Indian Interests

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 29 Dec 2009 08:18

Acharya wrote:
brihaspati wrote:yes, the point is that US history cannot be used to justify the model of economic growth first and then military empowerment and then imperialist expansion.
I agree and that was my point

Brihaspati and Acharya,

Firstly I dont think India has any plans for imperialist expansion. Maybe those are your ambitions.

The simple point about economic growth before military empowerment is because somebody has to pay for the military empowerment. Who is going to pay for it? And when you want to buy new hardware from abroad as India does, then you have to pay in the currency of some other country. And that means foreign exchange and that means a relative measure of wealth and the only way to create wealth is by economic growth.

And then you may turn around and tell me but India should do everything indigenously. Well, its trying. But maybe not fast enough to realize the imperialist expansion agenda?

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 29 Dec 2009 08:19

vera_k wrote:
Jarita wrote:^^^ Interesting analogy. However, the divergance between India and Pakistan is extremely sharp.
The American North and South had severe points of contention but the scale of divergance was less
The South was a secessionist movement similar to Pakistan, wasn't it? Plus, if India-Pakistan differences are so sharp, why do Indian nationalists like to claim that India and Pakistan can be friends?

The factors driving the civil war were primarily economic and thereby social. Economics was the driver of the social set up of slavery and to an extent vice versa (single crop economy etc). Was there a severe ideological divergance? There was an ideological difference but not to the scale we are talking here. Additionally, external factors attempted interferance (french & british) but were largely dissuaded. There is a massive external lobby supporting the existance and sustainance of Pakistan

The divergance has sharpened in the last 60 years. Prior to that it was one nation.

Would like to hear the rationale for friendship from the nationalists.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 29 Dec 2009 08:37

^^^

Well, in that sense the Pakistan cause is economic as well in that they'd like to maintain a feudal society. And if you go by pre-1947 documents (for e.g. the constituent assembly debates), what became Pakistan was seen as part of the Indian civilization and therefore needing to be part of the modern state.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2009 09:04

Jarita wrote:. One desires the harsh truths to be encountered if India has to move ahead.

The harsh truth for people who wish to do tandav nritya minus even the nominal qualification to do that is that Hindus and Muslims are living together in India and will continue to live together and that is the only way forward. There is no other option. It is in India's interest to do that.

That means a modicum of suppression of expression of differences and a highlighting of shared problems that need sloving.

Funnily this is what people in India are doing increasingly. But BRF, busy with its own version of tandav nritya has not discovered that yet. BRF is now 3-10 years behind the curve. Stop the triumphant dancing and self congratulation and open at least one of your two eyes. Taking revenge against Muslims and the Brits for being defeated in the past (which if this forum is to be believed was the only thing that Hindus were good at) is hardly a priority for India. India is a vibrant and dynamic nation of young people without education, toilets or jobs (Sounds like Pakistan - but we have more people). Creating all three for Indians is the priority if we don't want to join Pakistan in our own version of jihad. We do not need a mindless continuation of Internet based Mahabharat on continuously cooked up grievances and laments of past routs in the hands of anyone who came towards India. Hindus were neither defeated so pathetically nor are they weak now. Hinduism seems weak only if you sit in some cold country having your dream white Christmas.

Over the coming days and weeks I will, if I can word it properly explain how India can be looked at as a fortress of Hinduism that dominates as opposed to the commonly espoused theory of weak Hinduism being ass kicked by everyone - the grieving story to win recruits on the internet.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 29 Dec 2009 09:23

^^^^

^^^
Much as I respect your POV and actually agree with most of it, I fail to comprehend your reverse snobbery.
It is very similar to the snobbery portrayed by the likes of Suzie Roy. Only you comprehend the problems of India and the rest of us are bourgeois snobs.
We have probably led more humble lives than yours, had to face the vagaries of middle class India and struggled to make it where we are.
I have spent most of my life in India and am well aware of how Hindus and Muslims coexist. The situation is not as hunky dory as you make out.
This reverse snobbery is a new phenomenon amongst the elite of India which they use to beat us middle class folks. It's like Karl Marx talking abt the proletariat, not having done a singles day of work in his life.

archan · Post by **archan** » 29 Dec 2009 09:24

shiv wrote: But BRF, busy with its own version of tandav nritya has not discovered that yet.

