in the name of 'people of the book. The Islamics, which were a minority, were given an importance far outweighing their demographic or social standing by the 'superior white christian west'.
Finally, 'superior white christian west' had to retreat physically. Even then, they took care to create an exclusive bastion(named Pakistan) for their loyal Islamics. There was no such exclusive bastion for Hindus.
This historical 'love-affair' between 'superior white christian west' and islamics continued in their support to Pakistan.
In short, both 'superior white christian west' and the islamics have been active in harming Hindus(in the past and present). Given this background, to suggest that Hindus need to ally with Islamics(Pakistan) to beat(or keep out) the 'superior white christian west' is a non-starter.
It seems that in the past, Hindus could never ally with the Islamics even when they tried to evoke the fear of 'superior white christian west'. But Hindus could do 'business' with 'superior white christian west' because it seems that the 'superior white christian west' are 'pragmatic'(who will do 'business' with all sides at the same time) unlike the islamics. So, alliance with the Islamics is difficult(if one goes by past precedent). The only form of alliance they would expect is that they(islamics) should piggy back on the back of Hindus. And if ever, Hindus are down, Islamics will try to take them out.
The present circumstance is that, due to turn of events, Islamics(pakistan) and 'superior white christian west' have turned against each other. 9/11 set off these events. However, the physical presence of 'superior white christian west' in same backyard as the islamics has made the sparks fly.
So, from Hindu perspective, the best hope is that 'superior white christian west' stops supporting, sponsoring and guarding the islamics given this unraveling of their relationship. Once that happens, Islamics(Pakistan) will be vulnerable and can be taken out by the Hindus. Then, Hindus will be in a position to directly challenge the 'superior white christian west'. Until then, Hindus have to continue doing 'business' with 'superior white christian west' and hoping(and doing things) that unravel the relationship of 'superior white christian west' and islamics.
Link to original post
Link to another post on related topic
----
Atri Saar,
you had asked me to reply to a post on this thread. Fundamentally, I disagree with the metaphor(Indra-Shakti). I tend to look at the situation as Sita Amma is in Ravana's custody. She needs to be saved and immediately. There is not much time left. If there is too much delay then Ravana may resort to any kind of barbarity. He may even end up killing Her. So, Sri Rama needs to come to Sita Amma's rescue. Sri Rama depends on the Army of monkeys and bears. They are disparate groups. All of them need to be united under single banner and Sri Rama needs to lead them. There are people like Hanuman who are very powerful, but do not recognize their own power, so they behave like a common monkey.
Sri Rama == Sanatana Dharma/Hinduism
Sita Amma == Bharat/India
Ravana == Kongis and C-system
Rakshasas == EJs, Jihadis and other anti-SD ideologies(like Commie).
Monkeys == Hindus.
If and when a weak leadership is at the helm, many entities get emboldened. The problem is that the present leadership is weak towards everyone except the Hindus(or Indics). So, it tries to suppress the Hindus(or Indics) and everyone else is emboldened. The internal and external threats grow in power. The latest China's episode must be viewed from this angle.(I had planned to write this reply before. At that time, I was not aware of China's latest intrusion. Later, when I came to know of it, it was almost as if confirmation of what I was thinking. So, that episode convinced me that there is a great urgency that a strong and rooted leadership comes to the power quickly).
The flaw in your strategy is that you are concentrating only on the dynasty. Yes, the dynasty is the major thorn. But, one should not think that when the dynasty is weakened the power will automatically flow into the hands of the righteous. When weak people occupy power, it emboldens the others to try for the power. Infact, history shows that same. As soon as, Sultanate weakened, Mughals came. Even in the sultanate period, many dynasties were replaced, and all of them were hostile towards the locals(Hindus/Indics). When the Mughals weakened, Brits came. Actually, I think that this was the flaw in Maratha Strategy. Maratha strategy seems similar to what you are saying(approx.). They allowed the Mughals to be at the head and wanted to slowly replace them in a systematic manner. Perhaps, they were afraid of biting more than they could chew. I can understand their thinking. But, I think it is wrong.
