PDA

View Full Version : Something I need an answer for...



sweetie
05-07-2004, 12:17 PM
Hi People

This happened today... during lunch time.. Was in an Indian restaurant.. and the guy who runs tat is a freaking fundamentalist.... hindu, hinduism n gods.... muslims, islam and devils... tats how he pairs them.. n BJP is for the first part.. n congress for the second part... arguement started with who will win the elections... lets forget about that.. but suddenly outta nowhere, he pounced on me with this Q...

"Do you know how many temples the muslims destroyed to build mosques ? Being a hindu you should not talk likt this..." (at this moment I reminded him I am an atheist, n I dun call myself as a hindu but an Indian and a Human being).. And then he continued with his attack...

Just before that I told him, if u want to take revenge for the temples being destroyed and go about bringing down mosques, with a govt that patronises the act, then all you get is dead bodies... not just destroyed monuments...

He said, "I dont care. If I can kill a 100 muslims, I do not mind dying afterwards. If I can destroy all the mosues in India, I do not mind dying after that"...........

Any comments people ???

PS., This is not exactly a patti mandram.... but being something to discuss about, I though this post fits in here in this section... neone who feels, it aint fit in, please move it to the appropriate section.

Cheers...

yogesh220
05-07-2004, 01:53 PM
holy piece of shit his mind is...

unique
05-07-2004, 02:31 PM
Well i don t support the act of mulims nor am against them....they r also fellow human beings.....If we have to take revenge for wat they have done then REVENGE will be the only word in this WORLD.......Let us assume that they did nt know the values of our temples so they destroyed but we r not like that we respect everyone......again am not against muslims nor leaning towards them.....i just want the world to be a peaceful place to live

dinesh
05-07-2004, 02:47 PM
well....nothing much discuss is there......
more shocking thing is the so-called moderate population also does not condemn these acts...

anainar
05-07-2004, 03:13 PM
Sweetie,

Welcome back. You are back with a bang I would say, opening a pandora's box. I doubt how many would come to this kind of discussion though.

I presume it all comes because Religion and politics are so entwined in India. From the founding fathers of our constitution till the present day politicians, religion was considered and integral part of governance. It is a fault which started in 1930s and propogated for more than 70 years. From the Mupplah killings in Kerala to Partition, religion wreaked havoc and the father of the Nation and leaders did not do enough to see through the game. We should have had unifocm civil code in 1950 itself when the constitution was written. We should have abolished Govt governing religious bodies. Citizens should have been looked upon equally in the eyes of law. That fissure has exaggerated now into a big gap causing all the arguments you are seeing. Even now the Govt subsidises the Haj Pilgrimage. I dont understand what is the relevance for that.

I for one dont believe in revenge. I am not a very religeous person too. I used to drop my wife in the temple, but wait in the car for her to finish her rituals. But I dont hide my feelings when I see personally temples desecreted or destroyed. I happened to see the beautiful Somnathpur temple with intricate architecture. But every single deity in that temple was defaced or destroyed. Not even the tiniest one. It is a real barbaric act. I do hold those guys in contempt. Have no respect for Akbar or Babar or Gazini. I would expect the present day Muslims to appreciate what I feel and repend what their ancestors did in the name of religion. But I dont support the destruction of Mosques either.

The cause of the problem is the in equality even in the eyes of law. The effect is the mass movement to destroy mosques. If we resolve the cause, effect will disappear. But the current stream of politicians are more inclined to play up the effect so that country stands divided. It suits everybody. I support BJP because that is the only party that talks about uniform civil code, abrogation of special status to Kashmiri muslims, streamlining of minority run institutions and lot of other "Equality" measures. In the name of asserting identity of religion, concessions cannot be extracted from the Govt. The more such games are played for vested interests, bigger will be the fissures and effects.

So, come on people, add your 2 cents( or 2 rupees ) too..

Cheers

dinesh
05-07-2004, 03:28 PM
Well......I don't think you can blame the muslims for getting concessions from the government. They are the minority, so without the auspices of the majority leaders all these concessions wouldn't have taken place. maybe everyone should have a chat with their MP about this and ask them to do something.......

Anyway, read two interesting articles from Thinnai, here are the links, the first one being sort of an explanation of Hindutva, and the second one rather a hot reply against it.... enjoy :)

http://www.thinnai.com/pl0415045.html - The article
http://www.thinnai.com/le0429041.html - The reply - the 2nd message in the page

anainar
05-07-2004, 04:03 PM
Dinesh,

Talk with our MPs? Our august body Supreme Court of India passed a judgement giving alimony to a muslim divorcee in 1986. As per Muslim Personal Law, the husband does not have to give alimony. But SC said that is untenable as the lady has to survive and passed judgement. And our Congress Govt at that time which had 2/3rd majority in Parliament passed a legislation over ruling SC judgement. It was supported by every one in Congress except a few handful of leaders. The same govt also opened gates of Babri Masjid for prayer by Hindus. It is those acts which sparked the BJP coming to forefront.

It is those actions galvanised the people that minorities are appeased. There is some truth in those arguments. Division of Church/Temple/Mosque and Governance is mandatory in a democracy. I for one would support any one who promises that to the people.

Cheers

RaasuKutty
05-07-2004, 06:19 PM
more shocking thing is the so-called moderate population also does not condemn these acts...

Dinesh, I feel that the word "moderates" has absolutely no meaning in these kind of topics... Either u support or dont support.. Who are moderates in this????

WITHOUT vested interests, lot of ppl have been brought up with a dont-care approach towards atrocities against minorities.. These ppl dont involve in any stupid acts and will oppose any horrendous acts in words but will always have a soft corner towards their native sect.... upto me most % of our population falls in this.....

When we are brought up, we are taught by our society around us to hate the sect they hated... They only teach us ONLY the wrong side... How many ppl can list times of good cooperation between minorities as compared to How many would be able to list the atrocites against each other sects... This is the point..

We shud try to forget some bad experiences and try to highlight some ones.. Atleast our future generations will not have this problem..

I am with a very firm opinion that this generation CANNOT do anything about it.. We will always try to co-relate previous incidents and will come to a junk conclusion.. Ex) When the police was trying to inquire about post-godhra events, ppl demanded them to inquire abt the godhra events first... ppl still dont see both the events as crime... they see this crimes with a tag...

We still havent totally come out of the caste/creed mindest.. we will only try to justify things which we shud not even care about....

anainar
05-07-2004, 06:51 PM
RK,

I strongly disagree. I never support violence in anyform for any purpose. Following a religion or having bias for a religion is my personal freedom. I dont care whether some one else has bias to some religion.

But I care if I am treated differently because I follow a religion. I care when minority insitutions want money from Govt( which agains from me by means of tax ) in terms of grants, but defy the norms set the govt for running an institution. I care when my neighbour is treated differently by law, just because he follows a different religion. I care when my neighbour gets subsidy for going on pilgrimage, while my father does not get it because we follow a different religion.