Not BRF, a few people on BRF. Rest assured, many NRIs see your point crystal clear.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2009 09:43

Jarita wrote:^^^^ ^^^
Much as I respect your POV and actually agree with most of it, I fail to comprehend your reverse snobbery.

Well reverse snobbery works better than talking sense. Last time I tried to talk sense I was told that I was missing the trees for the forest because I live in India. I was told that the bloody Muslims are taking over (maybe because winning is their habit and losing is Hindu?

). I waited ten years to see if that happened and in those ten years young Indian girls in Bangalore started moving around in tank tops, became Engineers and started driving cars, while the daughters of my NRI relatives all did their Arangetrams announced by fancy invitation cards. So I thought I would highlight the joys and sorrows of living in various places. And still those bloody mozzies are not taking over. The curves are ahead of BRF.

munna · Post by **munna** » 29 Dec 2009 09:59

shiv wrote: The harsh truth for people who wish to do tandav nritya minus even the nominal qualification to do that is that Hindus and Muslims are living together in India and will continue to live together and that is the only way forward. There is no other option. It is in India's interest to do that

Shivji why only Hindus and Muslims? Just travel on any airlines or go to a good hotel chain today you will see an increasing number of youth from North-East working there. India is integrating in all aspects but at the same time the slacking regions are caught in the rut of misery and poverty. However the economic integration has not produced the kind of social integration needed and hence we see the suspicion and feelings of fear. There is general discontent about a lot of things and communalism is just one of the avenues where it might get channelized with graver dangers being from the minority side since it has more poverty thus consequently more grievances. In short everybody is hedging their bets before the impending reallocation of national resources for development which have for long been skewed in the favour of (a) Upper Castes in 1950s 60s 70s (b) OBC in 1980s 1990s 2000s. The SC, ST and Muslims have been left far behind in the race for prosperity and hence we see increased EJ activity, Naxalism and of course the extremism in certain sections of our society. The fact of the matter that it is not more a Hindu-Muslim question it is a me against myself quandary!

That means a modicum of suppression of expression of differences and a highlighting of shared problems that need sloving.

That I presume would be a disaster as suppression of certain viewpoints no matter how unpalatable will make them go underground or go on low simmer which can come back with vicious backlash at an opportune time. We need Hindutwavadis too to make any effort at nation building any worthwhile! If nothing else they can spoil the party in at least 10 states with the recent example being support to Shibu Soren. Do not make them desperate is my gentle counsel. If we cannot afford to alienate "certain sections of society" then it would be hara kiri to alienate the "Hindu Hriday Samrats" within India (grant it all of us know that they exist in good numbers).

Funnily this is what people in India are doing increasingly. But BRF, busy with its own version of tandav nritya has not discovered that yet. BRF is now 3-10 years behind the curve. Stop the triumphant dancing and self congratulation and open at least one of your two eyes. Taking revenge against Muslims and the Brits for being defeated in the past (which if this forum is to be believed was the only thing that Hindus were good at) is hardly a priority for India.

Ditto and double ditto that! We have to come out of our past and confidently step ahead as victors and not R&D capital of entire world. The Brits did what they could and same for Turkic-Mongols, time to move on.

India is a vibrant and dynamic nation of young people without education, toilets or jobs (Sounds like Pakistan - but we have more people). Creating all three for Indians is the priority if we don't want to join Pakistan in our own version of jihad. We do not need a mindless continuation of Internet based Mahabharat on continuously cooked up grievances and laments of past routs in the hands of anyone who came towards India. Hindus were neither defeated so pathetically nor are they weak now.