The right strategy is to grab the power as soon as it is offered. Then, the management can be taken care of. Even if Marathas could not have the complete control of India, it would not have mattered. But it seems to me that by allowing the Mughals to survive, Marathas erred. In contrast, Brits did not allow the Mughal royalty to survive. They took over the power as soon as it was there to be taken.
Another flaw in your strategy is: you are thinking that Mainos have really messed up the things. And this is not the right time to take over from them. The problem is that such people will keep messing up. There will always be one crisis or thew other waiting in the wings to blow up in the face. So, there is never really a good time to take over from such people. It seems pappu also thought in the same manner. Pappu wanted to take over the power when everything was fine. And since there was never such a time period, he could never take over the power. He kept waiting...
kapilrdave wrote:I'm bit late getting into the 'No Hindu Neta' remark from NM but would still point out my view.
There is nothing wrong in criticizing NM for making that unneeded statement. In fact he must be reminded EVERYDAY that he is supposed to be a Hindu leader only. Denying it is equal to denying his very identity. He has taken the first step towards secularism by saying this. Come the next one or two steps and he will be Advanified. Hindus want a leader of their own and if NM fails, they will have to find another one. Good thing is that if that happens, NM would have showed the next Hindu leader exactly what NOT to do. Just like LKA showed NM what not to do i.e. admire Jinna, being soft at congi etc.
People ridicule this thought by saying there is nothing wrong in equality, Hindutva means equality bla bla. Everyone knows that. But what people are pissed off today is the nuisance and notoriousness of muslims. They want bangladeshis to go out, they want muslim rioters to be dealt with ruthlessness, they want muslim terrorists to be arrested without fear of pissing their community, they want protection of Hindus in Pak, they want Kashmiri Pandits to go back to their place again and more. Will NM do this? His supporters definitely think he will and NM has no right to put a doubt in the voters' mind. I understand that all these cannot be done in one single (full)term and the priority should be to root out congi first. But that doesn't mean he should alienate himself from what is expected from him.
Also, this election is just the entrance test of NM. His real test will be when he comes to power. The last NDA govt failed in this test. We will see how the great man performs in his real test.
Saar,
the question is: there is a problem, who is responsible for this problem?
a) Muslims?
b) Non-Muslims i.e. Kaffirs?
c) Malsi?
d) Non-Malsis?
johneeG wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:
If Rodinson is the only Muhammad you've read, then I've way head of you. I even spent three days of doing nothing but reading the Quran and then going to the Pittsburgh temple to see "Hindu idolatory" through "Muhammad's eyes" (well, as much as is possible through English translation
).
Have you read Hadis as well? It seems Hadis is an absolute to understand Islam. Quran, it seems is organised in a unique fashion. It is neither chronological nor issue based. But based on the length of verses. So, the verses cannot really be understood properly without the context. The context is provided by the Hadis.
Of course, one may raise doubts on the genuineness or historicity of Hadis. But the same doubts can also be raised on Quran. Anyway, these doubts are irrelevent because a Islam asks its adherents to accept them as true.
A_Gupta wrote:
Muhammad is not really the issue, he was a man of his times, no more or less sanguinary than his contemporaries.
Not really. According to the Hadis(the traditional biography of Mohammad), before the advent of Muhammad, the arab pagans were quite tolerant of other religions. But the advent of Islam changed all that according to the Hadis.
Infact, before the advent of Abrahamic religions, how many wars happened with a motive to convert others in the entire world?
A_Gupta wrote:
The issue is those who fourteen centuries later take him as undebatable.
Nope, the issue is the ideology that teaches it as undebatable. Why target individuals when its the ideology that is the cause? Is it because the individuals are easier to target then ideology?
Anyway, if he is not undebatable, then whats the objection that is being raised by you and deepankar? Language?
A_Gupta wrote:
One of the Hindu "ideal" persons is Shri Rama, and even so, Hindus debate whether he was right in shooting Vaali and exiling Sita from Ayodhya. That does not make Hindus respect him or worship him less.
From a Hindu perspective, Sri Rama is the ideal. Period. No debates on that. The debate is how and why he is ideal, what prompted and justified his actions. Shooting vali, killing Tataka, leaving Sita in woods, slaying Ravana,...etc are debated to understand how they were correct. The debate is not whether it is correct or not. Of course, debates can take place questioning Sri Rama's righteousness, but would it be Hindu? Hindus can do such debates, but the hindu religion does not support that debate.
