BR Forum Piskology Thread

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 05 Jan 2010 18:35

Yes They are wrong and I am sorry, I had given you enough notice on this.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 05 Jan 2010 18:48

LDev,

Its not the moderators job to fact check or counter arguments.

For every anti-christian conspiracy that you percieve , there will be an anti-hindu or a anti-muslim CT as well. Now it is the members job to counter these arguments and keep them in place. So if you see a statement you dont like, and you (or any other member) doesnt respond to it with facts , please dont expect the mods to do the ob for you.

Moderators are here only to see etiquette is maintained and the rules of engagement are respected, not to drive the discussions, not to provide a counter view point of those not represented in adequate strength. and certainly not to set any kind of agenda - either pro hindu , or anti-hindu, pro christian or anti-christian, or any pro-minority or anti-minority.

If every member who finds the view point of other members not to his liking and he doesnt do anything to counter it, then its his problem. Dont expect Moderators to stand up to him. That not what they are in for.

What RayC has posted is patently false. So I dont know how much quoting him will help the case of your viewpoint.

-Jagan

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jan 2010 21:39

ldev wrote: OK, lets say that poster x says, "I dont believe official statistics, I am sure that the Christian population of Tamil Nadu is 20% and AP is 20%. This damn YS Rajashekhara Reddy is a bloody EJ appointed by that Italian madam and the Pope."

What does one make of a statement like that. Numerous statements, too numerous to count and remember such as this have been posted on BRF over the last 2-3 years.

There is a very definite bias on the Strat form. The strat forum bias does not allow certain so called "secular" opinions to be expressed without the poster having to fight his way out of a flurry of hostile posts. The atmosphere is ideally suited for someone who either wants to have a comfortably Hindu viewpoint or someone whose posts upset that comfy applecart, getting threads locked eventually as increasingly hostile views are expressed, detailing the long history of suffering and subjugation of the Hindu nation.

The net result is that serious discussions based on ground realities in India are not going to happen. India has some "dirty facts" on the ground that cannot come up for "discussion" on the forum - they can only come up for criticism. These dirty facts are the inextricable involvement of Muslims and Christians in day to day life in India. Any mention of such involvement serves only as a reminder of how the ancient nation has been conquered, converted, raped, looted, corrupted, decimated, fractured and subjugated.

As long as one fails to mention or take into account true and existing facts about Indian society in a discussion, that discussion is never even going to approach reality. It was this realization that made me wonder if a large number of people who post actually have any knowledge of India as it is and as it is seen from within. To me it appears that many don't but nobody is allowed to admit that on "Bharat -Rakshak". So we have ignorance of facts compounded by denial of ignorance.

The actual discussion may be America Rakshak or Australia Rakshak. All is fine as long as it is not Muslim Rakshak or Christian Rakshak. The exclusion of Christian Rakshak and Muslim Rakshak from all discusion equals "Bharat-Rakshak" because Muslim ummah look after themselves and Sonia looks after Christians. Who is to look after Bharat?

As an example, try and make a post about an Indian Muslim and see how long it takes before someone points out that Indian Muslims are traitors and that the person who calls a Muslim patriotic is a pseudosecular traitor who represents forces that are eating up India from within, in cooperation with the Vatican and its agents in Delhi.

What is the proof that all Indian Muslims are not traitors? None whatsoever
What is the proof that Sonia Gandhi is not a Vatican agent? None whatsoever
What is the proof that Manmohan Singh is no a traitor selling the country? None whatsoever
What is the proof that people on BRF are talking crap? None whatsoever

Therefore "we" are right. Manmohan Singh is traitor. Sonia is a Vatican agent and Muslims are traitors, and BRF is ahead of the curve. These are the comfortable conclusions about which you will have no controversy on BRF. As long as you do not dispute any of these conclusions - you are safe - you may even be a "valued, knowledgeable and respected memberji"

Is the the fault of the moderators? That is a difficult call. Moderators are accused of being Vatican agents and traitors for cracking down on delusions. They are called agents of Hindutva for not cracking down. They are screwed either way.

The problem is you ldev - in wanting any serious discussion in this laughable unreal environment. It is not going to happen.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Jan 2010 23:39

ldev wrote:
Suraj wrote:ldev, please provide specific examples of the bias you are alleging, including examples of moderator-driven bias.
OK, lets say that poster x says, "I dont believe official statistics, I am sure that the Christian population of Tamil Nadu is 20% and AP is 20%. This damn YS Rajashekhara Reddy is a bloody EJ appointed by that Italian madam and the Pope."

What does one make of a statment like that. Numerous statements, too numerous to count and remember such as this have been posted on BRF over the last 2-3 years. .......... <snip>

I suppose you do not realize that you continue to prove my point that your interest lies in attacking BRF and much less in your declared motive of improving BR.

consider, by your own admission you have read many posts that do not conform to the declared posting policy of BR.
how many of those posts have you reported to the moderators ? one ? two ? none ??
let's see how things stand. you have time enough to make page long posts advising mods how to run BR and calling them worthless in long-winded posts, all within the short duration of 2-3 days but you didn't have time to report even a *single* post for the last 1 and 1/2 years ? an action that takes 2 seconds at most ?
might I suggest that it is the publicity associated with the stand that you are interested in rather than the actual content of the stand itself ?
the people who are actual well wishers of this forum (as against pretend well wishers) diligently report errant posts and mods are extremely grateful to them because it is impossible for mods to keep an eye on everything.