To me this concept of identity of minorities are all ok. But they should not establish different identity with the govt. We are all the same, irrespective of the religion, faith. The different laws for minorities are a blatant violation of Equality which is a fundamental right enshrined in our constitution. If I say that am I considered a Fundamentalist? I never harmed a soul so far. But I feel let down by these differential treatment meted out to different religion. That is not acceptable to me.

Caste/Creed is on the verge of extinction. It will go away gradually with education and employment. But to marry some one from my caste is my personal freedom. It cannot be considered as Caste/Creed. That way it might take longer. But the concept of employment based on caste/creed will go much faster.

Cheers

vasan
05-07-2004, 07:14 PM
Anainar,

Aren't we talking two closely related, yet completely different topics?

I couldn't agree with you more on a uniform civil code. But its a constitutional change that needs to be addressed. Its not the fault of minorities or majorities. It was an old concept based on whatever reasons, that ran out of time long back. That in now way can make us get angry about the minorities. Because we are getting upset about a people when we should be upset about a thing. A thoughtful implementation of new set of civic laws that guarentee rights and freedom to every one of Indian citizens is important and essential. I really couldn't see how you could, therefore, say that the cause is rooted in the way the goverment treats people differently.

Violence thats rooted in the mindset of people (like the gentleman Sweetie described) cannot be condoned for whatever reasons. Exactly in the same manner, the violence against hindus can never be condoned. Unfortunately people see the crimes as not crimes but, like RK rightly pointed out, crimes with a tag. Sadly, the government (and the cops, and the whole govermental machinery) does not recognize it as such either. At least there is no evidence of such things.

Vasan

ps: Truth is the Government also treats each caste differently. Every school admission, every job application, every other thing in India is split according to the caste lines. Why then don't we find violence to that extreme? I think the violence on 'religious' grounds is much more substantial.

ps: ps: I beg to differ from the statement that caste/creed will go away eventually. People can exercise their freedom to marry whomever they want. But the essence of caste is in the mind set saying 'I am superior because I belong this particular sect'. And what is worse, 'he is far too inferior, since he is born in that sect'. Racial pride is one thing, and racial 'superiority' is some thing entirely different. That needs to go away. Unfortunately I don't see it happening :(

anainar
05-07-2004, 08:12 PM
Vasan,

Outwardly they might look different. But they are not. How did BJP come to the forefront? It was non existant in 1986. It was able to capitalise on all the pent up anger because of this differential treatment to surge forward. Ayodhya ignited all those hurt feelings. Had it been not there, Ayodhya would not have happened. If the Govt and Constitution when drawn in 1950 thought of treating every one equally, this thing would not have happened. Even as late as 1986 when Rajiv Gandhi had 2/3rd majority to bulldoze any resolution it was not even thought about. It is a systematic failure of all the political parties which made this happen.

Religious fundamentalism is like a vampire. As long is it is contained it is safe. It does exist in different forms. Almost every religion does have its own share of fundamentalists. Some of them subdued and some vehement. A normal citizen will not translate that into action of hatred if there is no prima facie ground. It does not happen that much explicitly in the West because there is no differentiation based on religion. But in our country it exists in every form of life That is the cause for hatred. If that cause goes away, so will be the hatred.

As far as Govt being indifferent, I would say Govt attends atrocities against minorities with a microscope, but ignores atrocities against majority. Not one soul talked about ethnic cleansing of Pandits in Kashmir. Not one soul condemned the killings of Hindus in Marad, Kerala. Not even one person was prosecuted. I was in the middle of the storm in Mandaikaadu clash in 1970s. No one bothered about atrocities committed against Hindu women. Not one soul came to the front when Godhra train was burnt. About superiority, that is a human trait. Whites feel superior to others. When one terrorist was shot dead in Delhi, the NHRC was fast enough to reprimand the Delhi Police. But they had their mouth shut when everyday hindus were killed in Kashmir valley or in Marad. The scales were different for sure. I will be the last person to condone violence. But having gone through such a rough phase, atleast we should see what the problem is find a solution rather than gloating over morality. No one is a moral high ground when it comes in violence.

Feeling superior for what ever reason is an individual character. Expecting it to go away is like taking away an integral part of human being. It will not happen. Some people always felt they are superior time immemorial. And that is a personal freedom I would say. But to abuse others is not. It is my freedom to follow caste/creed if I want to. But I would not want the law to treat me differently because of my caste. As much as I am against caste/creed, I would also defend it as personal freedom. I dont see caste/creed going away in personal front. But I believe at this point of time caste/creed is not part of the Govt agenda in terms of discrimination. It is present in a positive way, which should also go away soon. But it wont. The pandora's box was opened again in 1989 in the form of Mandal commission, permanently etching caste/creed in every aspect of governance.

Cheers

dinesh
05-07-2004, 08:42 PM
Dinesh, I feel that the word "moderates" has absolutely no meaning in these kind of topics... Either u support or dont support.. Who are moderates in this????

WITHOUT vested interests, lot of ppl have been brought up with a dont-care approach towards atrocities against minorities.. These ppl dont involve in any stupid acts and will oppose any horrendous acts in words but will always have a soft corner towards their native sect.... upto me most % of our population falls in this.....

The answer to your Q. in the first para is in the first para. That was whom I meant. I don't know whether the erm so-called moderates is correctly describing them or not.

Your point about people were brought up that way is unacceptable. Many Indian youth are in the US these days working, and haven't they accepted an entirely different culture, and managed to integrate with it? How can you say they can't do that with their own people back home? I don't think there is a will to do that. People who are in the majority don't think they should voice out against it. Indeed I've seen many people who are quietly confident what happened was the right thing. Don't forget these are not the uneducated village community I'm talking about, I'm talking about the dollar generation, the java generation, the new India, where the traditional beliefs have been conquered by new age education and thought.

Anainar,
I fail to follow your point how supporting some communities causes communal violence. I don't think giving them a few concessions gves others the rights to kill and rape them, whatever the opinion of the majority be.

anainar
05-07-2004, 09:51 PM
Dinesh,

Concessions? Why should the govt give concessions on the basis of religion? The govt runs all the Hindu temples and takes away all the money that is collected. What is Govt's business in running temple management? If they have applied this to all places of worship it is a different story. But places of worship of minorites are not considered. In fact they dont even have to have their accounts audited. Is this concession?

Even between siblings, differential treatment by mom creates bad vibes. How will that be when done by Govt agencies? Govt should not differentiate by religion for anything. That is a clear seperation.

This does not give the majority a right to rape or kill. No one has the right to rape or kill. As much as we take action against those atrocities, the causes should also be rectified. The whole process should not be looked through the prism of Minorities ignoring the rights of majorities. Unfortunately all the current stream of media in India and international media are so one sided that they slectively wear their blinkers.

