RE:Only rediff...
by Kaushik das on Aug 27, 2005 01:36 PM Permalink
Funny that you find the article one-eyed. It was actually a good one. It had its extremes like comparing sati and burqa but there were good points about reservation. I feel it is your response that is one-eyed.
RE:Only rediff...
by esskaydas on Aug 29, 2005 02:24 AM Permalink
Hey Ansari, Contain your views please. They smack of fundmentalism. Don't you know that pakistan has recently found that Many Mdrassas teach hate and are breeding ground of terrorism? By bomb Mr.Bhatt perhaps means terrorism. Raping of a minor girl in VHP office is not related to Hinduism, but Burka and Phatwa are related to your religion. I have nothing against Islam--it is a great religion-- it is people like you who donot have a proper understanding are detastable.
If (man == UPA politician) Secularism = Vote bank else if (man == English media) Secularism = Hindu bashing else if (man == minority) Secularism = we secular till me becomes majority else if (man == silent hindu) Secularism = peace for now but one day his descendents will learn the art of bomb making in a madrassa else Secularism = myth
Good Governance = Justice for all but appeasement to none.
RE:Secularism = Hindu bashing + vote bank + minority appeasement
by Amjad Ansari on Aug 27, 2005 01:22 PM Permalink
Its quite surprising that the Mr. Bhat attacks Muslim for the notion Secular.
It again wonders me seeing attacks on madarasas. I would like to ask this gentleman in which madarasa bombs are making?
And which Government are appeasing Muslim? well the fact is all parties (Including BJP) playing with Muslim. I see no voice if a minor girl get raped by a Person In VHP Office but defienetly see the hue & Cry on Muslim Internal matters like Burkha & Fatwa ( Which has nothing to do with Non Muslims). Why can't you people raise the Voice agains the face covering of Gujrati & Rajasthani women? I hope you people remove th eglass of Baised against Muslim
RE:Secularism = Hindu bashing + vote bank + minority appeasement
by Amit on Aug 30, 2005 01:23 AM Permalink
Mr. Amjad, you say what is to do with the fatwas being issued well that is exactly the problem as these fatwas issued by some fanatics makes a mockery of the indian judicial system. Also muslims did not accept the verdict in Shah Bano Case what is the guarantee that would agree to the verdict given by the Supreme court in the Case of Ayodhya. If the verdicts comes in favours of Hindus you are definately to get very sympathatic support from Mr. Mulayam Singh and Ram vilas paswan(you all know that they ae only interested in politics even then) and then you would again revolt and matter goes on. the biggest problem is you people cannot cope up with the aspirations of the majority which forms the very basis of a Democracy.
RE:Secularism = Hindu bashing + vote bank + minority appeasement
by subbaraman on Aug 28, 2005 07:01 PM Permalink
To Amjad Ansari: It is not an attack on Islam or Muslim, dear friend! Muslim appeasement and hindu bashing is called "secularism" by the UPA and the Leftists. Otherwise, why should not the Muslims, who now swear by Court verdict in Ayodhya, not have accepted the court verdict in Shah Bano case? Why should the Mullahs issue fatwas favouring the Rapists and victimising the victim of rape? Ask Musharraff which Madarsas preach violence and jihad, he has had the guts to close down many such Madarsas in his country, we, in "secular" India are not able to do so!!!!!!!
RE:Secularism = Hindu bashing + vote bank + minority appeasement
by Ajai on Aug 29, 2005 07:51 AM Permalink
"And which Government are appeasing Muslim?"
Congress - Haj Subsidy, Over ruling of Shah bano Case, Muslim reservations etc... Communists - Encouraging illegal muslim immigrants... LJP - They want only a muslim CM in Bihar
Is this enough to say that muslim appeasment is at its best in present day India?
"I see no voice if a minor girl get raped by a Person In VHP Office"
Don't write crap to prove your point... any evidence
" covering of Gujrati & Rajasthani women"
What problems are they facing... can you name one...