Right on the money fully concur, in fact adding to that I will say that India is dynamic nation and a lot of our thoughts and beliefs will become "Time Inconsistent" with passage of time, the rakshaks need to deal with that and make amends.

Over the coming days and weeks I will, if I can word it properly explain how India can be looked at as a fortress of Hinduism that dominates as opposed to the commonly espoused theory of weak Hinduism being ass kicked by everyone - the grieving story to win recruits on the internet

Interesting, looking forwards to your views on this.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 29 Dec 2009 10:19

shiv wrote:The harsh truth for people who wish to do tandav nritya minus even the nominal qualification to do that is that Hindus and Muslims are living together in India and will continue to live together and that is the only way forward. There is no other option. It is in India's interest to do that.

400% agree.

Funnily this is what people in India are doing increasingly. But BRF, busy with its own version of tandav nritya has not discovered that yet. BRF is now 3-10 years behind the curve. Stop the triumphant dancing and self congratulation and open at least one of your two eyes. Taking revenge against Muslims and the Brits for being defeated in the past (which if this forum is to be believed was the only thing that Hindus were good at) is hardly a priority for India. India is a vibrant and dynamic nation of young people without education, toilets or jobs (Sounds like Pakistan - but we have more people). Creating all three for Indians is the priority if we don't want to join Pakistan in our own version of jihad. We do not need a mindless continuation of Internet based Mahabharat on continuously cooked up grievances and laments of past routs in the hands of anyone who came towards India. Hindus were neither defeated so pathetically nor are they weak now. Hinduism seems weak only if you sit in some cold country having your dream white Christmas.

Fair enough. I plead guilty to all the faults of BRFites listed above except to sitting in some cold country. I am very much based in India.

Over the coming days and weeks I will, if I can word it properly explain how India can be looked at as a fortress of Hinduism that dominates as opposed to the commonly espoused theory of weak Hinduism being ass kicked by everyone - the grieving story to win recruits on the internet.

Kindly do so. Will tune in. Am willing to keep my trap shut, listen and learn.

/Have a nice day.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 29 Dec 2009 11:12

ldev wrote:Brihaspati and Acharya,

Firstly I dont think India has any plans for imperialist expansion. Maybe those are your ambitions.

They are in my agenda too. Saud area is first in my list. Unless we have Military presence there, Saud will keep funding terrorists in India. Oil is not the issue, as George Bush had said.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Dec 2009 11:29

Rahul Mehta, I know you have a lot of drafts to pull out. But I would like you to expound on why India needs to expand its sphere of influence. Take into account that posters will conflate it with puranic dances and bring up the starving millions I would like you to make the case for guns with butter and not an either or case as is popularly made out.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Dec 2009 11:40

Rahul Mehta wrote: ...
What laws do YOU all propose to reduce communication barriers amongst citizens and various group's members?

RM-ji!

Right post, wrong example. Do you have any creative solution to that problem, other than DRAFTING a law, which might create its own opponents? OR do you propose to offer similar DRAFTS for other equally religious-in-nature issues?

P.S: I understand the complaint in your example scenario and completely empathise with the oppressed.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 29 Dec 2009 13:50

A different way of looking at Shia- Sunni split written by an Indian Shia

Islam reborns after every Karbala...

Islamic history witnessed the biggest terrorist action 1329 years ago on 10 October 680 BC, when Imam Hussein, the grandson of Prophet Mohammad was assassinated along with 72 members of his family in the city of Karbala on the banks of river Euphrates. A particular sect of Muslims mourns this day in different ways. Majlis' are organized, processions are taken out, devotees of Hussein walk on fire and beat themselves with swords and chains to pay obeisance. Different types of mourning programmes are held to remember Imam Hussein for his sacrifice for saving Islam from Yazid who, unfortunately, was a 'Muslim' ruler of Syria and was the real enemy of Islamic principles.
As the festival of Vijayadashmi celebrated as the victory of truth over evil, in the same way, Moharram is also observed as the victory of truth over evil. The only difference is while Lord Rama achieved victory of truth by killing the devil Ravana, whereas Imam Hussein, along with his family and relatives, bravely fought the huge force of Yazid. Cruel, characterless and egoist Yazid killed Imam Hussein and all his colleagues.