Cheers

vasan
05-07-2004, 10:21 PM
Its not quite true. Not all the temple money is taken by the Govt - Tirumala has its own comittee.. Saibaba has his own set of managements. Even now there are so many 'aatheenam' that are not controlled or managed by the Govt. Also the money taken is not used for any purpose other than for maintaining the temple or things like that. What ever the original purposes of the system, one of the probable reason was that the Hindu Temples did not have systematic methods to handle finances. Not justifying the Govt control now, but explaining why in the context of past.

And I don't really understand how we could call this as a 'concession' to minorities. Like I said, it is not limited to other religions. Some sections of hindus also enjoy exactly the same benefits. And if required, the system could be altered to break the 'Hindu temple board' (I forget the exact dept name in TN) instituted by the Govt, meaning the Govt control can be removed.

All said and done, most law makers are hindus, and for a reason like this why, instead of focussing on changing this particular law, do we get angry or think others get benefitted? People donate money and such to every place they want for what ever their reasons. I believe Govt should NOT poke its nose into this - unless the money is spent on directly 'anti-national' activities. Check, audit, keep an eye - but keep the hands and control out of it. Be it the money from a hindu temple, or a muslim mosque, or a christian church or a Jain temple.

Like I said, I still fail to see why, instead of arguing to change the law governing the wealth of temples, this disparity should be used to 'hate' minorities. This is NOT a concession for the minorities. Concession, to quote an example, would be take the money from the temple and use it to paint the mosque. Or the reverse. If money is collected and used for its intended purpose, let it be so. And if we don't like Govt managing the funds from Hindu Temples, lets force the government to change the policy. I have not seen this issue raised at all in the debate.

Welfare of a particular group IS not by hating the other group - which ever group we may belong to.

Vasan

Bluelotus
05-07-2004, 11:20 PM
So many interesting things have been said ....

I wonder whether the solution to all this lies in complete seperation of state from any and all religious groups.
Secularity...as practised by the French Govt....although they takle everything in the most tactless manner :think:

One thing which has always bothered me ...is why is there a seperate law for Hindus, Moslems, Christians, etc..... are they not all nationals of the same country? and hence should they not follow all the same law? why should the law differentiate between ppl's belief systems or caste or creed or whatever?
Take marriage for example...ppl of all religion marry...why In India do u have so many different marriage acts?

The law which should maintain Justice should never under any circumstances have any bias....don't u think? :think:


I think that all bias in national constitutions should be abolished. After all we are all born equal and are equal according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We should thus be treated in exactly the same manner by the law and the sate.

It seems to me ........although a very drastic action...that the State of India should be seperated from the clergies of India. Political parties supporting any particular religious groups should be disbanded.
Another thing ...religion, caste, or other such sensitive information should not in any circumstances be present in Identification documents.

for various reasons Govts have practised positive and negative discriminations....see US African-Amaricans have been positively discriminated to increase their uptake in high education....Malaysia, Chinese-Malaysians negatively discriminated cos too great a percentage in higher education...
Everytime...It will back fire on them...that's my opinion anyway...

Perhaps if the constitution is changed to reflect secularism, and political parties too....then ppl will change..and understand that violence in any form should be condemmed and not condoned because it is linked to a certain religion. :think:

and with the advent of absolute secularism....there would be no minority or majority groups based on religion would there? (Not saying that the concept will disappear altogether though)

Blue.

dinesh
05-07-2004, 11:50 PM
why In India do u have so many different marriage acts?

You can find this in other countries too. In SL, muslims have a different marriage law, if I remember correctly. Also, in the north of the country the tamils have a seperate law for land/property related stuff. Dunno why it's still in practice though...

vasan
05-08-2004, 12:14 AM
why In India do u have so many different marriage acts?

You can find this in other countries too. In SL, muslims have a different marriage law, if I remember correctly. Also, in the north of the country the tamils have a seperate law for land/property related stuff. Dunno why it's still in practice though...

One possible explanation for different marriage laws. Marriage laws are NOT exactly criminal law. You don't violate the constitution of any country. Isn't that why some countries are saying ok to 'gay weddings' while some others are totally opposed to it? It boils down to what your society considers as marriage. Muslim societies consider a man marrying three women as OK. How can a country impose another law on them based on some other society's 'moral value'? If its rooted on any other fundamental core value of your constitution its one thing - but when everything is based on the relative moral values of some system or the other, right of a society gets terribly entangled with what is or what is not permitted.

One man one woman is NOT a constitutional belief. Its more a moral belief and probably has roots in religion. In other words, if you impose one man one woman 'law' for muslims, you are imposing a law that is born out of some other conviction than what is a moral conviction for muslims.

Other laws that govern the society - say a muslim or a christian or a hindu - paying or not paying taxes or killing another person (to quote some extreme cases) are NOT born out of religious beliefs but are constitutional guarentees. Such cases its easy to arrive at a common law.

Separation of religion from State is not a straight forward thing. While the machinery is separate, the people who live under the state practicing whatever religion they choose, are still single entities. Guarenteeing their religious freedom while upholding the law of the land requires much careful thought and very patient and persistent action.

Vasan

anainar
05-08-2004, 12:43 AM
Vasan,

Check, audit, keep an eye - but keep the hands and control out of it. Be it the money from a hindu temple, or a muslim mosque, or a christian church or a Jain temple.
That is where the problem is. Even all the TTDC, all hindu temples are accountable to govt by auditing, expenses etc. But not Waqf board or CSI.Also all the money taken from donations are not used for temples. Almost all the big hindu temples had property donated which were usurped by Govt because they decide who uses those properties. The annual turnover in temples all over India is supposed to be in the range of Re.10,000 crores. Would any one want to give away such cash cow? The very Dravidian movement which propogates Athiesm manages temples. Can there be a bigger scandal? This is plain discrimination. Not a single legislator thought it is worth crying for till BJP raised the issue.

Lawmakers were Hindus for sure. But they were all over enthusiastic to prove that they are more secular than any one else. That is the reason Jinnah was encouraged by Congress for a seperate country. That is the reason for accepting laws to be different based on religion. Even now one is considered secular only if they talk against Hindus. Obviously continuous beating like this for decades does come out as a monster. Especially when stoked with passion. That is why Ayodhya movement spearheaded BJP into centerstage. It is another monster opened by BJP but they themselves are not able to contain.

Blue, you have asked that question so innocently. The same question was asked by many people in India only to be branded as fundamentalists and communalists. Even now, no govt could talk about equality because religious identity is linked to law now. That is the problem. In the effort to assert their religious freedom they insist on having their own laws. That is the sad state of affairs.

Cheers

king_143
05-08-2004, 12:59 AM
When The Constitution of India was written , special consideration to Muslims on request from them to consider their CIVIL code for them and a COMMOM criminal code. Why if their religion is so important why not CRIMINAL code. Both CIVIL and CRIMINAL code for muslims comes from the same order. Why the difference???