A_Gupta wrote:
(And a Rodinson can turn Rama into another unappetizing character, it is not difficult to do.)
He may try. It is not difficult to denigrate Sri Rama, if one depends on half-truths or events taken out of context. Similarly, Mohammad can be presented as benevolent.
A_Gupta wrote:
Muslims have to realize that being critical of Muhammad is not incompatible with considering him the epitome of integrity and the most beloved of Allah.
You are hung up with people(muslims), when its the ideology that teaches that any criticism of Mohammad is the criticism of Islam. Why blame muslims? Why not Islam?
A_Gupta wrote:
The lack of that critical attitude among Muslims is no more because of Muhammad than the bloodiness of the church set up by St. Paul and made official by Constantine is the fault of Jesus.
Are you open to the possibility that the lack of critical attitude among Muslims or Church was directly caused by the intolerance of Mohammad or Jesus towards criticism?
A_Gupta wrote:
Think about it - your namesake Parsuram is probably the author of the oldest remembered genocide -when he set out to wipe out all the Kshatriyas - and we Hindus don't blink an eye about it. We would not stand for anyone asking us to condemn him.
Why club all Hindus with yourself? Attitudes differ. You dont seem to blink an eye to question Sri Rama. Many other Hindus might shudder at such a proposition.
Much better position would be to stop going after individuals and take up the ideology.
A_Gupta wrote:
We make him into a avataar, give him some kind of mission of destroying evil, and seek to emulate him - never.
As per Hinduism, Parashurama was an Avatar. He was possessed by Lord Vishnu. He exterminated the Kshatriyas because they were evil. Then, Sri Rama reclaimed the Vishnu's aura within Parashurama. Thereafter, Parashurama remained as a great sage. Hinduism does not exhort its adherents to follow the example of Parashurama. So, when Hindus do not follow the example of Parashurama, they are simply following Hinduism. They are not questioning it.
You obviously dont seem convinced with Hinduism's explanation. Its your prerogative.
A_Gupta wrote:
Sri Krishna had his own Yadavas exterminated.
Really?!!! When and How? Please do expound.
I thought the Yadavas were exterminated due to internal fights that had nothing to do with Lord Krishna. It was a curse of Durvasa, if I am not wrong. Or maybe you have another source rivaling the Hindu scriptures.
A_Gupta wrote:
Our own sacred history can be used (and has been used by our detractors) to make us look absurd.
If the instances quoted by you are examples, then it seems to me that they have failed in their attempts. However, people are free to accept their depictions.
A_Gupta wrote:
And in modern times there are enough Dals and Senas to prove the point too.
Actions of 'Dals and Senas' have nothing to do with Hinduism. Hinduism, as a religion, can independently be critiqued. Similarly, actions of 'Dals and Senas' can be independently evaluated. Unless, their actions are direct result of Hinduism, Hinduism is neither to be blamed nor praised for their actions.
A_Gupta wrote:
All I can say is that we've become very sophisticated in understanding and interpreting our sacred histories; the Mussalmans with one-third our age have not yet, and may never get there, but we can't be sure of that.
Maybe some like you have become sophisticated, but certainly not all Hindus.
If your point was that Hinduism is as barbaric as Islam and that only difference is that Muslims still stick with their Islam while Hindus try 'sophisticated understanding'. Then, I think you are wrong. The point is that Hinduism, itself, tells Hindus what to follow and what not to follow. The same is true for Islam or any religion or ideology. And adherents simply do as taught by their ideology.
Hindus are not making any 'sophisticated understanding', they are simply accepting Hinduism's explanation of things just as muslims accept Islam. Maybe Hinduism is sophisticated and Islam is barbaric...
Link to original post
-----
harbans wrote:Actually i am always wary what copy of the Koran is handed over for reading to a leader of influence like Modi. I know one Prof who was handed a copy of the Koran and he always claimed it was really a nice document. There are many 'sanitized' versions full of peace and love where the war verses are mellowed to be meaningless. Remember these are translations. So yes one indeed has to be wary what kind of translation is being handed over. Personally, I have made it a point to verify multiple versions of the same stanza/ verse before forming an opinion. Indeed i would be very wary of leaders being handed a custom copy..
harbans wrote:Ravi Ji, i also use the uscedu site for reference.