Has there been any mod censure of something as outrageous as that? If so how many times.

so you admit that at least sometimes action has been taken against such posts. would that be the case if there was some underlying agenda from the mods ? isn't that a contradiction in your logic ?

Arent these the kinds of reasons why people like BRaman made comments that BRF has become a right wing website?

just FWIW, you are (conveniently) ignoring the caveat added by BRaman that takes a lot away from your argument.

Why would somebody like RayC, with all his service to the country call RahulM, a RSS fanboy? Is RayC mad? Or is he an apologist for EJs?

the first explanation is the most charitable one I can think of but I don't think it is true. Ray sir has humiliated himself enough on his own and I do not wish to increase his pain by going on about the actual reasons in public. it is an extremely sad fact that he has summarily abused the privileges accorded to him by other mods as an ex-IA officer for a rather extended period of time but at the end of the day there are limits to whatever bunkum can be tolerated, irrespective of source.

Some of my nearest and dearest ones are christians by faith and I have christian relatives who have received some of the highest military honours of this land for putting their lives on the line in the defence of this nation.
sorry, I do not need certificates of 'tolerance' and 'secularism' from anyone, certainly not from people whose only style of argument consists of empty rhetoric and cheap insults or the ones who fire from others' shoulders seeking to fish in troubled waters.

-----------

I am adding these dregs from my memory now in the event that RahulM is busy trying to dig out my posting record to prove to other moderators,"See this LDev fellow is a fraud. he has posted on religion in 2005 and he claims that he only posts on economics and nuclear matters...."

you do not know which records I was 'digging up' (not that I had to, in fact I never did. others could form their own opinions based on their own observations) but (naturally) you assumed it was about religion !

why are you so defensive about that ?
just FYI, I was not interested in those threads at all and never read them, so I'm not aware of what was posted in them.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Jan 2010 00:16

shiv ji, permit me to do a little piskology of my own, please correct me when I go off-target.

various people, members and non-members have different ideas about BR. depending on those ideas they have expectations that vary from the outright loony(BR mods are CIA agents

) to the outright dismissive (a forum of nutjobs) to the outrageous (BR has failed as a 'think-tank' ! to which GJ replied it's a HAF in the first place !

)
problems come up when there is a mismatch between perceived standards and observed ones and a lot of

ensues.
BRFites anyway don't seem to miss any opportunity for RnD (rona and dhona) so they can't be realistically expected to miss this one as well. as long as the whine thread is there, I suppose we can live with it.

in your post, I think you are making the point that either i) many members don't live up to BR's perceived standards or ii) BR has no such standard in reality in the first place.
the statements are equivalent to some extent IMO, whether it is true or not I can't say, this is a rather subjective topic.

all this however begs a FAR more serious question, namely
should mods at all care if some posters are being stupid (without breaking any rules ?) and if so, what is the solution that puts an end to this

? what did you do personally fr example, when you were a mod ?
TIA.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Jan 2010 01:10

Shiv,

As usual an absolute tour de force of a post from you. You have so eloquently articulated the actual position on the Stat forum as perceived by me.

And yes, the fault is mine for actually wanting a realistic discussion which recognizes that Muslims, Sikhs and Christians are part of the ground reality of India and are also Rakshaks of Bharat although they may not be recognized as Rakshaks of Bharat on Bharat Rakshak

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 06 Jan 2010 01:25

RaviBg wrote:
ldev wrote:In terms of specific examples lets say in terms of my personal position on various threads, I think you do not have to be a genius to realize that my "secular" positions may be at variance with moderators such as Ramana who have a very "indic" viewpoint? But I do not think that his viewpoint affects his moderator functions on most occasions. On the one occasion when it did (and I was not even a participant in that thread, the AP emotive issue I believe), I think Rahul M stepped in and "moderated" Ramana.

I always thought that "indic" viewpoint meant india-centric viewpoint, or something from Indian traditions like an "indian" answer to "indian" problems. I never thought "indic" was not "secular". You are defining "indic" like it is "hinduism viewpoint". Can you please explain?

Indic view point is always India centric. It is necessary for any nationalistic and military discussion site.
Just because some fake such as "secular" is being pushed by vested interest it does not become India centric. Outside India dealing with firangis it is always Indic and nationalistic. Any foreign relations and other national groups from other parts of the world will always be dealth with Indic view point. It cannot be be with anything fake such as "secular"

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 06 Jan 2010 01:50

ldev wrote:Shiv,

As usual an absolute tour de force of a post from you. You have so correctly articulated the actual position on the Stat forum as perceived by me.

And yes, the fault is mine for actually wanting a realistic discussion which recognizes that Muslims, Sikhs and Christians are part of the ground reality of India and are also Rakshaks of Bharat although they may not be recognized as Rakshaks of Bharat on Bharat Rakshak

This is pure and simple maligning of the forum and majority of the posters.

This forum can be said to be not being many things and one can find posts attesting to it. In various threads one can define it to be not IM-rakshak, not Brahmin-rakshak, not SC-raskshak, not Hindu-rakshak, not-DRDO rakshak, not IA-rakshak, not Manmohan-Rakshak, not Advani-Rakshak etc. Heck in Telangana thread, I felt it was not even Bharat-rakshak.