Is he talking about sunnis here ?

A controversial truth about the sacrifice of Imam Hussein is that a particular sect of Muslims, calling itself 'true and real followers of Islam', oppose to observe the sacrifice of Imam Hussein in a mournful manner. To show their protest, these 'true and real Muslims' call the activities of Moharram like *Majlis, Maatam, Juloos, Taaziya, Alam* (symbol) etc. as *Biadat*. *Biadat* means some kind of evil and anti-Islamic activity.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Dec 2009 14:31

ldev wrote:
Brihaspati and Acharya,

Firstly I dont think India has any plans for imperialist expansion. Maybe those are your ambitions.

I was referring to US model for comparison. You dont have to give advice to BK if you have read all his book or met him. You may have to learn from him.

And then you may turn around and tell me but India should do everything indigenously. Well, its trying. But maybe not fast enough to realize the imperialist expansion agenda?

Has been discussed thousand times. Also most of the nations faced the same situation and have solved it. It is not a new thing in history.

Dont speculate. Learn to stick to the topic

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 29 Dec 2009 20:09

ramana wrote:Rahul Mehta, I know you have a lot of drafts to pull out. But I would like you to expound on why India needs to expand its sphere of influence. Take into account that posters will conflate it with puranic dances and bring up the starving millions I would like you to make the case for guns with butter and not an either or case as is popularly made out.

We do need to solve the problem of starving millions. And we must expand.

Both MUST and CAN happen togather. And if one doesnt happen, neither will other in long term.

If we dont expand into ME, imagine what would happen when US takes over Iraq, Iran, Saud and Kuwait. We would be paying $300 per barrel. Our economy will go backrupt and we will have to sell away everything to US for pittance.

US is exanading. US has already devored Iraq and Iran is next, and then Saud + Kuwait. China is expanding in Africa and other places. Not only we need to stop US/China we need to expand too , or else US and China will become so strong that they will be able to break us.

Creating Military does not starve population. eg During 1400-1900, UK's Military improved and so did prosperity of UK's population. Ditto with US. US Military has been expanding since 1770 till now, and every one in US has been prospering, spare some cyclical glitchs. And under Josepbhai's regime in Russia too, Military vastly exanded, and though there were problems with argiculture, the food situation as a whole was far better than Czarist Russia. No one in Josephbhai's Russia died due to starvation. Many died, but that was due to infighing and not related with guns vs prosperity issue we are discussing. The best example is Adolfbhai's Germany. Military exapaned in 1933-41 and well being of population improved from every angle.

If you are funding Military from Wealth Tax, progressive Income Tax and by any regressive tax, then entire funding will come from rich and none from poor. And if you are manufacturing weapons locally and not importing, industry increases. So poors' economy will not worsen even by a penny. In fact, poor will gain from growth in Military Industrial Complex in India. And while rich will lose some wealth towards Military, when India "expands" rich will reap many benefits. Eg Rich in US pay taxes to fund Military. And then they get 10 times when US exapands.

If you dont have guns, someone will steal away all your bread. And if you have gun, then only you can protect your bread. And with guns, you can also get some butter from somewhere. So there is no such thing as guns or bread. It is always "guns and bread".

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 29 Dec 2009 20:12

RamaY wrote:Right post, wrong example. Do you have any creative solution to that problem, other than DRAFTING a law, which might create its own opponents? OR do you propose to offer similar DRAFTS for other equally religious-in-nature issues?

P.S: I understand the complaint in your example scenario and completely empathise with the oppressed.

We live in framework of "rule of written drafts (aka laws)". No one knows any alternative to written drafts. So if a solution can be drated, perhaps it doesnt exist. And west has solve many problems by drafting laws alone. In fact, I can show that ALL problems that West solved and India still hasnt solved are only because they drafted better laws.