Muslim societies consider a man marrying three women as OK.


It WAS also considered correct in Hindu society then why the was it banned for Hindu's???

Why can a Muslim with more than 2 children get Travel compensation but a Hindu or any other religion beleiver gets only upto 2 children

Why can't I buy land in JAMMU or in KASHMIR? Why does it have a seperate constitution? But yet receive funds from Central government. Tamil Nadu lost a lot of Central funding because it did not accept HINDI as a national language and did not enforce Hindi in Schools.

Every press in Hyderabad knows that my college has a DRESS CODE for GIRLS, But why was a issue made on RSS(Hindu) run college implementing dress code but not on this.

vasan
05-08-2004, 01:11 AM
Sir,

I beg to differ. I don't know about the Waqf board, but all the churches are audited. The CSI, Lutheran, Catholic and every other church that you can think of - except the so called smaller 'home' churches - are audited. (Home churches are group of families meeting informally where ever they want - and they are not registered by the government and usually own no properties. Usually you will find them in TN and Kerala, so far as I know!). In order to officially obtain any sort of gift money you ought to be registered (and thus subjected to auditing) and this is true not only of the churches, but also of the charitable or other church-related organizations. YMCA & YWCA, for example are audited.

I also disagree with the statement that all the hindu temples are being audited. My own home town have few large temples and several smaller ones. None of the small ones are audited - nor do they have any official personal involved with it. Its a community thing - and we also have festivals for these smaller temples too - and all of them are managed by our own community. Nothing official about it. Every year, during the festival time, we elect a committee, collect donations from the public and organize events.

The dravidian movement - though originally had atheistic tendencies, are complete theists now. How can you say Ms. Jayalalitha (and all her party ministers and MLAs) participating in so many religious functions as atheists? By no stretch of imagination.

I agree with you that, if we want no government control on the money collected in the temples (on spending it, I mean), then we should work on that. That is not discrimination. Like I said, if our money is spent on some one else, and theirs we are not allowed to touch, then it is discrimination. What we should ask for is limiting Governmental role on the gifts given to temple and fight against governmental/institutional corruption in spending that money on purposes other than what the devotees donated it for.

The target of such an effort is not towards 'hating' other communities, but demanding rights of our own. That is why I belief its not discrimination. Yes, if the government spends money on 'subsidizing' pilgrimages for certain communities (such a Haj pilgrims) and uses tax money for that, that is discrimination. And that can be argued against.

What puzzles me though, is the depth of anger (and to me much of it sounds unreasonable anger) by quite a few people belonging to both communities. The disparity and discrimination are not the only causes. This has been a problem that has existed since early 1900. And greater amount of discrimination along caste-lines existed too. If discrimination is the only issue, then the caste fights are what we would be witnessing today not 'religious' atrocities.

Its a pity that, while all the religions teach that God is Merciful, their subjects could be provoked to such a vile temper and cruelty. History holds no exceptions for any religion in this aspect. Indeed, its a humbling thought - that no teaching seems to spare people from this 'curse'.

Vasan

anainar
05-08-2004, 02:29 AM
Vasan,

The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments act was enacted in 1959 itself. Even when the hard core Dravidian leader like Annadurai came to power never felt the need for dissociating Hindu temples from govt. They never believed in Hinduism and god but wanted to manage temples through legislation. Can there be a better case for hypocrisy?

Concession is discrimination. Why should a cash strapped govt pay for some body's religious pilgrimage? Or if they do, they shoul do for every religion. That is equality. Imagine me paying lakhs and lakhs as tax and a portion of that goes to some one for fulfilling his religious obligation, while the same is not available to me myself based on religion. Tell me how can I not feel bad?

As I was telling, it is not anger of one day or 2 days. Systematically for 50 years the concept of "Secularism" was tailored to minorty appeasement. Even now there is no respite. As long as that is used as a stick to beat others, such problems will keep coming.

Cheers

RaasuKutty
05-08-2004, 03:29 AM
Imagine a general situation.. If some one gives me special privilages, why shud I reject it? same applies to Haj.. Though personally I am against it, it is not developed by an innocent minority.. He had a spl previlage from the govt.. He did not (or did not want to) reject it...

but just b'coz of the fact he is given some special previlages, why do we develop hatred among the entire sect...



Imagine me paying lakhs and lakhs as tax and a portion of that goes to some one for fulfilling his religious obligation, while the same is not available to me myself based on religion

As I was telling, it is not anger of one day or 2 days. Systematically for 50 years the concept of "Secularism" was tailored to minorty appeasement. Even now there is no respite. As long as that is used as a stick to beat others, such problems will keep coming.


Exactly what I wanted to tell...

Anainar, By quoting out ur words, I am not trying to point u specifically but what I am trying to tell is we have been brought up in such a way that we WILL make a big issue out of this....

To be frank, the words I marked bold.. they exactly echo my mind's stand.. Normally we just leave with these remarks and remain as a secular person.. but when a problem pops up, the internal hatred makes us to corner to our native sect....

anainar
05-08-2004, 03:40 AM
Imagine a general situation.. If some one gives me special privilages, why shud I reject it? same applies to Haj..
Nothing can be far from truth. There was a proposal to scrap that and it raised a huge ruckus and protests. I am telling you it is considered moral high ground to talk selectively about Concessions not to be looked down at. They breed inequality and based on the level an individual is at it takes shape.

For me, I am the least dependant on govt or subsidies for my pilgrimage or anything. So I just keep writing and forming opinions. For some one who wants to achive some thing but denied by Govt based on religion, it will affect definitely. One cannot preach moral high ground there. We are human beings after all. Not some one with extreme patience.

I personally dont have any hatred for any community. I have hatred for the minority appeasement by law. Unless that is addressed properly, there will be no respite.

Cheers

sweetie
05-08-2004, 03:55 AM
Holy mother of all good soul's.......... What is this ??? I jus tot I wud be asking ya'll for some thing to talk about for a while.... Lovely !!

Well.. moderates, secularism, sensibility, reasoning..... U mean to say the people dun have this ? Without this they wud not have brought down the mosque or the temple... The simple thing is that why do something becoz someone else did something 100's of yrs back... And why do it in the name of religion ?

So many people talking here... but we r not able to make an impact on the minds of a larger grp of people right ? And worse... they want a govt tat came to power with this same religion n fundamentalist ideas as their base, to form the govt again !!! WHY ??? To kill more people ?

U know... These guys I was arguing with yest, were talking about Narendra Modi as god !!! They said he is a god in disguise for all that happ after Godhra ?? Freaking crap... Was so lost somewhere ....

What is the point of talking about govt' and laws and policies and stuff ???