Some folks have difficulty in reining in their extreme opinion, possibly in reaction to extreme actions in the wider world. The only option is to flag such posts, report them to mods, or ignore if not too egregious.

Ashok Sarraff · Post by **Ashok Sarraff** » 06 Jan 2010 02:00

ldev wrote:

And yes, the fault is mine for actually wanting a realistic discussion which recognizes that Muslims, Sikhs and Christians are part of the ground reality of India and are also Rakshaks of Bharat although they may not be recognized as Rakshaks of Bharat on Bharat Rakshak

lDev,

Sorry, but this is a patently unfair comment against the BR community that includes the moderators, poster, and 16-hours-a-day lurkers-but- non-contributing-members such as myself.

Everyone who puts the country above his religion, caste, state, language and other demographic characteristics is a Bharat Rakshak. And a vast majority of Indians do so.

It will be a most idiotic Indian who says that Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians are not a part of the ground reality of India as you allege. I challenge you to name even a single poster here who says so.

Please edit/withdraw your insane comment if you notice any error in your thoughts.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Jan 2010 02:13

Ashok Sarraff wrote: It will be a most idiotic Indian who says that Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians are not a part of the ground reality of India as you allege. I challenge you to name even a single poster here who says so.

Please edit/withdraw your insane comment if you notice any error in your thoughts.

Was YS Rajshekahra Reddy an EJ? Or was he just a Christian who was in politics? And for that matter what is an EJ? Yet he has been called an EJ or surrounded by EJs, out to spread Christianity in AP. Is it bad for AP if he was a Chrsitian? Why? Can you point out one thing that he did as a CM where he was disloyal to India? So why should his religion even become an issue on any forum? What did he do to deserve that label?

And arent you and Viv just following the script book as spelt out by Shiv above? That any opinion contrary to the "accepted wisdom" on the Strat Forum is met with a flurry of hostile posts?

Anyway since this is a feedback thread for mods, this will be my last post to you. Mods may delete it if they wish and regard it as OT.

Ashok Sarraff · Post by **Ashok Sarraff** » 06 Jan 2010 02:31

Was YS Rajshekahra Reddy an EJ? Or was he just a Christian who was in politics? And for that matter what is an EJ? Yet he has been called an EJ or surrounded by EJs, out to spread Christianity in AP. Is it bad for AP if he was a Chrsitian? Why? Can you point out one thing that he did as a CM where he was disloyal to India? So why should his religion even become an issue on any forum? What did he do to deserve that label?

That's a debatable issue. Some may say he was EJ, others may not agree. But did anyone say that he is not a part of the "ground reality of India" as you alleged? Please don't twist what you had very clearly alleged. Furthermore, A. K. Antony is also a Christian, do people here raise a finger against his allegiance to India because of his religious beliefs? Do people here question the loyalty of KPS Gill, a Sikh? I can give dozens of other examples on these lines. Most if not everyone here think of India's interest. People's religion is coincidental. Again, please show me one instance where it was said that Christians/Muslims/Sikhs are not a part of the ground reality of India as you clearly alleged, or withdraw your comment. All citizens are part of ground-reality of India.

That any opinion contrary to the "accepted wisdom" on the Strat Forum is met with a flurry of hostile posts?

Any opinion that exudes faux-secularism that puts one's personal "ideology" over the country’s interests and paints the forum in blatantly negative colors will be and should be met with appropriate response.

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Jan 2010 02:34

Yo Ldev so all this takleef for YSR ? as for an EJ is it an offensive term ? Ah I understand politically correct types and hypocrites might not like it but seriously what is offensive in being called an EJ specially when one is quick to label others as Hindutwavadis just because they do not agree with your pov ?

YSR's secular credentials are there for everyone to see and analyze. as for

Yet he has been called an EJ or surrounded by EJs

Google up for Anil Kumar and his ilk .

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 Jan 2010 04:34

negi"]Yo Ldev so all this takleef for YSR ? as for an EJ is it an offensive term ? Ah I understand politically correct types and hypocrites might not like it but seriously what is offensive in being called an EJ specially when one is quick to label others as Hindutwavadis just because they do not agree with your pov ? YSR's secular credentials are there for everyone to see and analyze. as for yet he has been called an EJ or surrounded by EJs[/ Google up for Anil Kumar and his ilk

My understanding of term Ej is anyone who wish or work toward changing,converting Indian religious oulook so much that spiritual ingredient of Ultimate Sacrifce Inspiration rest with power centres outside India. This is a call for civilizational genocide. LDev sir ji, Sikhs have been part of Indian Spiritual, cultural landscape so much so that their sacrifcies have earned them the honor of being recognized as Defender of Dharma . I dont think it is appropriate to give reminder of one famous poet who said Had not been Guru Gobind Singh , all Indians would have been sunnatized. I find it mischieveous that you throw their good name with ouside antagonistic entities.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 06 Jan 2010 06:00

[quote="Ashok Sarraff].

Again, please show me one instance where it was said that Christians/Muslims/Sikhs are not a part of the ground reality of India as you clearly alleged, or withdraw your comment. All citizens are part of ground-reality of India.

Any opinion that exudes faux-secularism that puts one's personal "ideology" over the country’s interests and paints the forum in blatantly negative colors will be and should be met with appropriate response.

Ashok Saraff would such a quote qualify? Or is this faux-secularism?

The Query

Never understood the lurve for Pakistani singers and couplets.