According to Die Welt, German authorities view the Koran project, which fundamentalists are using a recruiting tool, as a “most worrisome” campaign for radical Islam. Security analysts say the campaign is also a public-relations gimmick intended to persuade Germans that the Salafists are transparent and “citizen friendly.”
In an effort to improve their image, the Salafists have removed from their “information booths” all literature about the role of women in Islam or the supremacy of Islamic Sharia law over democracy. Moreover, the German translation of the Koran has edited out many of the verses which call on Muslims to make war on non-believers. According to BfV, the German domestic intelligence agency, the German version of the Koran is “rather non-controversial.” (Most English versions have been sanitized as well)
List of sanitized versions of the Koran
A more Sanitized Quran
PS: I know many people Hindu right, people who culturally have abhored Muslims. Many were rooting for the RJB issue. I know some of them today say all religions preach the same. Some even claim having read the Koran. Many great Hindu leaders have been given a copy of the Koran. Why even Ramakrishna Paramhansa extolled the HK IIRC. The salafists want 25 million 'sanitized' versions of the HK distributed in Germany. The problem of santized and lulling versions is a danger. That is why as a cautionary note i am always worried if someone takes a sanitized version and starts to think maybe the interpretations are incorrect and we can after all get together. We have no idea if suddenly a RJB leaders love for Jinnah etc is due to maybe a 'sanitized' version of the same handed some time back which he read through at leisure. That is what i think happened even to the Dutch Right wing person who recently converted to Islam. He kept claiming he read the Koran and found nothing wrong, that it is being interpreted wrongly etc..there is no harm to acknowledge that indeed there is a massive information rather 'misinformation' battle on. Lets be careful and warn others to be extra careful of these sanitized versions.
+108.
Saar,
you have pointed out an important point. Indeed, sanitized versions are given to unsuspecting people to deceive them. This is a trick that is employed by both Ejs and jihadis.
But, there is another point here. Even if one reads the authentic naroK in arabic, even then one is not guaranteed proper understanding of the ideology.
Why?
Because the verses in naroK are neither in chronological order, nor in any other logical order. The verses are arranged from smallest to the biggest. That means the smallest verse comes first and the biggest verse comes last. And the verses have no context mentioned. It is like a jumble. Each one can arrange it to suit their own bias. Take any text book and rearrange all the sentences in the book such that the smallest comes first and the biggest comes last. Now, read it. Can you make any sense out of such text?
So, how do faithfools make sense of naroK?
They depend on two things:
a) interpretations by acknowledged authorities.
b) bio of Mo.
So, merely reading a translation of naroK is useless. One has to read the interpretations of the acknowledged authorities. And one has to read the bio of Mo.
Bio of Mo is the most important element in interpreting the meaning of naroK. Even the experts(who wrote interpretations) depend on acknowledged Bio of Mo to make sense of naroK.
Link to Ram Swarup's : Understanding Islam through Hadis
Bio of Mo introduces an interesting concept: when there is an internal contradiction in naroK, then the later day(chronologically later) verses have higher priority. As I said, one cannot determine the chronology of verses from naroK. The so-called experts depend on Bio of Mo to determine the chronology of the verses in naroK.
naroK contains several contradictions particularly between verses advocating jihad and verses talking of tolerance. The Malsic experts have determined that chronology of the verses such that verses advocating tolerance are said to be the early ones while the verses advocating jihad are later ones. And since the later verses have higher priority, the verses advocating jihad negate the verses teaching tolerance.
In this scheme, jihad against kafirs(and the concept of land of Malsi and land of non-Malsi) gets highest priority.
Of course, one can raise questions on the authenticity of interpretations or the authenticity of bio of Mo. And even question the ascribed chronology. One can also raise doubts on the theory that later day verses negate the earlier verses. One can use the self-contradictions in naroK to dismiss it as a mish-mash created from disparate texts. But doing so, is considered heretic in Malsi.
