PHOOLAN PHALLS
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Dacoit and mass murderer Phoolan "Devi" was defeated in Mirzapur.
Throw the criminals out of office!
Jai Maharaj
Jyotishi, Vedic Astrologer
http://www.flex.com/~jai
Om Shanti
<a href="mailto:j...@mantra.com?subject=Bharat">Dr. Jai Maharaj</a>
Mathews J. Thundyil
Dr. Jai Maharaj <j...@mantra.com> wrote:
>Dacoit and mass murderer Phoolan "Devi" was defeated in Mirzapur.
>Throw the criminals out of office!
Cute!
Matt "Thackeray?" Thundyil
sayan bhattacharyya
Dr. Jai Maharaj <j...@mantra.com> wrote:
>Dacoit and mass murderer Phoolan "Devi" was defeated in Mirzapur.
>Throw the criminals out of office!
1) Do people who physically destroy places of worship (such as
mosques), or abet in doing so, also qualify as criminals?
2) Should they be thrown out of office as well if they are
criminals?
Just curious.
Saurabh Jang
For you the Kar Sevaks who demolished the pseudo-Mosque at Ayodhaya
were criminals. To me and many other Hindus, they were heroes who
risked their lives for a cause that was fair and just.
It was necessary to send a message that hyocritical pseudo-seculars
could not get away with the cold blooded murder of Kar sevaks the year
before.
These napunsak bleeding heart secular toadies did not have the
decency to protest the destruction of several Hindu temples in Kashmir,
neither did they lift a finger to stop the ethnic cleansing of Hindus
from Kashmir, a state to protect whose freedom hundreds of patriotic
Jawans and policeman have laid down their lives.
The destruction of the pseudo-Mosque at Ayodhaya was necessary to show
that Hindus would not tolerate hypocrisy from the corrupt pseudo-secular
establishment.
If it is well proven that I drove you out of your house and after demolishing
your house constructed my own houseon land where yourhouse once stood,
and you have tried and failed for several years to gain recourse in a
court of law, what is wrong if you oust me from your erstwhile house
by force?
Just curious.
Saurabh
sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
sayan bhattacharyya
Saurabh Jang <saur...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>If it is well proven that I drove you out of your house and after demolishing
>your house constructed my own houseon land where yourhouse once stood,
>and you have tried and failed for several years to gain recourse in a
>court of law, what is wrong if you oust me from your erstwhile house
>by force?
I hope you are aware of something called the statute of limitations,
which would invalidate your argument in the above paragraph.
k.shiv...@unikix.com
If bringing in law to defend the point then we can claim that after
Rajiv Gandhi
opened up the gate for hindus to worship then we are within the stated
period
of statute of limitations.
Regards
kupendra
sayan bhattacharyya
Saurabh Jang <saur...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>If it is well proven that I drove you out of your house and after demolishing
>your house constructed my own houseon land where yourhouse once stood,
>and you have tried and failed for several years to gain recourse in a
>court of law, what is wrong if you oust me from your erstwhile house
>by force?
>
What is wrong with the argument? Nothing, except that Phoolan Devi (
the subject of this thread) could use the exact same argument to justify
her life of crime (she was raped and wronged against by powerful men;
the police did nothing; so she had "no other recourse" but to take to
force of arms.
Do you accept this argument?
If yes, then you cannot condemn Phoolan
Devi because she ma argue that she did exactly what you recomended
doing in the above paragraph.
If no, then you cannot use the same argument to defend the kar
sevaks as you just did, because the two cases are analogical.
(In fact Phoolan could claim that your argument holds with
even more truth in her case because unlike the Babri case, the
"injustice" was done directly to her and not to her remote
ancestors).
Thus, your position leads to an inconsistency whether you answer
"yes" or "no" :-)
In other words, you are being inconsistent, period. Your position
leads to contradiction. (That is all I wanted to show -- I am
not interested in being judgmental about either kar sevaks or
about Phoolan Devi, at least not in this thread).
DSen
Saurabh Jang wrote:
>
> For you the Kar Sevaks who demolished the pseudo-Mosque at Ayodhaya
> were criminals. To me and many other Hindus, they were heroes who
> risked their lives for a cause that was fair and just.