There is a particular breed of males/females that fall into this category - JNU types, born immediately after partition types, upper middle class or middle class aspiring to be moghuls .. Don't know how to articulate it properly but you can identify these folks pretty easily

The Response:

"Patriot" subramanyam Swamy's daughter, is daughter-in-law of Salman Haidar.

That's probably where the lurve comes from.

Ashok Sarraff · Post by **Ashok Sarraff** » 06 Jan 2010 06:24

Ashok Saraff would such a quote qualify? Or is this faux-secularism?

Arnab,

Is that all you could find? Where does the statement say that the concerned people are not part of the ground reality of India? Remember, that was the original statement. The people mentioned in the post are very much a part of India. And that includes Salman Haider. Did the poster call Salman Haider a traitor or something on those lines because of his religion? If so, please report the statement to the mods, they will take care of the rest.

Moreover, it is Swamy's daughter, a Hindu in all likelihood, who is being criticized. I hope you get the point that people are not labeled "traitors" etc. because of their religion, but because of their actions.

And yes, it is faux-secularism to hobnob and be overly friendly with a country who is "ready to eat grass" and inflict a "1000 year war" on India.

Please try harder next time.

And, time permitting, ask yourself whether you love your country more than anything else, including your religion (if you are an Indian, that is).

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 06 Jan 2010 06:32

Ashok Sarraff wrote:
Ashok Saraff would such a quote qualify? Or is this faux-secularism?
Arnab,

Is that all you could find? Where does the statement say that the concerned people are not part of the ground reality of India? Remember, that was the original statement. The people mentioned in the post are very much a part of India. And that includes Salman Haider. Did the poster call Salman Haider a traitor or something on those lines because of his religion? If so, please report the statement to the mods, they will take care of the rest.

Moreover, it is Swamy's daughter, a Hindu in all likelihood, who is being criticized. I hope you get the point that people are not labeled "traitors" etc. because of their religion, but because of their actions.

And yes, it is faux-secularism to hobnob and be overly friendly with a country who is "ready to eat grass" and inflict a "1000 year war" on India.

Please try harder next time.

And, time permitting, ask yourself whether you love your country more than anything else, including your religion (if you are an Indian, that is).

Right - so the inference that a person loves paki singers because she has a muslim father-in-law does not appear to be anything out of the ordinary for you? [If you really want me to spell it out - what is being said is this: This woman married into an Indian muslim family, hence she must luurve pakis, because indian muslims = pakis].

p.s I have tried not to use big words in the hope that you might get some of the sub-texts in the forum.

Sorry I missed this:

And yes, it is faux-secularism to hobnob and be overly friendly with a country who is "ready to eat grass" and inflict a "1000 year war" on India.

Never knew secularism was based on a 'country' - unless you meant muslims.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jan 2010 06:56

viv wrote: This forum can be said to be not being many things and one can find posts attesting to it. In various threads one can define it to be not IM-rakshak, not Brahmin-rakshak, not SC-raskshak, not Hindu-rakshak, not-DRDO rakshak, not IA-rakshak, not Manmohan-Rakshak, not Advani-Rakshak etc. Heck in Telangana thread, I felt it was not even Bharat-rakshak.

Absolutely. But the dynamics of the absence of specific rakshaks are important.

If I say "Hindus are basically good people" and I find absolutely no posts opposed to that Idea, it means that my Hindu rakshak post has no opposition

If I say "Muslims are basically good people" and I find a flurry of posts teaching me what Muslims are really like it means that a percentage of people on this forum are opposed to a Muslim rakshak statement

On Bharat Rakshak (Strat forum) there is more opposition to a Muslim rakshak statement than a Hindu rakshak statement. OK let me accept that as reality for this forum. But is "Bharat Rakshak forum" really a microcosm of India?

If BRF IS a microcosm of India it means that on the ground in India, Muslim rakshak actions will not be viewed with sympathy and India is a Hindu nation and Muslims are justified in being fearful for their future.

If BRF is NOT a microcosm of India it is pure hot air to imagine itself to be "Bharat Rakshak"

In other words India either is a Hindu nation in which Muslims need to be fearful as they will have no voice (as alleged by a certain South Asia expert) or it is not. Is there any way of resolving this dilemma of what India looks like from BRF by actually looking at India?

In India, it looks like people are trying to give everyone a voice and allow every grievance to be heard. It also appears like every group of India is deeply involved in day to day life in India. In other words it is BRF that is unrealistic and pretentious if it compares itself with the real India. That then begs the question - "Where's the Bharat in Bharat Rakshak Strat forum?"

It would be a no brainer to state that the strat forum forum represents the opinions of a small percentage of English speaking Hindu Indians with a fair percentage of both resident and non resident Indians with internet access. The "Internet access" and"English" are important. Among Indians - if you live abroad it is likely (more than 70%) that you have both English and Internet. In India there is a less than 10% possibility of having both English and Internet. That should give a picture of how well "Bharat" gets represented on BRF. It would also explain how BRF was categorized as Hindu forum.

The question that stems from this of course is "Who the hell is stopping Indians from coming to BR in droves?" It's not as if they are being driven away. I mean just like nobody is stopping Muslims from coming on here any Indian can come on here. Forum members and admins cannot be blamed for BRFs deficiencies. I believe that is correct. BRF (strat forum) is definitely deficient, but we need not take the blame, as long as we can admit that the forum has many deficiencies in its opinions and representation.