===

shiv wrote:Rahul Mehta - that was a good post. You and I share many thoughts but your aims are far more ambitious than my limited aims. My aim is restricted to BRF where I would like to see a group of people who are open to all information and who are well aware of all the pitfalls that you mention and who do not themselves contribute to those pitfalls.[/b]

Shiv,

Improving BR can wait.

Focus on improving India. If not more, at least 2 days a week think only about India and not about BR.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2009 20:50

Rahul Mehta wrote: Focus on improving India. If not more, at least 2 days a week think only about India and not about BR.

Rahulhji - my "off BRF" activities involve improving local governance and bringing accountability in Bangalore. I believe that this too has an effect albeit small on governance in the nation. Some of my BRF views are based on what I find regarding local governance.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Dec 2009 22:04

If you go back in history, Ashoka was the most expansionist of all Indians. By his abjuring violence after defeating the Kalingas he ensured stability inside India and by spreading the Buddhist ideas far and wide he ensured expansion of a different kind of power which has endured to this day all over Asia. Until the Chalukyas, most kings of South India were Buddhist ~ 6 centuries.

In a similar manner I support this hospice in Zambia for palliative care for AIDs patients.

4.Human service Trust Hospice

Human Service Trust is located on the farm in Makeni, approximately 20 minutes drive from Lusaka town, the capital city of Zambia. The bed capacity of the Hospice is 32 however currently there are only 20 beds. The Hospice was opened in 2007. The Hospice has a provision for 2 beds for children, but is still furnishing the ward.

The average number of patients admitted per day is 1, and they have 10 free bed spaces on average per day.

The clients are referred to UTH if there are complicated cases which the Hospice can not handle. They are also working with Circle of Hope for their ART services.

Contact Information

Contact Person: Jaya Patel
Address: Box 50431, Makeni, Lusaka
Telephone: +260 211 229312, +260 211 845249
Fax Number: +260 211 845249
Email: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: www.hstzambia.org

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 29 Dec 2009 22:22

Acharya,

I was referring to US model for comparison.

Brihaspati makes a statement and you agree. Now you are wriggling out by saying. No, no, I only meant that I speak of the US model for comparision. So do you agree that India needs imperial expansion or not? Why dont you answer that question clearly. If you have no desire to answer that question say so also clearly.

You dont have to give advice to BK if you have read all his book or met him. You may have to learn from him.

Why? Has BK appointed you his personal spokesman that you are telling people on BRF to stop giving him advice? Why does he give advice then? If he gives advice I have the right to accept or reject his advice? No? And if I choose to reject his advice I can post that reponse. Just as you choose to agree to something vague that Brihaspati posted and said yes I agree? Anything wrong with that?

Dont speculate. Learn to stick to the topic

There you go again. You ask me to stop giving advice to BK. And here you are in the next sentence giving me advice.

May I ask you in what form or substance is importing military hardware as opposed to manufacturing it indigenously which is what was the subject matter there not covered under "Indian interests"?

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 29 Dec 2009 22:30

Rahul Mehta wrote:
ldev wrote:Brihaspati and Acharya,

Firstly I dont think India has any plans for imperialist expansion. Maybe those are your ambitions.
They are in my agenda too. Saud area is first in my list. Unless we have Military presence there, Saud will keep funding terrorists in India. Oil is not the issue, as George Bush had said.

Given that we are surrounded by imperialistic nations, it would be wise for us to have an expansionist vision as well. If we keep trying to protect what we have it will slowly whittle away e.g., POK, Tibet, Nepal, Myannmar etc, etc

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Dec 2009 22:57

ldev wrote:Acharya,

I was referring to US model for comparison.
Brihaspati makes a statement and you agree. Now you are wriggling out by saying. No, no, I only meant that I speak of the US model for comparision. So do you agree that India needs imperial expansion or not? Why dont you answer that question clearly. If you have no desire to answer that question say so also clearly.