Simple fact.. think about it.. goddamn it.... U r talking about lives being lost... women being raped in the streets in front of the whole world.... N ALL THAT U DO AFTERWARDS is justify these in the name of religion.... revenge...

What do U get ? U jus get more n more osama bin ladens... U talk about minority... as someone clearly pointed out, how did the minority get so many benefits ??? Wud they have without the approval of the majority leaders up there in north n south block ???

Then why give them the benefit in the first place ??? Rather jus pass a law that the minority dun fit to live in this world n kill them n their associated properties once n for all.... Go do it...

How many know for sure that the Godhra train massacre was the act of Muslims ??? How many are sure about what happened in the previous station ?? Well.... the ones who are know it...

But then why do about killing 100' and 1000' of innocent people who were in no way connected to the incident ?? Who were once ur neighbors and friends ???

Who provoked all this ? What did that ??? It was religion n provoked by none other than the people in the higher places n those who run the country.... Well... I am not against any govt or party or religion here....

But all tat I aghast about is the lack of value for life in the mind of the people.... the people from the SAME PLACE, which also houses people like THOSE WHO TALK HERE IN THIS FORUM, and also people who say are the best in the world.... but irrespective of all these, we simply dun seem to have the ability or means to convince the morons like the ones I was arguing with and make them understand what it is all about....

The last thing I wanted to hear or see or experience here in Tokyo, was so have someone like those guys ask me to join the temples n marches, and those who talk about killing people jus because they think so and jus because their leaders like Advani / Narendra Modi and Others wanted them to do it......

Nice to see so many nice postings here..... but......... does neone really think there is a way to get this message across to the masses or do something is anything like this happens again ????

RaasuKutty
05-08-2004, 03:56 AM
Your point about people were brought up that way is unacceptable. Many Indian youth are in the US these days working, and haven't they accepted an entirely different culture, and managed to integrate with it? How can you say they can't do that with their own people back home? I don't think there is a will to do that.


Dinesh, They might have settled in a different land... but if u feel that ppl who r out in the US and UK shy away from religious issues, i feel u might be wrong... Just google abt any of the religious feuds, u wud find tonnes of opinions only in NRI based webseites.. The kind of anger they vent out is little too much....

On some Personal counts, I am in a pretty big city in US.. I have been to lot of community meetings here and I have seen ppl thoughts..... Still ppl arent secular...

At the same time, I dont tell that these ppl are fanatics.. they are all ppl who are secular but their minds definitively corner towards their native sect in a problem...

Though we try to act secular, the way we were brought up and incidents we came across our life time is NOT allowing us to be truely secular...

sweetie
05-08-2004, 03:59 AM
Yes Anainar.... we are least dependent on govt on spl privileges or concessions for religious travel n trips.... but u shud understand that the so called minority never had the opportunity to live their life fully as much as the majority are being able to....

They were always looked down upon... n that is why they have so many privileges simply becoz they need something for their survival n when thats not coming naturally, it has to come frm some place thats created for them......

Just think of a situation.... imagine they were treated jus like everyone else... irrespecitve of religion or watever.... do u think the govt needs to spend their lifetime thinking about spl privileges or scrapping them ???

Imgaine that....

anainar
05-08-2004, 04:30 AM
U talk about minority... as someone clearly pointed out, how did the minority get so many benefits ??? Wud they have without the approval of the majority leaders up there in north n south block ???

Then why give them the benefit in the first place ??? Rather jus pass a law that the minority dun fit to live in this world n kill them n their associated properties once n for all.... Go do it...

No one wants to pass law to kill minorities or usurp their properties. I said clearly that the founding fathers of our constitution and law makers were totally biased to prove that they are secular. The only way they could do is by providing all those facilities. That is the reason when Pakistan was formed our Father of Nation insisted on paying 100 crores in 1947.

The Haj Act was passed in 1959 by our beloved Most Secular PM Nehru. The largesse as of now stands at a whopping 220 crores. Is that a symbolism asking minorities to die? We are talking about Equality which is a fundamental right which is violated blatantly and none of the secularists want to talk about disparity. Apparently India is the only country having this. Not even Pakistan gives subsidy to its citizens travelling to Mecca. Are we talking about passing law and killing miniroties? Come on man...

It is time that the policy makers wake up and make clear laws which do away with discrimination. Once that happens, support for violence will come down. That is the only route. There is no short cut for that.

Cheers

sweetie
05-08-2004, 04:49 AM
Yeah Anainar... I was not telling ya.. tat was for ppl who r hell bent on killing....

As u said finally, we shud do away with discrimination... and pass laws if need be... but I dun think we as humans need a law to do away with discirmination !! Do we ???

anainar
05-08-2004, 05:06 AM
Though we try to act secular, the way we were brought up and incidents we came across our life time is NOT allowing us to be truely secular...

I dont understand your point RK. To be secular or not is my personal freedom. As long as I dont treat another religion with contempt or violate any law, I am a good citizen. But a govt does not have any choice. They have to be secular because of our Constitution. Measuring individuals on a scale of secularism is wrong and infringment of their perosnal freedom.

[qoute]Yes Anainar.... we are least dependent on govt on spl privileges or concessions for religious travel n trips.... but u shud understand that the so called minority never had the opportunity to live their life fully as much as the majority are being able to..[/quote]

Minority never had the opportunity to live life? Can anything be far from the truth? Minorities never lived their life fully in India? The problems life are common to everone. Every one needs food, wate and place to live. What is the basis for your argument that minorities did not live life they should be? So did a lot of majority community. That cannot be a ground for discrimination based on religion.


but I dun think we as humans need a law to do away with discirmination !! Do we ???

As an Individual it is my choice to follow the religion of my choice and donate to what ever cause I feel like. I might donate money for Hindu temple and may not donate anything for a church. Am I considered discriminating? This does not cause any harm. What harms the most is when the govt discriminates based on religion.

Cheers

sweetie
05-08-2004, 06:35 AM
Precisely Anainar.... An individuals every1's right to do what he wants for his own religion is perfectly acceptable... but as u say, it is the govt n the leaders who use the religion to discriminate people who are to be blamed... It is they who provoke such acts and lead from the front...

But the point to note is that, why are the leaders n govt having such a major impact ??? with their words tat is !! Its simply becoz of the people who listen to those words and stupid ideologies n act accordingly !! So who are to be blamed together with the leaders n the govt ???

It is we who are the final participants in any activities of the govt.... it is the ppl who put into act that Modi says... wat Advani said... wat the leaders said way back in 1991 for example... none of the leaders climbed the dome...