The question to me is, if the Strat forum is deficient, is it possible to make it more representative of a larger section of India?

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Jan 2010 06:58

I guess those comments were made by Chetak so ideally he can substantiate better , but Salman Haidar's exploits with ford foundation and their seminars for Kashmiri separatists from both sides of the borders are known to all , his goof up during extradition of Anees Ibrahim and recalling by then PM ABV is well known .

Never knew secularism was based on a 'country' - unless you meant muslims.

Who was this intelligent soul who cross posted it here in the first place ?

Ashok Sarraff · Post by **Ashok Sarraff** » 06 Jan 2010 06:59

Arnab,

You need to understand that pointing out that an Indian Muslim might share some cultural characteristics and preferences with Muslims in other countries is not the same as saying that all Indian Muslims are "traitors". The similarities may be miniscule and the affection may arise due to divided families etc. The same applies to geographical contiguous areas of Pakjab and Punjab. That is indicated by IK Gujral and Kuldip Nayar's love for Pakistan. And these two highly criticized (on BR) folks are Hindus.

In the Indian context, secularism does mean (most of the times) loving Pakistan even if that country keeps troubling us.

Again, all Muslims and Christians are part of the ground-reality of India, and most of them do love their country. And surely, there are many Hindu's who are traitors. My understanding is that this forum stands for “Bharat Rakshaks” irrespective of their religious affiliations.

But I do concede that mentioning Salman Haider’s name should have been avoided, even if he is not called a “traitor” because of his religion, for it gives fodder to the “seculars” even if the intention was probably to highlight cultural affinity rather than questioning patriotism.

I have to get back to my tenure now. Thanks for reading.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 06 Jan 2010 07:11

ldev wrote:OK, lets say that poster x says, "I dont believe official statistics, I am sure that the Christian population of Tamil Nadu is 20% and AP is 20%. This damn YS Rajashekhara Reddy is a bloody EJ appointed by that Italian madam and the Pope."
What does one make of a statment like that.

How is this a case of bias shown by moderators ? It is not a moderator's job to ensure the factual accuracy of what is posted. If that statement were made in a thread where we permitted leeway w.r.t. political discussions, then you are absolutely within your rights to request a post edit to remove cusswords, in which case it will subsequently read "YS Rajasekhara Reddy is an EJ appointed by that Italian madam and the Pope". We'd do the same if the example originally read "This d*mn Jaswant Singh is an bl**dy omelet slurping mithaiwalah who loves Jinnah". In any other thread, it will typically be deleted, not because it is arguably inaccurate, but because we don't want to accomodate politics.

You were explicitly asked for proof about moderator bias because it isn't an accusation we took lightly. Your YSR example above isn't a case of moderation bias - we've already made it clear we prefer not to moderate opinion. If you deliberately choose to construe this as moderation bias, well, that is the PVNR situation, i.e. not doing anything being implied as doing something.

Keeping politics and religion out is a vexing, intractable, moderation issue. It does NOT help if those experienced posters who wish to balance one extreme respond by:
* getting into a fight themselves and getting outnumbered by a more vocal but less experienced group of posters.
* walking away in a huff

The forum has evolved. There are a lot of newer, younger and arguably not nearly as well informed members, as compared to ~8-10 years ago, when there was a relatively larger, dedicated core of experienced members who were also founding/early moderators. The forum went in a particular direction because they were the primary voices, not because they were moderators.

If you want to bring about change, walking away does not help. Making unsubstantiated accusations of bias against moderators does not help. Sitting elsewhere and pontificating about how the forum should be run does not help at all - we've enough to deal with here to care about what someone says about us elsewhere.

ldev wrote:Dont you think that this is bias? Arent these the kinds of reasons why people like BRaman made comments that BRF has become a right wing website? Why would somebody like RayC, with all his service to the country call RahulM, a RSS fanboy? Is RayC mad? Or is he an apologist for EJs?

I cannot speak for B Raman. However, I'll say this about the RayC vs RahulM episode: if RayC were speaking about army matters, I'd agree with without question due to his domain expertise. However that doesn't extend to agreeing him on everything. Further, you are privy to no more than a small piece of a long inter-moderator debate that overflowed from our own private discussion medium. You, therefore, are making a statement based on an accusation and insufficient context, while I am constrained not to disclose a private discussion.

ldev wrote:And yes, the fault is mine for actually wanting a realistic discussion which recognizes that Muslims, Sikhs and Christians are part of the ground reality of India and are also Rakshaks of Bharat although they may not be recognized as Rakshaks of Bharat on Bharat Rakshak.

For every Muslim or Christian allegedly at the receiving end of the stylized BR lynchmob, there are dozens whom no one says a bad word about. Not A.K. Antony, Irfan Pathan, or {insert name}. Absolutely, this forum isn't perfect, but how exactly are you providing feedback or providing a positive contribution with a sweeping generalization like that ? It's a lot easier to trash this forum. It takes little effort. Anyone can do it - as you've shown, even you can. But in the interest of this thread topic, here's something I hope you'll consider a careful, detailed, unemotional response to - "you moderators are a biased cabal and this is an an anarchist hindutvawadi forum!!" doesn't help - what do you suggest we do ?

ldev wrote:Insinuations, incorrect characterizations, defensive and agressive phrases. And you are a moderator? You first have to have the ability to command respect from members. Learn from people like Shiv, JE Menon, Suraj, Calvin, SSridhar that come to mind immediately.