I gave the example of US mil build during its trade expansion era. That is what I was agreeing to. Dont take it to some other topic. India has not been able to take care of its own border/encroachment and internal displacement for the last 50 years and here you are talking about about imperial expansion. Are you really serious or do not understand the situation.
You are quoting US history saying that they did economic expansion first before military and from history it is not true. You are giving false information here to support your view point. This is plain false propaganda.

You dont have to give advice to BK if you have read all his book or met him. You may have to learn from him.

Why? Has BK appointed you his personal spokesman that you are telling people on BRF to stop giving him advice? Why does he give advice then? If he gives advice I have the right to accept or reject his advice? No? And if I choose to reject his advice I can post that reponse. Just as you choose to agree to something vague that Brihaspati posted and said yes I agree? Anything wrong with that?

Are you are his tutor and boss to advice him to read US history when you are quoting false information from history. Are BR readers here stupid. Who are you to give advice. Are you some expert in this area or a fake person. Fix your your post first and then post here with correct information.

Dont speculate. Learn to stick to the topic
There you go again. You ask me to stop giving advice to BK. And here you are in the next sentence giving me advice.

There you go again asking for imperial expansion or not. Who are you to ask about imperial expansion when you are quoting false information in this thread. Are you a gatekeeper.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Dec 2009 23:18

ldev wrote
Brihaspati makes a statement and you agree. Now you are wriggling out by saying. No, no, I only meant that I speak of the US model for comparision. So do you agree that India needs imperial expansion or not? Why dont you answer that question clearly. If you have no desire to answer that question say so also clearly.

ldev ji, can you please point out where I have talked of "Indian imperialist expansion" in the three posts I have made relevant to that sequence?

My only point was to draw attention to the fact that, US economic growth - especially capital formation was solidly accompanied by simultaneous military capacity building as well as imperialist expansion to capture land and resources. They did not wait until they became a "global superpower" to build up their military power as well as imperialist expansion. Nowhere here was India brought in by me, as far as I can see.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Dec 2009 23:25

brihaspati wrote:
ldev wrote
Brihaspati makes a statement and you agree. Now you are wriggling out by saying. No, no, I only meant that I speak of the US model for comparision. So do you agree that India needs imperial expansion or not? Why dont you answer that question clearly. If you have no desire to answer that question say so also clearly.
ldev ji, can you please point out where I have talked of "Indian imperialist expansion" in the three posts I have made relevant to that sequence?

My only point was to draw attention to the fact that, US economic growth - especially capital formation was solidly accompanied by simultaneous military capacity building as well as imperialist expansion to capture land and resources. They did not wait until they became a "global superpower" to build up their military power as well as imperialist expansion. Nowhere here was India brought in by me, as far as I can see.

I do not know about others. But I believe that India must believe in imperialistic expansion and must plan to occupy all the lands betwen present India to the shores of meditarrian see in the west, Tibet in north East, upto borders of old-russia in North, and upto China/Australia in south-east. Of course entire Indian Ocean region should be controlled by the Imperialist India. My timeline to achive this is 2112 AD.

I will leave it up to GOI on what it means to be imperialistic based on contemporary geopolitical definitions.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 29 Dec 2009 23:30

Riots have broken out in Mahim, Mumbai. Riotors are young **** men (for the sake of secularism I will not mention identity)

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 29 Dec 2009 23:38

^^^
Why are they spreading biss this time of the year?

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 29 Dec 2009 23:40

^^^^^ Dont know.
Just getting panicked tweets, emails and calls from Family and Friends. Some just drove through the mess

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 29 Dec 2009 23:44

Jarita wrote:Riots have broken out in Mahim, Mumbai. Riotors are young **** men (for the sake of secularism I will not mention identity)

Where in Mahim ? Everything fine where I Stay.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 29 Dec 2009 23:52

@skyn3t pls... there are no riots happening in #mahim ... I just passed cadell road 20 mins ago. It's all safe @Cute_Divya #mumbai
rohanbabu - twitter.com - 14 seconds ago