I think everything boils down to the mindset of the people n how narrow minded they are.... if only there was a way to change those people their way of thinking, then the world wud be a far more better n peaceful place to live in I guess....

dinesh
05-08-2004, 06:36 PM
Dinesh, They might have settled in a different land... but if u feel that ppl who r out in the US and UK shy away from religious issues, i feel u might be wrong... Just google abt any of the religious feuds, u wud find tonnes of opinions only in NRI based webseites.. The kind of anger they vent out is little too much

No, I didn't say that. What I said was, they manage to integrate themselves into a WESTERN society making several concessions, but if they are required to do so locally, to understand the needs of a neighbour, say, they will not be willingh to do so. This cannot be because they were brought up that way, but because they feel they are better than the "other" group of people.

anainar
05-08-2004, 08:16 PM
Dinesh,

What do you mean by concessions? I will not go live in a country which does not give me freedom to do what I want. So are many people. Western society does give freedom. There are other problems, but discrimination is rare. I will not make concessions in my freedom to integrate.

Your argument is totally off mark. In India, it is not that people feel superior. It is because law discriminates. And if that is spoken of, we are considered untouchables. In India also, though I am a tamilian, I was a minority in Bangalore where I worked. Integration is required there also. I worked in Pune which followed a different culture totally and we integrated well. My mom who never crossed her home town came to Pune and made friends with my neighbours, though she does not understand a single word of what they speak. Still she managed to be part of them. So are many families all over India. So dont say that integration is a problem. No one feels superior than the other group.

Minorities have stop bragging about their rights at the cost of rights of majorities. They should join the mainstream. By joining I dont mean follow the religion. They can have seperate identity personally or socially. But legally and constitutionally, they should not try to be identified seperately. That is the first step to equality.

Cheers

dinesh
05-08-2004, 09:12 PM
Anyone has to make concessions when they join an alien society. The difference is, if you are the minority then you'll have to make them and if you are the majority then you expect the minority to make them. This can be anything ranging from lifestyle to language to culture.



In India, it is not that people feel superior. It is because law discriminates.

Accepted. But, I don't think it's much of a problem as you make it out to be. Any type of discrimination is wrong because it'll definitely fail in the long term. Whereas your argument of it's because of the discrimination people develope hatred and kill the minority is not very true, in my opinion. Do you really think the reason why pregnant women and unborn children were doused in petrol and burnt in Gujarat, is only because the muslims get some money-off to travel to Mecca? I think there is more to the problem. I can say this because I myself come from a discriminated society, the difference being I blong to the minority, so I know the problems.



I worked in Pune which followed a different culture totally and we integrated well. My mom who never crossed her home town came to Pune and made friends with my neighbours, though she does not understand a single word of what they speak. Still she managed to be part of them. So are many families all over India. So dont say that integration is a problem. No one feels superior than the other group.

Of course they do. It's deep in every human mind that the group they belong to (the group here can be anything, religious, racial or even economic) is superior to everyone else. The only difference is the way people express it differs. Some are more vociferous while others just hold the belief and doesn't show that. How else can you describe when our lot abroad raises a hue and a cry if and when they are addressed as "black" or "brown" by others, but they themselves in their day-to-day life talk about "vellaikaaran"s and "karuppans". Isn't this also racism. So, you can see societies or groups always will have some amount of belief that they are superior.



Minorities have stop bragging about their rights at the cost of rights of majorities. They should join the mainstream.

This is true, but I don't think the fault lies with Indian muslims here. It's the fault of spineless politics practised by some politicians. I don't think the minorities can keep these laws without the help of the mainstream parties, simply because they don't have the majority in the parliament to do so. So, I think we should stop accusing the minorities, even though it's clear they are positivley discriminated. You should instead accuse the major political parties for letting the situation continue.

By disagreeing with you I'm not saying minorities should continue enjoying the concessions. Indeed, in India there is so much freedom to practice any religion, and as you said people also get several concessions. Compare the situation with Saudi Arabia, where if more than two people gather for a meeting of a religious nature (where the religion is not Islam), they are committing a crime. So, in India's case it's the other end of the spectrum. People overdoing the freedom bit. Both the cases should not be happening.

Religion, especially, should never be associated with politics or governance. It's just a preference, like a make of car, say, and should never be allowed any more space in mainstream politics. Half the world's problems will be solved if religion was not there.

anainar
05-09-2004, 01:24 PM
This is true, but I don't think the fault lies with Indian muslims here. It's the fault of spineless politics practised by some politicians. I don't think the minorities can keep these laws without the help of the mainstream parties, simply because they don't have the majority in the parliament to do so.

This is totally un true. The first persons to oppose uniform law was All India Muslim Personal Law Board. It is a organisation of learner muslims. They said, no law of land is above the "Laws of Khoran". The supreme court judgement was reversed at the behest of muslim leaders.

When the govt which funds minority institutions decided to lay down guidelines for admissions and appointments of faculties which was totally biased towards the community the management belong to, there was violent protests. They need the money of govt but do not want to be accountable to anyone, except their religious bodies.

The yardsticks are totally different. There is a political party called Muslim League which contains only muslims. And that is part of a govt in one of the states. They are considered secular. Why should there be a political party for a religion?

Politicians need to survive. They operate based on signals and how the mass responds to signals. That is the boon as well as bane of the democracy. If the people know what they want, they will go forward leaps and bound. But if they dont, they go backwards. The talk to streamline minority institutions is a stimulant for which responses were assessed. If there was adverse reaction, they govt goes back in the huddle and reformulates the strategy. If the minorities want, it wont take them one day to dictate and that will be part of every political parties manifesto.

Let me tell you one recent thing. There has been a strike by the state govt employees recently for more than a month in two southern states.( Both Tamilnadu and Kerala ). Both cases, the employees went on a strike statewide, shutting down everything. Both cases, the CMs stood their ground, took the matters to the court and the strikes were declared illegal by the Supreme court. It was a commendable risk taken by both the CMs. But the elections are now due and they are in the otherside and looked down upon as enemies. I am sure both the CMs will be ruing themselves for showing some spine. I doubt whether they would show that again. Because they will be thrown out in the next election.

In a democracy, leaders are driven by the aspirations of the people. We get what we want, may not be immediately, but definitely over a period of time acceptable to most of us. So, it is only the people who are responsible for where we are politically.

Equality in the eyes of law is not seen the same by different groups. They want to choose the convenient parts. That is the cause of the rife.

Cheers

dinesh
05-09-2004, 02:40 PM
Well, I wasn't talking about any religious groups' hidden agendas. My question, simply was, how come the minorities are able to dictate terms to a majority government. Aren't they, by definition, the minority. Why should the majority people be afraid of a majority? I still fault the politicians of the majority to let the situation continue.

What you have mentioned above as the power wielded by a certain group of people is a point I can understand very well. If a group has a certain amount of power, they'll always try to do whatever that pleases them. They will not be worrying about others or, especially, equality here. And I don't think you can blame them for that either. It's a basic characteristic of humans. Instead, it is still the lawmakers you should point your fingers towards, for letting the situation continue. If politicians are afraid of their political future, and if you belong to the so-called majority, isn't it your duty to make sure that the politicians do not suffer by making a decision wanted by you. How can you instead accuse the minority, where you as the majority, fail to exert your power as the majority?

sweetie
05-09-2004, 02:47 PM
Having a political part in the name of a religion and forming a govt depends on the geography of the area Anainar... I dun think U can luk much into this...