This particular issue was discussed by the moderators, including active ones among those listed above. Criticism about a specific action by a particular moderator is not a problem whatsoever, and there have been several posts of the kind on this thread (and past avatars).

What we don't entertain, is an attempt to play us against each other. If you had a particular issue with RahulM/someone's moderation, or anyone else's post, please report the post or clearly state what the problem is, and then hold your fire. However, you insisted on trolling, and repeatedly telling someone to 'go learn from XYZ'. Whether you directed it as a poster or moderator makes little difference. For that particular act, by agreement among moderators, you receive a formal warning.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 06 Jan 2010 07:18

Ashok Sarraff wrote:Arnab,

You need to understand that pointing out that an Indian Muslim might share some cultural characteristics and preferences with Muslims in other countries is not the same as saying that all Indian Muslims are "traitors". The similarities may be miniscule and the affection may arise due to divided families etc. The same applies to geographical contiguous areas of Pakjab and Punjab. That is indicated by IK Gujral and Kuldip Nayar's love for Pakistan. And these two highly criticized (on BR) folks are Hindus.

In the Indian context, secularism does mean (most of the times) loving Pakistan even if that country keeps troubling us.

****
But I do concede that mentioning Salman Haider’s name should have been avoided, even if he is not called a “traitor” because of his religion, for it gives fodder to the “seculars” even if the intention was probably to highlight cultural affinity rather than questioning patriotism.

I have to get back to my tenure now. Thanks for reading.

I'm not sure why you feel indian muslims will have cultural affinity with paki muslims (surely Bangladeshi muslims discovered the contrary in 1970-71 against their TFTA pakjabi brothers). Second, even if for arguments sake we accept that the 'intention' was to point out the cultural affinity between Foreign Secretary Salman Haider and the Pakis, do notice that the person being criticised was his daughter-in-law. So the inference was that her love for pakis is a symptom of her love for Indian muslims. Yes it has not been explicitly said that all indian muslims are traitors - possibly because the mods would delete it - hence such snide comments are made. I know what BRF's stated objectives are - but often for some posters the ..er.. burkha slips

It possibly does not matter if you are a hindu but I sense that posters / lurkers from the minority might hesitate from posting if such comments are overlooked.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jan 2010 07:45

arnab wrote: but I sense that posters / lurkers from the minority might hesitate from posting if such comments are overlooked.

arnab - no member of any minority group in India with some grouse against the majority can ever be heard on BRF. Is this "unification"? Is this "representative of a powerful and resurgent India?". The answer is a firm "NO"

On the other hand we have the Indian armed forces and other Indian institutions that attract members from every Indian group, be they majority, minority, sorority or curiosity. For this reason a firm firewall has to be maintained between the military forum and the strat forum

The biased opinions of the strat forum are essentially a parasite on the military website and its offshoot the military forum. Moderators are essentially faced with a fait accompli when it comes to participation of people on the strat forum. As long as opinions are Hindu sympathetic, the forum is nationalistic. If opinions that favor Muslims or Christians appear, the forum then becomes "anti-national and pseudosecular" and the moderators who allow these "pro Muslim and pro Christian" statements become traitorous minions of people who are selling India down the drain.

This is nothing less than embarrassing to the people who put in years of life to maintaining a comprehensive defence website. Is it surprising that strat forum opinions do not appear on the BR main page? But no person who posts on the strat forum wants to admit that the popularity of the forum is not because the members are great seers, but because the website and the military forum became great and the strat forum (with its obvious bias) sits parasitically on that popularity.

Hide the strat forum from public view for a couple of months and then see what happens. I suggest that the mil forum (properly moderated and remaining public) and the website will only show an increased interest and increased vigor as people join to help update the site without the millstone of the pompous and biased strat forum hanging on bharat rakshak.

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Jan 2010 07:52

How about doing away with the evil and pompous HAF all together ? Afaik the one's who are really active in MIL fora hardly care for the HAF and its contents.

munna · Post by **munna** » 06 Jan 2010 08:01

The evil HAF can be hived into a sister site so that all the mil-tech pundits can congregate without the pesky reality of India intervening in. Maybe we can donate the strategy forum to IF??? Since strategy seems to be a worthless thing for India and its future.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jan 2010 08:02

negi wrote:How about doing away with the evil and pompous HAF all together ? Afaik the one's who are really active in MIL fora hardly care for the HAF and its contents.

I believe that this is a good idea. BR can then focus on its core strengths and all the biased people on the strat forum have an opporunity to join the newer (than BRF) Internet of Facebook, Twitter and Blogs and start fora unfettered by the evil mods, biased minority unfriendly people and traitorous pseudoseculars.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jan 2010 08:04

munna wrote:The evil HAF can be hived into a sister site so that all the mil-tech pundits can congregate without the pesky reality of India intervening in. Maybe we can donate the strategy forum to IF??? Since strategy seems to be a worthless thing for India and its future.

er "Strategy for BR" is not the same as "Strategy for India".

munna · Post by **munna** » 06 Jan 2010 08:18

shiv wrote:er "Strategy for BR" is not the same as "Strategy for India".