>
a mob baying for blood rarely has heros in it, quite the opposite in
fact
> These napunsak bleeding heart secular toadies did not have the
> decency to protest the destruction of several Hindu temples in Kashmir,
> neither did they lift a finger to stop the ethnic cleansing of Hindus
> from Kashmir, a state to protect whose freedom hundreds of patriotic
> Jawans and policeman have laid down their lives.
just a suggestion, would the kar sevaks have been better employed by
going to kashmir and defending these places and people? would they have
been even better employed clearing rubbish from the streets of india or
building canals or hospitals or ...
>
> The destruction of the pseudo-Mosque at Ayodhaya was necessary to show
> that Hindus would not tolerate hypocrisy from the corrupt pseudo-secular
> establishment.
>
"pseudo" has now occured 4 times, that must mean something
> If it is well proven that I drove you out of your house and after demolishing
> your house constructed my own houseon land where yourhouse once stood,
> and you have tried and failed for several years to gain recourse in a
> court of law, what is wrong if you oust me from your erstwhile house
> by force?
>
so help me understand this logic, say for example, the palestinian being
ejected from his house in an area being reserved for jewish settlement
thinks, hey, its great, i know we have lived here for centuries, but its
ok for the jews to throw me out cos they were here before us and i'm
fine with that!
so if a buddhist appears to you and says that you hindu's overran us in
bengal several centuries ago and your house in calcutta is on the site
of my ancestral stupa, you would gladly vacate it?
> Just curious.
>
> Saurabh
>
me also curious
Daulat
Brijnandan Singh Dehiya
In article <350696...@csc.com>, DSen <ds...@csc.com> wrote:
>Saurabh Jang wrote:
>>
>> For you the Kar Sevaks who demolished the pseudo-Mosque at Ayodhaya
>> were criminals. To me and many other Hindus, they were heroes who
>> risked their lives for a cause that was fair and just.
>>
>
>a mob baying for blood rarely has heros in it, quite the opposite in
>fact
Whose blood? Whose life was attempted at by the mob? It is you who is baying
now.
>just a suggestion, would the kar sevaks have been better employed by
>going to kashmir and defending these places and people? would they have
>been even better employed clearing rubbish from the streets of india or
>building canals or hospitals or ...
They will if they can finish the job in less than a week. The likes of you,
though, like to throw garbage in streets again.
>so help me understand this logic, say for example, the palestinian being
>ejected from his house in an area being reserved for jewish settlement
>thinks, hey, its great, i know we have lived here for centuries, but its
>ok for the jews to throw me out cos they were here before us and i'm
>fine with that!
The muslims were jews before they converted. Your argument is asinine, at
best.
>so if a buddhist appears to you and says that you hindu's overran us in
>bengal several centuries ago and your house in calcutta is on the site
>of my ancestral stupa, you would gladly vacate it?
I would, if it has a basis in reality and if I am compensated for it.
>me also curious
>
>Daulat
Daulat, you are quite poor in dishing justice.
Brij
----
Mo
Ok then . Would you accept that Hindus have the right to buy
these 3 disputed sites , even if the Muslims refuse to sell ? What
earthly use are these delapidated mosques at the holiest of Hindu
sites to them if not to irritate Hindus?
Saurabh Jang
DSen (ds...@csc.com) wrote:
: a mob baying for blood rarely has heros in it, quite the opposite in
: fact
Nobody was baying for blood. Please let us know how many Muslims were
killed in Ayodhaya that day. Demolishing a pseudo-Mosque is not an
act of murder.
: just a suggestion, would the kar sevaks have been better employed by
: going to kashmir and defending these places and people? would they have
: been even better employed clearing rubbish from the streets of india or
: building canals or hospitals or ...
Now this is really funny. The pseudo-secular toadies do nothing to
prevent ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir and the destruction of
Hindu temples there, but they taunt the Kar Sevaks to "dare" go there.
Why dont the pseudo-secular toadies let article 370 be removed, a
firm governor like Jagmohan take over the reins of the administration
and then ask the same question? Give the same protection that the Israeli
government does to Jewish settlers in Muslim dominated areas and lets
talk then.