RE:Secularism = Hindu bashing + vote bank + minority appeasement
by Kaushik das on Aug 27, 2005 07:50 PM Permalink
Please state your case with proven facts. Rumourmongering is a punishable offence. More importantly, burqa isn't an internal issue of muslims. It is very much a national security issue.
Word "secular" is added into constitution by Mrs. Indira Gandhi due to pressure of communists who were giving support to her government. Many other decisions of that period includes nationalization of the banks on pressure of the communists.
The very aim of injecting word secularism into the constitution was to undermine identity of India and leave it rudderless. Communists often acts as puppet of Chinese that was evident during '62 conflict. Now still they have not given hope of bringing revolution in India as their strategic and tactic supports to Maoists and Naxalities in both Nepal and India. They are really bane of Indian society and severely abuses freedom offered by our democracy.
RE:Communist agenda.
by Vikram on Aug 30, 2005 12:35 AM Permalink
Very true, it's not Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Shastri or Sardar Patel who inserted this malicious word 'Secular' into the Indian constitution. This nefarious conspiracy is handiwork of traitor communists who are hell bent on weakening India. Since then their henchmen in mainstream media chant only one word that is 'Secular' to purify all corruptions, crimes, violence of these 'secular' jehadists. Suddenly they became holier than thou and greatly eroded spirit of India.
RE:Communist agenda.
by gordost on Aug 28, 2005 06:25 PM Permalink
Mr. Kalas Das is one hindred percent correct in his opinion. Communists are the cancer of this country, they are traitors brain washed by a particular country for its own benifit.The fools in this party are unable to fathom the real agenda of this particular country.Also the naxalites supported by ISI think that they are the saviours of poor in this country , unknowingly in the trap of a foreign agenda.Even a common man understands this but are our politicians so naive that they do not know the truth?
I like several things about your article, but I would like to highlight two things about your article which were very striking: (1) Your emphisis on common humane law for all Indians so that justice is done without appeasement of any group/community. (2) Reservation only for those who need it and who "want" to study. If someone gets -2/100 in an exam, clearly that person doesn't want to study and if he/she is economically well-off, then that person "must" surely not receive reservation benefits.
Many "ignorant" old people trying to cling onto their posts want to negate the Supreme court verdict in the case of reservations in private colleges by making laws against it.
Its my humble request to the current generation, some of us who will go on to join active politics not to be caught in the viscious circle of never ending thirst for posts,but by doing whats right for the development of the country.
Any citizen with ioata of common sense can figure out what reservations have done to our country.
Were we successfull in achieveing the true objectives of reservations when formulated by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar?.
If so we wouldnt see sons and daughters of
IAS &IPS(selected with reservation) again being selected to the coveted posts through reservations and the majority of the socically backward classes still struggling in rural areas dying of hunger and humiliation.
Arise and Awake Sleep no more and donot believe that you are week.
I absolutely agree with the author. Secularism is not minority appeasement.And today the govt. has classified most of the Indian people as minority and then keep appeasing them. Also reservations need to be based on needs and not castes. There could be very needy people from higher castes too.
Secularism means being apatheticto religion. It is sad to see that it is often mistaken for sympathy towards minority, worse - anitpathy towards the majority.
Just another article with questions, opinion, and critics but sadly no solution. I am still waiting for someone to not only question the government (BJP or anyother) but to suggest some solutions to this problem of secularism.
RE:Who needs secularism
by mahesh on Aug 27, 2005 10:50 PM Permalink
The problem this author has in misunderstanding and misrepresenting hinduism is some what common nowadays (in our world of pseudo intelluctuals) Tell me dear ramananda, How many sati cases has happened in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, or 2005? And what percentage of muslim women wear burka? stop speaking false just for the sake of appeasement of some social sections vandemateram mahesh
RE:Who needs secularism
by sgpal on Aug 31, 2005 04:08 PM Permalink
See the illogic of this logic.Brahmins are not superior to othercastes.True and very true indeed.But all the other castes need reservation in exams (class exam or main exam) need job reservation need to be promoted out of turn immaterial whether they are competent or not.But brahmins are at any cost not superior.If you say brahmins are not superior then why ask for reservations at all???? Hmmm
<quote> I have no issues with Hinduism. But I cannot accept that Brahmins are a superior race. Or that Sati is a good thing. </quote>
The author seems to be bigtime messed up. It's time Sengupta should leave the city and learn some Hindu stuff from scratch. Sati was never propagated in our texts. For example, if a bunch of street-hawkers start raping on name of religion, then the religion cannot be held responsible for it. Similarly, sati just started with lame-society attributes and had nothing to do with Hindu.