RT @KaranArora: RT @primaveron No Riots in Mahim...I Repeat...NO RIOTS in Mahim!! confirmed by @karishma_l who stays in mahim
chupchap - twitter.com - 33 seconds ago

RT @sandeepweb: Riots in Mahim. Rooters are Suspected to be young Muslim men. Please RT widely.
Dosabandit - twitter.com - 44 seconds agoTwitter / Binny V A: RT @tinucherian: RT

Seeing so many people coming with stones n bottles towards our car was scary. Brought back unpleasant memories of the 1994 riots in Mahim.
Cute_Divya - twitter.com - 8 minutes ago

People passing by that area in MAHIM are saying there are no riots!! @mosespaik @AshuMittal
aawc - twitter.com - 9 minutes ago

some minor skirmish in one of the inside lanes in mahim causing all this ruckus..nothing major #mumbai
sunnyamlani - twitter.com - 9 minutes ago

well ... based on twitter updates looks like situation is confusing ...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Dec 2009 23:55

Jarita ji, any connection to the happeneings at the "neighbour" of "peace"?

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 29 Dec 2009 23:56

^^^ I don't know..
Latest
Seems like it is a Shia Sunni clash near the station. Don't know the trigger

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Dec 2009 00:00

This was my info too, hence asked about TSP-connect.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 30 Dec 2009 00:02

Could be..
The driver could be same. This happens a lot after Ashura - you see this in Kolkata often

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 30 Dec 2009 00:13

shiv wrote: ...

The elder NRI has a deep love for India and believes he has Indian interests at heart, but because he has lost touch a lot of things he says and does are outdated. The Indian in India cannot go around shouting "Mohammad is a pederast. All Muslims are potential murderers". The NRI on the internet is able to do that behind the anonymity he has and believes that he is being patriotic in saving India and Hinduism. He is not. He is only making an ass of himself from the viewpoint of people living in India. BRF has not figured this out yet.

Am I "disappointed" with this? No I think it is funny. But BRF won't go anywhere via this route.

Assuming that the situation re BRF can be turned around, does it make sense to have a "bridge" thread that examines the perceptional gap between NRIs' India and the real, moving target that is India?

You have painted an amusing caricature, but isn't it true that both NRIs and resident Indians have difficulty finding a way to have a respectful but honest discussion about vexed issues and differences? I mean, there is a vast space between, "Hindus and Muslims are one only, everyone who thinks otherwise should shut up", and "Mohammed is a pederast and Muslims are a cancer".

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 30 Dec 2009 02:10

The caricature is extremely cumbersome. There is a point of view that has been formed and cultivated and nourished during the partition years of history of India which emphasizes that the cookie crumbles along the religious lines. This point of view is held sacred by many and looks exclusively at India's populace in terms of religious lines. The minorities of India are defined exclusively along religious lines. When one set of Indians claim to have special status, and even the constitution of India (which needs a fresh thread) caters to this sort of arrangement, then it is natural that the group which claims exclusivity will come under intense focus. Why gripe for that? Almost as a pavolovian trick this prism of looking at India's populace along religious lines is held sacred and is a holy cow. Why? Because the generation that grew up during this period has been trained well to look at things only through this prism. Although, constitution of India is a living document, the prism that is been forced; is elevated to the status of set in stone. Many would like to make this yet another faulty system to be the bedrock of discourse. It is just one glimpse to look at India. But it is assumed and forced to be only valid prism as many take umbrage and go extra length to be sensitive to minorities interests demarked on religious lines.
But if this prism is questioned, it becomes minority bashing. Sure enough, if minorities (based on religious background) claim that they are minority, then the minorities and their background will come in for scrutiny. Why is this prism protected? Because the generation that grew up with this prism is unable to break the shackle to see it in different light or accept that there can be any other prism.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 30 Dec 2009 02:21

The real question is who and what decides that minorities be defined based on religion? Why is this accepted in toto as inalienable way to define minorities?
If it is the only way to define minorities, then protection of this faulty system needs to be thoroughly exposed. Else, wishing that all people, segregated along religious lines, get together and live happily everafter is going to be another daydream.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 30 Dec 2009 03:14

Acharya wrote:I gave the example of US mil build during its trade expansion era. That is what I was agreeing to. Dont take it to some other topic. India has not been able to take care of its own border/encroachment and internal displacement for the last 50 years and here you are talking about about imperial expansion. Are you really serious or do not understand the situation.
You are quoting US history saying that they did economic expansion first before military and from history it is not true. You are giving false information here to support your view point. This is plain false propaganda.