But that way subjectivity creeps into any and every interpretation and opinion piece pertaining to defense matters mil-tech or otherwise. My caveat is that by nature debate on politics and strategy has easy to grasp or rote basic terms therefore the barrier to entry for such debates is lower than what it is for mil tech forum. Hence you have a higher noise to signal ratio in strategy thread cause everyone and his aunt tends to get in bandying terms like EJs, Indic, Pseudo Sec and deobandi without ever bothering to delve deeper. There is lot of productive debate going on but it gets lost in midst of the internet warriors failing to grasp the depth of the issues involved. There are certain uncomfortable truths which are better left unsaid and can be only gained by experience of various political actors in India. The solution is to have stringent criteria regarding referencing of posts in order to discourage posters from behaving like rampaging mobs in "Animal Farm" whereby the slogan was "Two legs bad, four legs good". We need to correct the errants and dispel the myths while admitting grievances.

Brushing uncomfortable people and facts aside is no solution for both parties on the forums, we need to meet them head on and sift the reality from chuff.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Jan 2010 08:56

For that particular act, by agreement among moderators, you receive a formal warning.

No problems. For raising this issue in the Strategic Forum to the forefront I consider the price of this warning to me well worth it.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jan 2010 09:15

IMHO we should not discard any topic of discussion that can point or refer to a security risk or strategic risk, by way of healthy discussions.

Depending on the quality of discussions, and posts I am sure there are enough BOTs and experts who may feed such information into GoI indirectly.

Sometimes repeated discussions in some form of public domain can indirectly help drive policies.

JMT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jan 2010 10:02

munna wrote:The solution is to have stringent criteria regarding referencing of posts in order to discourage posters from behaving like rampaging mobs in "Animal Farm" whereby the slogan was "Two legs bad, four legs good". We need to correct the errants and dispel the myths while admitting grievances.

This is spot on.

But I believe this requires very high moderator workload and zero moderator bias. I believe that the standard of zero moderator bias had been degraded to a very clear moderator bias that culminated in the acrimonious nuclear fizzle debate and its fallout.

Almsot simultaneously BRF itself has been through a bit of an upheaval when there were a series of new people appointed as mods who met the twin requirements of
1) Showing dedication to BR, and
2) Accepting the onerous responsibility

But when we speak of "stringent criteria" it strikes me that the modalities of assessing stringent criteria depend on the medium used.

For example a peer reviewed journal has a particular mechanism for assessing the criteria, but suffers from a huge time lag between submission of opinion and publication. But it demands greater care in submitting a viewpoint.

Another method of sharing and airing views is the "public meeting" or "parliament" method. The parliament method has greater immediacy than the forum, but there is also a greater ability in a public meeting to bring accountability. For example a public meeting of Indians in which a man shouts "Hindus are bigots" or "Muslims are traitors" will be asked to say why he said so, failing which his statement will be discarded. On this forum a person can remain anonymous and safe. he can tyoe the statement, upload it and vanish. His statement remains there for all to and accountability for that statement is zero. Unlike a public meeting where discarded statement is expunged and not recorded for posterity, on this forum everything is recorded to be picked up and used selectively. So a forum differs from a physical meeting in having almost the same immediacy, but none of the accountability.

For a forum to be serious there has to be accountability. In all fora (eg serious meetings and public debates and in journals) the identity, background and location of the speakers is known. On this forum this is largely unknown, but yet we wish to have the same impact as a forum in which there is accountability. TUnless thi is addressed we will get no further.

munna · Post by **munna** » 06 Jan 2010 10:40

shiv wrote:But when we speak of "stringent criteria" it strikes me that the modalities of assessing stringent criteria depend on the medium used.

For example a peer reviewed journal has a particular mechanism for assessing the criteria, but suffers from a huge time lag between submission of opinion and publication. But it demands greater care in submitting a viewpoint.

Another method of sharing and airing views is the "public meeting" or "parliament" method. The parliament method has greater immediacy than the forum, but there is also a greater ability in a public meeting to bring accountability.

The idea of stringent criteria I believe involves self control mechanisms whereby posters (peers) should be encouraged to question each other in a constructive format. Even though I found Ray C's style a bit brusque for my taste (being the haw haw variety person I am) it was an excellent exercise in rhetoric and fortification of arguments. The key here is that in order to develop stringent filters just as we have in the mil tech we need to have strategy specialist cadre of posters who actively engage posters and debunk myths. Especially I find that a lot of posters are very scratchy when it comes to constitutional aspects of things and tend to assume positions based upon their beliefs rather than the book. This holds true for both extreme secularists and the right wing posters. Its not so much so that we have got our forum composition wrong its just that an activist strategy proletariat is missing unlike the mil-tech and the economic discussion forums. Just to bust a small myth for other rakshaks Reality and more More Reality

Shivji reality is far more complicated than finger happy posters believe it to be but it hurts when people do not really realize the sacrifices of a lady to adopt a foreign land, have half her family killed by terrorists, live under threat for rest of her family , withstand tasteless mocking from opposition and yet stand her post. Grant her at least the basic courtesy of political engagement and humanity. The same holds true for the uber sekoolarwadis denying Vajpayee his due in steering the nation in times of great turmoil and political instability.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 06 Jan 2010 11:04

ldev wrote:No problems. For raising this issue in the Strategic Forum to the forefront I consider the price of this warning to me well worth it.

ldev, you were warned for trolling on this thread, which is rather ironic considering your complaint was about trolling and thread degeneration occuring in the strat forum.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Jan 2010 11:16

An interesting observation!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Jan 2010 11:22

shiv wrote: For a forum to be serious there has to be accountability. In all fora (eg serious meetings and public debates and in journals) the identity, background and location of the speakers is known. On this forum this is largely unknown, but yet we wish to have the same impact as a forum in which there is accountability. TUnless thi is addressed we will get no further.