Nowhere the Hindu texts say that Brahmans (as per birth) are a superior race. Most stories deal with Brahman meaning knowledgable (or closer to Brahma) and not Brahman by birth.
There are enouch stories about paapi brahmans (by birth) who get punished or taught in their own way. I sincerely wish Sengupta writes what he knows of. And rediff should edit before posting these Brainless exercises.
RE:What the ____
by esskaydas on Aug 28, 2005 11:38 AM Permalink
Hey Animesh, just shut up. The article is not ugly, your thoughts are. No one has tried to malign Hinduism. Regarding Bramhins, is it not a fact that Bramhins claim themselves to superior? In recent times in Karnataka they forced a schedule caste person to eat human excreta. This is what is avoidable. Mr. Sengupta says all are to be equal--what is wrong with that?
Who said Brahmin is a superior race? Brahmin is a person who has realized god. It could be you or me or anyone. So called brahmins who has the brahmin tag to them are not real brahmins described in hindu scriptures.
What the ____
by Animesh on Aug 27, 2005 01:01 AM Permalink
It's an ugly article guys. Once again people are attacking on Hindu with just dirty references from 300 yr old history which were more like "ills of society" rather than "ills of Hindu thought".
RE:Who is brahmin?
by Sundar on Aug 27, 2005 02:22 PM Permalink
Why are you trying to put a notch between the earlier years and the present 21st century? The brahmins of the earlier century are not comparable with the present ones.
Should not one change alongwith the time? Leave about brahmins. For that matter people from each and every religion have to adapt themselves to the demanding pattern of the day.
A person does not become a brahman (to be regarded as such, except for filling in forms & papers) by birth, it is by what he does in his daily life. Our ancestors have specified some daily routines. More than that, the vedhas say what one has to do everyday.
If a brahman does not do what he is supposed to, he gets the punishment for that. The same thing holds good for everyone. Every religion has something for those who follow it.
Today, its very hard to see more people (who proudly claim that they represent a religion) following the traditions and rituals.
Let's better not talk about this, because it is going to be worse in the coming days.
RE:Who is brahmin?
by Kaushik das on Aug 27, 2005 01:31 PM Permalink
Right, Hari, BraahmaN is one who's attained brahmaN. It can be anybody. It is not actually a caste. however, it is practised as a caste. Things are improving and hopefully, will be much better in some time.
RE:Who is brahmin?
by Paritihi on Aug 27, 2005 12:12 PM Permalink
A few thoughts based on your article.
1. Caste system whether you believe or accept or not is still being practised widely in the major parts of India and almost all households. Surprised !
To start wtih in the recent article in Rediff, there was a case where a girl was not allowed to pass through a particular village to go to college just becasue she was from a lower caste. Ashamed that this social evil still exists in India.
Most of the time in Urban-Cosmo cities, people don't have a problem with studying, working, dining with lower castes but when it somes to marriage, do they not despise the lower caste though they are from the same religion and have similiar ways of life.
2. Minority Issues : I do accept that people should not be divided further with the religious tag. Minority or majority. But the fact remains that there are some priviliges for the Hindus. Say for instance, you can start a Hindu temple even in the middle of the road and get away with that. For opening a church/mosque/monsatry you don't even get permission. why?
A christian Dalit would not be benefitted with reservation like a Hindu. why?
RE:Who is brahmin?
by dingdong on Aug 27, 2005 02:18 PM Permalink
I agree with Hari completely. The term "brahmin" has been used to harrass lower "castes" and now it is being used by secularists to denigrate Hindusim on this basis.