Lilo wrote:kapilrdave wrote:I'm bit late getting into the 'No Hindu Neta' remark from NM but would still point out my view.
......
This is a slippery slope and if
Political leaders emerge that claim to represent their religion in preference to rest - the community will go to dogs (watch the below video frm 15:00 to next few minutes). If some one wants exclusive representation for his or her group in preference to other communities they can always find one in the religious leaders of religious groups which claim to represent those groups (Sants , Babas , religious groups, Pirs , Gurus etc) .
[youtube]YqYqYvWjOZE&hl=en_US&start=880[/youtube]
This is a wrong logic.
johneeG wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote:I think the key point of secular is that the state shall not establish a national religion. All else appears to be negotiable. This is the single rule that causes fatal conditions for the state. Witness the mayhem in the Islamic republic next door. Or even the slaughter in Buddha Lanka next door, which situation has not been resolved yet.
In all of the above examples, the creeds are monochromatic. That means all of the above creeds, cannot accept multiple paths/customs. They seek to enforce a single view. It is this quality that is the basis for 'mayhem'.
The problem is the creed itself, not the people or the idea of theological state. There is nothing wrong with the idea of a state being based on a particular ideology(religious or otherwise). The resulting state will reflect the ideology. There may be some exceptions, but generally, a state/group/person/society reflects the ideology being followed by them/it.
Luckily, Hinduism/SD is not monochromatic. It inherently accepts and propounds multiple paths(multiple paths does not mean that everything is accepted, it is just that the choices are more). Given this background, there is very less chance of 'mayhem' in a Hindu/SD nation. Even in a Hindu/SD setup, 'mayhem' can occur when a monochromatic Hindu sect tries to eliminate alternate Hindu views through force. There is also a past precedent to propagate one's views: free public debates. This mechanism also prevents violence.
Theo_Fidel wrote:
I wouldn’t call the conditions of Hindu/Christian there as acceptable. I don’t think a ‘Hindu’ state will be acceptable in any operational from for most of India. Leave alone minorities, the question of which version of Hindu thought will tear the nation apart, as it indeed did in the past. Something similar is tearing the evangelical ‘christian nation’ movement in USA to shreds. The slaughter in Islamic lands does not need to be mentioned...
Hindu thought will tear the nation apart?!! wow!
It is all the anti-Hindu thoughts that are trying to tear the nation apart. Anti-Hindu thoughts succeeded in the past to partition the country(pak and bd). And there are others trying to 'tear the nation apart' like 'Nagaland for christ'...
When and how in the past did a 'hindu thought tear the nation apart'?
Link to original post
People always end up using a logic: all religions are equal equal.
So, when someone says that Hinduism should become state religion, then others point out the example of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to argue that a Hindu theological state will be similar to a muslim theological state. They assume that Hinduism == Islam. This is a wrong assumption.
The same thing is being said here. Why will Hindu leader become like a Muslim leader? Hinduism is not same as Islam. Hindus are not same as Muslims. MIM represents what it represents. And it is quite open and brazen about what it represents leaving no doubts in anyone's mind.
When one argues that Hindu leader will be same as Muslim leader, then one is assuming that Hinduism == Islam. This is a false assumption. All religions are not same or similar, particularly the abrahamic religions(specially X-ism and Malsi) cannot be equaled with Hinduism. Such equal equal will not be accepted by the X-ians or muslims either, nor will it be acceptable to Hindus(who are not dhimmized).
BTW, this is the classic mistake of RSS' ideology. RSS ideology demands that all religions must be accepted as equal equal. They demand that X-ians and Muslims should accept Hindu avatars as prophets of their godling. This stance is not acceptable to X-ians and Muslims, nor is it endearing to Hindus.
Lastly: just as there are good people and bad people. Just as there are good ideas and bad ideas. Similarly, there are good ideologies(religious or otherwise) and there are bad ideologies(religious or otherwise). Assuming that all people are same same, would be silly assumption. Similarly, assuming that all ideologies(religious or otherwise) are same same is also a silly assumption.
missed that Rudradev Ji. But i can't figure out whether is it arrogance or fear on the antonia's face?