As for taking care of the rubbish and so forth, there are many Hindutva
organisations that are into social work. Why should we as one-dimensional
as the pseudo-secular toadies and save all other causes till India
reaches the per capita income of the USA?
: "pseudo" has now occured 4 times, that must mean something
Yes it does. Exactly what it means.
: so help me understand this logic, say for example, the palestinian being
: ejected from his house in an area being reserved for jewish settlement
: thinks, hey, its great, i know we have lived here for centuries, but its
: ok for the jews to throw me out cos they were here before us and i'm
: fine with that!
Yes. Who told the Arab nations to wage war with Israel and lose those
territories?
: so if a buddhist appears to you and says that you hindu's overran us in
: bengal several centuries ago and your house in calcutta is on the site
: of my ancestral stupa, you would gladly vacate it?
Prove that Buddhists were "overrun" and show any Buddhist temple that
the Buddhists want back from the Hindus. If it can be shown that Hindus
demolished an important Buddhist shrine it should be restored to them by
all means.
Saurabh
Saurabh Jang
There is justification for Phoolan taking revenge on those who
wronged her if the police did not do anything about it. However,
how long did she give the police to achieve justice? The Ayodhaya
case has been in courts for more than 50 years now. Also, where
is the justification for her life of crime after she achieved here revenge?
Saurabh
sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
: What is wrong with the argument? Nothing, except that Phoolan Devi (
: the subject of this thread) could use the exact same argument to justify
: her life of crime (she was raped and wronged against by powerful men;
: the police did nothing; so she had "no other recourse" but to take to
: force of arms.
: Do you accept this argument?
: If yes, then you cannot condemn Phoolan
: Devi because she ma argue that she did exactly what you recomended
: doing in the above paragraph.
: If no, then you cannot use the same argument to defend the kar
: sevaks as you just did, because the two cases are analogical.
: (In fact Phoolan could claim that your argument holds with
: even more truth in her case because unlike the Babri case, the
: "injustice" was done directly to her and not to her remote
: ancestors).
: Thus, your position leads to an inconsistency whether you answer
: "yes" or "no" :-)
: In other words, you are being inconsistent, period. Your position
: leads to contradiction. (That is all I wanted to show -- I am
: not interested in being judgmental about either kar sevaks or
: about Phoolan Devi, at least not in this thread).
DSen
Saurabh Jang wrote:
>
> DSen (ds...@csc.com) wrote:
> : a mob baying for blood rarely has heros in it, quite the opposite in
> : fact
>
> Nobody was baying for blood. Please let us know how many Muslims were
> killed in Ayodhaya that day. Demolishing a pseudo-Mosque is not an
> act of murder.
>
the mob were very visible on television bulettins, heard loudly on the
radio and photographed extensively doing their handiwork. As far as I
know, no muslims were killed in Ayodha that day, but what I do know is
that an act of unnecessary violence took place
> : just a suggestion, would the kar sevaks have been better employed by
> : going to kashmir and defending these places and people? would they have
> : been even better employed clearing rubbish from the streets of india or
> : building canals or hospitals or ...
>
> Now this is really funny. The pseudo-secular toadies do nothing to
what is a "pseudo-secular toadie"?
> prevent ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir and the destruction of
> Hindu temples there, but they taunt the Kar Sevaks to "dare" go there.
no taunt on my part, just a suggestion. i do not condone the destruction
of hindu temples or the persecution of the hindu villagers - ultimately,
the poor (of any variety) are innocents caught in the crossfire. if
1,00,000 people can gather in Ayodha despite a ban, surely they can
gather in Srinagar also?
What you have to face up to is that whatever legitimate grieviences
Hindu's have, have been hijacked by a bunch of self serving politicians
who have done whatever it takes to rise to political power. Indian
politicians only know andolon and morcha - the legacy of the freedom
struggle - well freedom is 50 years old and we still haven't got beyond
resistance? I expect more from my countrymen than that.
> As for taking care of the rubbish and so forth, there are many Hindutva
> organisations that are into social work.
ofcourse there are, why not focus on that rather than something that is
of no use to man nor beast?
> Why should we as one-dimensional
> as the pseudo-secular toadies and save all other causes till India
> reaches the per capita income of the USA?