Simple question to you. In the year 1915 which country had the largest GDP? Also in the year 1915 which country had the largest navy? This will answer the question as to whether the US economy grew faster than its military or vice versa. So forget all that drumbeat about false propaganda. This is not some agitprop site. At least the mods are trying to clean that out right now and I fully support them.

Are you are his tutor and boss to advice him to read US history when you are quoting false information from history. Are BR readers here stupid. Who are you to give advice. Are you some expert in this area or a fake person. Fix your your post first and then post here with correct information.

I do not consider either BK or you as my boss!!!. BR readers are very smart. Ofcourse there could be exceptions to that!! Also the last time I pinched myself I was real so I am not a fake person

Acharya, my post is fixed to the ground very well, so I dont need to refix anything!!

There you go again asking for imperial expansion or not. Who are you to ask about imperial expansion when you are quoting false information in this thread. Are you a gatekeeper.

Your posts are almost always cryptic other than when somebody gets under your skin as I appear to have done so now and you are lashing out. I am sure that it will help everyone if you post well thought posts in the first place and explain your viewpoint in some detail rather than cryptic one liners. And yes, this is advice to you from me although you may not like it.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2009 03:21

ldev wrote:
Your posts are almost always cryptic other than when somebody gets under your skin as I appear to have done so now. I am sure that it will help everyone if you post well thought posts and explain your viewpoint in some detail rather than cryptic one liners. And yes, this is advice to you from me although you may not like it.

Humm...

Looks like imperial expansion has gotten under your skin.

Lashing. My My ...

Looks like you have been watching peoples post very carefully here.

When I am having a discussion with Brihaspati you have interjected and you asked some irrelevant question. It is for you to explain what was that all about. You can ignore it as well.
I am not here to explain anything to you even a cryptic one. Are you my boss or a minder here.

Why should my reply to Brihaspati bother you and even if I agree with him or not what is it for you. Even if I change or not why is my opinion of concern for you. Are you stalking me and putiing me into some "box" such as "nationalist", "maximalist" etc. Dont bother.

Trick question that will trap me. That is really funny.

Even SwamyG was polite and asked me questions and did not bother If I did not answer. I may have been rude to him once in a while.
Evading the question -

- this is a shocker comment

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 30 Dec 2009 03:26

Acharya,

Still evading the question? Are you for imperial expansion for India or not? A simple yes or no will do. Dont worry, this is not a trick question that will trap you. I thought you agreed with Brihaspati but now you are going all over the map trying to retract your earlier statement.

I am not for imperial expansion being in the best interests of India. My position is very clear and I can and will get into that debate with others such as Rahul Mehta who are for it. At least RM has spelt out his position very clearly. You shadow box with no clear cut position and everything you state is ambigious.

Added later: My position is for India to neither expand nor contract its existing boundaries. But to develop a strong stable and equitable India within its existing boundaries. This is what I believe is in Indias interests.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2009 03:40

ldev wrote:
Still evading the question? Are you for imperial expansion for India or not?

Still you dont get it. The topic was not about that at all.
Regarding your question I dont have to answer since you were rude and got in between discussion. Leave it now and that should satisfy you. Why even bother. Many here will be on both sides and hence there will not be one answer. My opinion will not change others and will not add or change the total.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Dec 2009 03:45

Imperial expansion near -abroad if they keep threatning national security, economic imperalism comes automatically with extended global economic reach. At mimimum Bharat needs 10 M heavy boots and 2k Nukes to keep vultures away.