somnath wrote:My comment is for those for whom "indic values" stand for:
1. US/West is a conspirator - they are out to destroy us.
Does the US/West have their own strategic interests? Yes or No?
Do their strategic interests always coincide with those of India? Yes or No?
Do they not want to dominate the politics of other countries, either through war (e.g. Iraq, Libya), finance (IMF?), access to resources (uranium, Oil, etc), or international organizations (UNSC)? Yes or No?
Is there a history of India being colonized by the "West" (e.g. Britain)? Yes or No?
All just rhetorical questions onlee!
somnath wrote:2. Urdu is a foreign language (why? because it is a "muslim" language) - we need to "cleanse" it out..In fact, "cleanse" "Indian" languages of all "foreign" influences..
As long as Urdu is used for conversation, culture, entertainment, few have a problem with that! If it begins to be used for segregationist tendencies within certain groups, as justifications for separatism, as it already has been used previously in history, then it becomes unwelcome! How to curtail the latter tendency? Perhaps by ensuring that it does not assert its foreign origins by continuing to import foreign (Persian, Turkic, Arabic) vocabulary, and that any requirement of expansion in vocabulary is met through Indian languages.
I have noticed a tendency by you to denigrate any use of Shuddh Hindi!
I can may be tell you from little of my experience with a foreign language - German. I speak German probably at par with English. Any language worth its name, which wants to establish itself as a mode of communication in the modern world, or in fact putting it even more abstractly, as a mode of communication at any point in time, needs to be able to express 99% of the range, complexity, nuance and precision of the thought process in constructs which arise out of its origins. Even words that have a foreign etymology are modified to reflect the language's own flexion, but the preference is for using of words originating in the language or its family of languages. There are of course always a set of foreign words which are used as is, because they represent a nuance which is imported from the other culture, and needs to be preserved as is.
Most major languages make an effort to keep pace with the fast moving globalized world to cater to new thought processes. This is true for German, French, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, etc. The language should be complete in itself to represent the modern human's thought process, as much as possible.
That is the same effort being undertaken in terms of Hindi, or for that matter even many regional languages.
Should Hindi fail to cater to that challenge - expressiveness to cover the range, complexity, nuance and precision of modern human's thought process, people would start wandering off to other languages which can better capture what they wish to say! In the course of this migration, people would then also lose out the civilizational, historical and cultural roots which were available only through their own language. People would lose out on their own indigenous thought process which had evolved through their language.
Is that what "confidence in one's own civilization" is all about?
If one wants to speak Urdu, or English one should go ahead and speak those languages as purely as one can! But if one wants to speak Hindi, say where one is required to speak Hindi, then I don't have any understanding for making the kind of khichrhdi that we often make, throwing in Urdu, Punjabi and a whole lot of English words in! That is NOT Hindi. That is a travesty of the language. That is Hindi of those who can't speak better or consider it cool to use non-Hindi words.
The kind of language the moderators use on Indian TV, were it to be used in say Germany, France, Russia, Japan, China or elsewhere, the moderator would have been kicked on his nuts for incompetence and thrown out in disgust!
Today few who get their school education in say Delhi, few would be really capable of going on a stage and speaking on a topic in Shuddh Hindi! There would invariably jut in several words of English and may be even Urdu! That is not to be looked upon the kid just speaking the normal tongue! No! That is sheer incompetence! In fact any German, French, Russian, Japanese or Chinese would look upon the guy as pathetic to the core!
So the question is not really about language chauvinism, but about the richness of a language to suffice the demands of modernity, and the competence of the speakers of that language!
somnath wrote:3. All muslims are at best a sullen minority, at worst potential fifth column..
Subcontinental Muslims are submissive and deferent to the Muslim Master Races - the Arabs (ideology), Turks (chauvinism) and Persians (culture)!
This submissiveness and deference opens up a weak spot and this weakness could allow others to use it to their own ends or to subvert Indian interests.
As long as the Subcontinental Muslims themselves do not come out of their stupor and the unbridled fascination for the West Asian, the Indics have to remain vigilant that the Subcontinental Muslims are not inadvertently acting against India's (including their) national interests.
somnath wrote:4. Christian educational institutions are evangelising schools - should be ideally closed down..
Is Christianity not a proselytizing religion? Don't these educational institutions have sometimes a missionary background? So if they consider it as their mission to proselytize, who are we to doubt their declared intent?!
At least there should be a statutory warning to all parents who wish to send their children to these schools! Something like:
In this school your kid would not be taught much about his civilizational heritage. In this school your kid would not be taught by teachers who share that civilizational outlook. In this school your kid would not be living and breathing that civilizational ethos. It is highly possible, that your kid would grow up to be a fully deracinated dork with complexes, ashamed of what he is!
In case the school turns out to be disrespectful of the Indic way of life, over and above, what is considered as generally accepted social ills, and harking on only these negative aspects of the Indic way of life, then the school would be considered to have a narrow-minded anti-social agenda and may need to be shut down.
somnath wrote:5. In general, look for Christian-Western-Islamist conspiracies in everything that happens...
All three being proselytizing ideologies and value-systems, why is it so surprising that one would wish to install firewalls. Are the three not predatory in nature?
Don't tell me, you have such confidence in Windows, you don't need an Internet firewall? What is wrong in using precaution? Of course, some love to take digs and call that paranoia! Is creating awareness of a threat the same thing as paranoia?! I think the key difference between paranoia and precaution is history. One needs to ask history whether we have suffered at the hands of these threats or not? And if we have been subjugated in the past, then basically anybody who belittles precaution as paranoia is a traitor! Precaution, or for that matter even paranoia, is our right and duty!