>
that would be a complete nightmare - imagine the pollution if the
average Indian consumed the same energy as the average American?!?!
> : "pseudo" has now occured 4 times, that must mean something
>
> Yes it does. Exactly what it means.
>
what does it mean?
> : so help me understand this logic, say for example, the palestinian being
> : ejected from his house in an area being reserved for jewish settlement
> : thinks, hey, its great, i know we have lived here for centuries, but its
> : ok for the jews to throw me out cos they were here before us and i'm
> : fine with that!
>
> Yes. Who told the Arab nations to wage war with Israel and lose those
> territories?
>
well they would say that the state of Israel was forcibly implanted in
their midst and they had to oppose it, hence they have a legitimate
reason (to themselves) for the wars.
> : so if a buddhist appears to you and says that you hindu's overran us in
> : bengal several centuries ago and your house in calcutta is on the site
> : of my ancestral stupa, you would gladly vacate it?
>
> Prove that Buddhists were "overrun" and show any Buddhist temple that
> the Buddhists want back from the Hindus. If it can be shown that Hindus
> demolished an important Buddhist shrine it should be restored to them by
> all means.
>
> Saurabh
I think there is adequate documentation that the early inhabitants of
Bengal were Buddhist and were conquered by a Hindu king. I imagine that
some destruction would have taken place somewhere along the line. Lets
say that Kalibari is on the location of an older Buddhist shrine ...
what then?
Daulat
sayan bhattacharyya
Saurabh Jang <saur...@wwa.com> wrote:
>There is justification for Phoolan taking revenge on those who
>wronged her if the police did not do anything about it. However,
>how long did she give the police to achieve justice?
It seems that you are completely out of touch with the ground
realities of the society in that part of the country. If a
lower-caste woman is raped, it is considered a PERFECTLY NATURAL
EVENT. The police take NO action in these cases. In fact the
police itself routinely commits custodial rape.
Again, this is not to defend Phoolan or justify her actions,
but merely to provide the social background behind the events.
>Also, where
>is the justification for her life of crime after she achieved here revenge?
Once she "achieved her revenge", she was already a fugitive from the law,
wasn't she? In the eyes of the law, she was a criminal. Did society
provide her with any alternative at that point?
Subir...@mci.com
In article <3507D3...@csc.com>,
.... deleted ....
> > Now this is really funny. The pseudo-secular toadies do nothing to
>
> what is a "pseudo-secular toadie"?
I guess he meant me, the one and only, Subir De., P(s)eculiarist
extra-ordinary !
Subir De., the well-known self-advertiser.
PS. I know for sure that my Muslim 'friend's' super-market is built on na old
and holy temple site (I have solid proof, I swear). Can some one spare a me a
Kar-Sevak to help India's (and mine own, if I may add) destiny to regain its
past flory and demolish this blight on our sensibilities ? Thanks, and may the
Gods give you the usual blessings.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Joseph Daniel
A religious fanatic with ego the size of an elephant purporting to be a
proud hindu but in reality a hypocrite wrote:
Saurabh Jang <saur...@wwa.com> wrote in article
<6e7jdi$64u$2...@hirame.wwa.com>...
> There is justification for Phoolan taking revenge on those who
> wronged her if the police did not do anything about it. However,
> how long did she give the police to achieve justice? The Ayodhaya
> case has been in courts for more than 50 years now. Also, where
> is the justification for her life of crime after she achieved here
revenge?
>
> Saurabh
>
Joseph Daniel
A religious fanatic with ego the size of an elephant purporting to be a
proud hindu but in reality a hypocrite wrote:
sayan bhattacharyya <bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu> wrote in article
<6e5brl$ah0$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>...
Saurabh Jang
DSen (ds...@csc.com) wrote:
: the mob were very visible on television bulettins, heard loudly on the
: radio and photographed extensively doing their handiwork. As far as I
: know, no muslims were killed in Ayodha that day, but what I do know is
: that an act of unnecessary violence took place
You said the mob was blood-thirsty. Then how come no Muslims were
killed in Ayodhaya that day? You certainly wouldn't have seen anything
about the mob on TV or AIR, because they were showing pre-demolition shots
of the pseudo-Masjid for the longest time.