This is a good point, yet it is a also something which will practically destroy BRF in its current form.

BRF was a internet forum with all the flaws that a internet forum poses, but at the same time all the freedom a intenet forum gives.

What you are asking for is a IDSA type town hall meet.

Sure go get it, but then BRF in the current from will die. I guarantee it (and no spare me the piskology of -- "oh you say the forum will die but you mean you will not post here")

Is the idea to involve more people or to involve only fewer?

Is the idea to actually hear what the real people associated with India are saying or to create yet another politically correct chai-biskoot platform.

Too many people appear to want BRF to be a vehicle for a particular thought -- their thought -- rather than a open expression of real feelings of Indians (a opportunity given by the much hated anonymity)

Heck some people would want BRF to be as per the "The Hindu" standards now.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Jan 2010 11:23

Suraj wrote:
ldev wrote:No problems. For raising this issue in the Strategic Forum to the forefront I consider the price of this warning to me well worth it.
ldev, you were warned for trolling on this thread, which is rather ironic considering your complaint was about trolling and thread degeneration occuring in the strat forum.

Yes, isn't it ironic!!. I am glad that a prolific poster such as Shiv has acknowleged it as a problem and even now options are being considered as to how to deal with it. This is in stark contrast earlier when some mods refused to accept that a problem existed and became aggressive with me...I in turn retaliated which resulted in the warning. Maybe Shiv's frank acknowledgement of the issue gave some mods no other option but to acknowlege the problem.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Jan 2010 11:26

shiv wrote:
For a forum to be serious there has to be accountability. In all fora (eg serious meetings and public debates and in journals) the identity, background and location of the speakers is known. On this forum this is largely unknown, but yet we wish to have the same impact as a forum in which there is accountability. TUnless thi is addressed we will get no further.

Read Shiv's post with greater objectivity!

They are what the English metaphor says - Casting pearls before swine!

Just a metaphor and I did not invent the language!

At the same time, I will not say I am ungrateful person. Jagan banned me for a day. He is a good man and has a difficult task; worse than that of a juggler! I feel sorry for him. Caught between the Devil and the Deep Sea.
even if I am banned, please listen to him. He is the sane face of this turmoil!

Hopefully I will survive!

If not - Goodbye Cruel world. Now, who said that?

Lastly to all. I dont wear the rank on my shoulders.
Do not use my rank or background, I am on this form as a person and not who I was. What I was history. What I am today matters. Using my background as a blackmail is not fair!

munna · Post by **munna** » 06 Jan 2010 11:30

ldev wrote:Maybe Shiv's frank acknowledgement of the issue gave some mods no other option but to acknowlege the problem.

LDev a humble suggestion is that this is not a moderator's problem but just a little bit of laziness on part of the more mature posters in HAF. Any alive and vibrant discussion forum will have its share of cacophony which should be encouraged. Involving mods means thought policing please keep them out of it, this criticism is capable of being resolved at a common poster's level.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Jan 2010 11:42

RayC,

Rest easy. Your legacy is secure.

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Jan 2010 11:54

Brigadier Ray , you have a mail (yahoo id ).

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Jan 2010 12:00

Suraj,

Thanks for your PM on Ldev. I cant reply that PM privately since that privilege is denied. And won't since it is privileged info.

I have sent a copious e mail to someone on what's up.

I appreciate that you are doing a mug's game and it is hugely difficult to control, as I faced. However, a wee bit even headed stuff will do! You have been more even handed than the other Joe.

I am totally loyal to BRF. I fervently wish it is back to those 'good old days'. Too much of everything like Hinduvta is a bit embarrassing! I was born into a family which as per BRF standards would be classified as the Defenders of the Faith. However, having worked in an all India and all Faith mix I find we are all nice folks till provoked. India is my faith and nothing else.

I am sure you are equally good as any Indians and if I should have hurt you, forgive me as an elderly person as per the Hinduvta norms!

Much that many may lampoon me for my army service and expect me to be a Hinduvta votary, I assure you that the Army and my parents taught me what is India.

Forgive me for standing by the Constitution and what I have been taught!

It gives me hope that what N3 and I have done has got people thinking. If that is what has been done, then N3 and I should feel good that the Cultural Revolution has come to an end and a new horizon beckons the BRF.

Worth the sacrifice.

It was long overdue!

Lastly, while Ldev may wrong. Did you show such alacrity towards the Hiduvta folks? I have sent copious extracts to your Head.

My fervent request is bring this forum back to the even handed forum it was where one exchanged knowledge and not insecurity!

I feel good that all this turmoil has calmed and brought some sense to what I call the Hinduvta Brigade, even though I am a descendant of what the BRF considers as the 'Defenders of the Faith'!

Read Shiv's posts.

He is very even headed. He speaks of the anguish, not of the minorities alone, but how the forum has degraded to be the spokesman of a certain lot!

N3 is a gentleman and he has not enjoined. I am a soldier and I don't go down without being killed! Thje Honour of my country, its Constitution comes first always and every time!