If the muslime boards and communities reject certain proposals like the uniform law or nething similar, I think it is because of the the rejections that a re indirectly given to them thru this laws... I dun think any learned muslim wud reject something thats good for everyone...

But when there is even the slightest hint of ne malinformation, they go against it simply becoz that particular slightest hint wud grow up into something thats out of control in a land where they are the minority...

We cant blame the muslims n the muslim bodies as a while Anainar... We got to think more abt the policies laid down and their intricate details...

U said the politicians operate based on signals.... n how the mass reaponds to signals... This is precisely why U have a political party and also a govt in the name of a religion...

Obviously in that particular geographical region they wud be the majority and tats why the mass accepts them to form a govt...

Blaming the people for what we are politically is acceptable.. after all we are the ones who vote n give victory to a politician... But blaming a single grp for all that the politicians do aint make a meaning....

Ok fine.. the politician has been elected.... Why let his further get away by provoking a certain grp of people... Change that situation... think abt a way to change that situation....

Try to wade thru flood waters is considered dangerous... Ok fine.. U wanted to see if U can make it n step into it.... when U feel u cant make it, all that we think abt is trying to make it outta there.... not blame the flood or ur own instincts to take up the challenge...

sweetie
05-09-2004, 02:50 PM
Wat shidinesh says, says it all.... What role is the so called 'majority' playing when u so much luk to be controlled by the minority ??

Aint that got something to do with the politicians if not with the majority people..... Instead of taking things into ur own hands n killing people, I think it wud be far better to try to make the majority leaders n govt's whom we elected understand what is right, or if they cant..... remove them from power the next time !!!

Get the people who make sense n understand the reality up there to form the govt... n then we wud see a better place for both the majority and minority I guess.... both being together without bothering one nother...

sri_gan
05-09-2004, 03:16 PM
Wat shidinesh says, says it all.... What role is the so called 'majority' playing when u so much luk to be controlled by the minority ??


Shi,

The theme minority is used as a political agenda to cover the maximum vote since the people are united under one theme they are minorities....

Enn Minority le Kodiswaran illaya...? *Gimme me a Break*

Minority kku protection kodukuren solluvanga... anna yaarukitte nu theriyathu.

Onnum illapa... ethanai forward nu decide pannina communities oppurtunity kediakama poirumonu Backward nu mathikiran... why does this happen?

Its the because of this stupid agenda that the minorities are at risk... ennaya risk avanukku enna kodukalai? Minority nu solli engaiyavathu othikki vachi irrukoma? ellarum valura edathule thane avanum vaaluran.

Makkala olunga than irrukan... But un reasonable emotional triggers are done by buch of cream layers in the commnity avungala seri pannitta ellam seri aidum.

Nalla yosichu parunga.. riots vantha yaarukkum nallathu illai nu common people sinthippan... anna there will be a few buch of morons decide for their own welfare and utilise the small trigger into a big event.

Naan neriya incidents nerula pathu irruken, Communal violence nadkkum pothu minority majority ethuvum theriyathu kadachatha odachittu poikitte irrupan..

Ultimately enna portha varaikkum evalavo nalla visheyam irruka athellam vittutu thani thani avan avan nokathu group serthukittu alanchittu thiriyaranuga. On form is minority Majority.... innoru form is caste .... innoru form is tamilan vengayam vellakennai ellam...

All are different forms but with a common goal enna na evanum nimathiya irrunthira kudathu. avlothan.

dinesh
05-09-2004, 03:24 PM
Well, Sri, your rhetoric does not answer my question at all (since it has been addressed to me, I'm assuming you were trying to answer me). I asked anainar how come the minorities are able to exert so much power in deciding legislation. I'm not at all interested in what the minorities do or try to do, because I have seen enough.

My question is a purely theoretical one. I'm not taking sides here. I'm trying to understand the problem. I'm not giving opinions. Anainar expressed an opinion and I'm trying to understand clearly what he was saying.

sri_gan
05-09-2004, 04:04 PM
I asked anainar how come the minorities are able to exert so much power in deciding legislation. I'm not at all interested in what the minorities do or try to do, because I have seen enough.


Shi,

Again it is not that Minorities are able to exert so much power in deciding legislation. Its just the way the judicial system framed to accept these things and basically it all ends to a person or a few people in bench decide and think it will be satisfying everyone.

For example, Most of the people think Minorities are very minor things and their voice might not be heard up...

But the key thing is, these minorities will join the hands and form a group within no time and make a theme as protest and increase the violence.

At the same time, its hard to gather a big group of majority 'cause the message might not reach every single person of majority... antha message convey pannura time kula riots uruvaiyudum. This is the key for the problem and these people are using that one factor and playing all kind of games.

Chinna example:

Oru chinna buket le irruka water kule oru kalla thooki potta ripples will reach within no time to th end of the bucket

At the same time, if you do the same to a Pond, how long it takes to reach the end of the pond.

Minority is a Bucket with water, Majority is Pond with water.

This is what happening.

anainar
05-09-2004, 05:05 PM
[/quote]I asked anainar how come the minorities are able to exert so much power in deciding legislation. I'm not at all interested in what the minorities do or try to do, because I have seen enough. [/quote]

The laws governing these were written ages back. The people who framed the Constitution had all these written down with time lines. They had special scheme for weaker sections with a time line beyond which they need to be reviewed. Review or amendment of Constitution requires 2/3 rd of the Parliament voting for it. The last time one party had such a majority is in 1986. After that it has been simple majority. No political party would commit suicide by revoking some benefits that were given to them. A concession once given cannot be revoked, come what ever may. It was given by our law makers half a century back and there is no way it can be modified politically unless people agree to it by not agitating. That rests with aggreived parties.

I dont want to digress. For e.g, the constitution gave reservation based on weaker sections( based on caste which by itself is an anamoly ) in education and jobs. No one questions that. The current BJP regime tried to introduce a clause saying, if a person makes more money by way of paying income tax, does not need this benefit. They tried to amend the constituion and what they got was nationwide agitation. That is absolute nonsense to provide reservation for a trader travelling in Mitsubishi Lancer car while denying the same to a poor fellow just because of caste. This is to tell you how people react even to a rational law change.

The political system in India is like that. I dont justify in any way killing of any one for any reason. As much as we try to punish them, we should also make efforts to make sure that it does not happen. If this kind of discrimination happens time and again, obviously there will be even more division of society and violence.

Cheers

Shy
05-10-2004, 06:09 PM
:00: 3 days varalai.. athukula entha topic enga irunthu engae poiduthu :00:

Sweetie,

Good topic :)

I strongly oppose whoever said that. Killing 100 people and destroying 100s of mosques doesnt make any good to anyone, but just increase the pressure of both sides.

But, as I said in the other post long back, Its an individuals decision to follow whatever he likes and respect it.

My opinion, both parties should respect the others. I beleive one of them is doing it. Name any one incident where the majorities crushed their monuments or did anything to prove that minorities cant survive here? Beautiful temples destroyed is totally wrong and they should be held responsible. It is a real terrotist act. These guys are at guilt for that. I damn have any respect for people who did that, Taj Mahal athu ithunu they would have built. But more than that, they destroyed our temples, which is no way near on what other things they did. So this current muslim generation should feel what we think and feel about that and respect our beliefs. Which they obviously doesnt !!! But remember, hindus never wanted to destroy mosques anywhere still, even though they are majority of people around. The problem is confined only to the area under trouble. Personally what happened in ayodha is frustration of all the hindus. I abide by that. I dont see destroying that mosque as a big thing. Already oru templea odaichu thaanae they built something there. If we had just left it there and started talking till date, that mosque would be still there, coz the other party would have understood or agreed to our beliefs.

Second, I read that talks about unborn children and pregnant ladies being burnt. Thats totally wrong. But u missed asking this. As RK said, thats a POST act question. Whats the source of it??? 100s of hindus were killed. There were old, young people in there too. U cant expect in a diverse country like India to show the other cheek.

Our laws are written making sure that its been secular and that minorities have a say in everything. So its not that we are keeping mum even though minorities whine each time when something useful is about to be done, but avoid the consequences of voilence. As anainar said, the muslims board never hear anything other than what korans say. There was once this proposal. The hindu council planned to have a temple in that place and they allocate a different place with fund for their new mosque. The muslim leaders said, they either die protecting that place rather have a new place. Dont ask me why cant we do the other way round. We cant, because for hindus thats the place where rama ruled. So when comparing the muslims should respect that its god against their old king who miserlessly destroyed the temple.

I partially agree about the politicians. What do u want them to do. These minorities have their own set of rules and memebers and never allow a "ee" to join them . Never agree to what the goevernement says, of course if its a fund then thats different. Equality is there in the LAW, but do people look that way. If a Politician tries to do something good, minorities oru paakam engae belief gone soluvaanga, hindus other side, our respect gone soluvaanga. So we cant blame them or the law, but the people. So the people got to change. But they shouldnt, wouldnt change coz each have their own set of beliefs, Which in many way different. So I think the goevernment is handling its best as it could. I am BJP Person ;). Its the minorities I believe to undersstand and life along. Respect other religions belief mainly.

Shy

dinesh
05-10-2004, 06:17 PM
Second, I read that talks about unborn children and pregnant ladies being burnt. Thats totally wrong. But u missed asking this. As RK said, thats a POST act question. Whats the source of it??? 100s of hindus were killed. There were old, young people in there too

yeah right.....so now it's justified isn't it? He does it so what I'm doing is ok......this tit for tat attitude is childish to say the least. And this was from a people who claim they follow a religion built on the concept of "anbe sivam"

Shy
05-10-2004, 06:26 PM
Second, I read that talks about unborn children and pregnant ladies being burnt. Thats totally wrong. But u missed asking this. As RK said, thats a POST act question. Whats the source of it??? 100s of hindus were killed. There were old, young people in there too

yeah right.....so now it's justified isn't it? He does it so what I'm doing is ok......this tit for tat attitude is childish to say the least. And this was from a people who claim they follow a religion built on the concept of "anbe sivam"

u never get my point.

I didnt justify the deed. All I am saying is see from the source of the problem!!!

Shy

anainar
05-10-2004, 07:16 PM
Apparently, if any one cares to know, these are the salient points of Samajwadi Party Manifesto for 2004 Elections.

1. No interference with Muslim Personal Law( which is against the Constitution )
2. Reservation for Muslims in jobs and education
3. Management of temples in UP that fall under Archaelogical survey of India to run pooja everyday
4.Opposition to any act to remove the Special Status to Kashmir( Though it gets all funds from all over India, no one can buy property there. If a women of Kashmir marries a non kashmiri, she also loses that right. )

Can there be a better example to minority appeasement and playing religious cards? He claims himself to be secular. What the heck is Govt's job is doing pooja at temple? Or Personal law for Muslims?

Bloody, this guy is totally silent on the infrastructure requirements of UP, on the reasons for its backwardness, industry or economics. And he is aspiring to be the PM of the country.

God help us, if it becomes a hung parliament with this guy becoming a PM.

Cheers

Shy
05-10-2004, 07:59 PM
Apparently, if any one cares to know, these are the salient points of Samajwadi Party Manifesto for 2004 Elections.

1. No interference with Muslim Personal Law( which is against the Constitution )
2. Reservation for Muslims in jobs and education
3. Management of temples in UP that fall under Archaelogical survey of India to run pooja everyday
4.Opposition to any act to remove the Special Status to Kashmir( Though it gets all funds from all over India, no one can buy property there. If a women of Kashmir marries a non kashmiri, she also loses that right. )

Can there be a better example to minority appeasement and playing religious cards? He claims himself to be secular. What the heck is Govt's job is doing pooja at temple? Or Personal law for Muslims?

Bloody, this guy is totally silent on the infrastructure requirements of UP, on the reasons for its backwardness, industry or economics. And he is aspiring to be the PM of the country.

God help us, if it becomes a hung parliament with this guy becoming a PM.

Cheers

What the crap is that. Already BC, MBC, and other catergoryla they have similar reservations. Appuram enna thaniyaa religionkaaga oru reservation. This is absurd !!!

Shy

RaasuKutty
05-10-2004, 11:11 PM
Dinesh,

The main reason for appeasing minorities are that they vote to a single party... 90% of minority votes atleast as far as muslim sect is concerned will go to a single party in that state...
but so called majorities never vote in that manner.... they see lot of other things.. So from a political party perspective, they wud get the 90% chunk of votes and wud aim at a equal split from the majority too.. and they have been getting it...

Reg the manifesto, nothing to say... u never know the power of fate... but if by any chance becomes a PM, i might change my stance and will seriously look on how to apply for Green card...

Shy
05-11-2004, 01:47 PM
:cry: :cry:

Congress leading la irukku

Shy

anainar
05-11-2004, 02:41 PM
Congress leading? They have trounced TDP in Andhra. It was pretty much expected because of some blatant ignorance about ground reality. In his quest for great administration, he never bothered to delegate work or empower his sub ordinates, overburdening him with a lot of work. In the process, lost time for assessing ground reality. There is no second rung leadership that was groomed to take charge of the directions tha Naidu wanted to take.

But people dont know what they got. Free electricity, free food, seperate Telengana are the key points of Congress manifesto. It will be interesting to know how they manage that.

Cheers