: What you have to face up to is that whatever legitimate grieviences
: Hindu's have, have been hijacked by a bunch of self serving politicians
: who have done whatever it takes to rise to political power. Indian
: politicians only know andolon and morcha - the legacy of the freedom
: struggle - well freedom is 50 years old and we still haven't got beyond
: resistance? I expect more from my countrymen than that.
Please do not reveal your poor knowledge of the political history of the
BJP. Their strong position today is the result of decades of hard work.
: ofcourse there are, why not focus on that rather than something that is
: of no use to man nor beast?
Man does not live by bread alone. Cultural aspirations are important too.
: what does it mean?
Those who claim to be secular are not really secular. They accuse the
BJP of being anti-Muslim, but they themselves view them as a
monolothic vote bank to be taken advantage of. Most of these
pseudo-seculars will say quite uncharitable things about Islam
off the record yet parade their secularism shamelessly.
: well they would say that the state of Israel was forcibly implanted in
: their midst and they had to oppose it, hence they have a legitimate
: reason (to themselves) for the wars.
Oh really? The state of Israel existedfor thousands of years before
the Arab empire came into being.
: I think there is adequate documentation that the early inhabitants of
: Bengal were Buddhist and were conquered by a Hindu king. I imagine that
: some destruction would have taken place somewhere along the line. Lets
: say that Kalibari is on the location of an older Buddhist shrine ...
: what then?
You talk of Buddhists as if they were a separate race of people
with a religion totally divorced from Hinduism. What was the religion
of the Buddhists before? Why is it reasonable to assume that
"destruction must have taken place .."? Did Shivaji or Ranjit
Singh destroy mosques in the areas they ruled?
Saurabh
Saurabh Jang
sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
: It seems that you are completely out of touch with the ground
: realities of the society in that part of the country. If a
: lower-caste woman is raped, it is considered a PERFECTLY NATURAL
: EVENT. The police take NO action in these cases. In fact the
: police itself routinely commits custodial rape.
: Again, this is not to defend Phoolan or justify her actions,
: but merely to provide the social background behind the events.
: >Also, where
: >is the justification for her life of crime after she achieved here revenge?
: Once she "achieved her revenge", she was already a fugitive from the law,
: wasn't she? In the eyes of the law, she was a criminal. Did society
: provide her with any alternative at that point?
She could have fled to any other state and taken up a new life.
Indian Police are not exactly the FBI.
Saurabh
Daulat Sen
> killed in Ayodhaya that day? You certainly wouldn't have seen anything
> about the mob on TV or AIR, because they were showing pre-demolition shots
> of the pseudo-Masjid for the longest time.
an act of violence is an act of violence - do you for one moment imagine
that if there were muslims within striking distance, that they would not
have been attacked? DD obviously didnt show the violence, but the mob
were shown on the BBC and CNN - and even in India that was broadcast and
seen
> Please do not reveal your poor knowledge of the political history of the
> BJP. Their strong position today is the result of decades of hard work.
no doubt there was plenty of hard work, but all indian political parties
are adept at exploiting agitation and unrest - not least of which is the
BJP. the whole rath-yatra thing was designed to provoke agitation
>
> : ofcourse there are, why not focus on that rather than something that is
> : of no use to man nor beast?
>
> Man does not live by bread alone. Cultural aspirations are important too.
"cultural aspiration" to me does not involve the demolition of buildings
and the persecution of other people
>
> : what does it mean?
>
> Those who claim to be secular are not really secular. They accuse the
> BJP of being anti-Muslim, but they themselves view them as a
> monolothic vote bank to be taken advantage of. Most of these
> pseudo-seculars will say quite uncharitable things about Islam
> off the record yet parade their secularism shamelessly.
ofcourse they will, i have no problems with saying that the congress
goons are equally as idiotic. even the CPI(M) cadres have been known to
attack or provoke muslims in W.Bengal
>
> : well they would say that the state of Israel was forcibly implanted in
> : their midst and they had to oppose it, hence they have a legitimate
> : reason (to themselves) for the wars.
>
> Oh really? The state of Israel existedfor thousands of years before
> the Arab empire came into being.
>
er no. the jewish nation flourished for a while between the egyptians
and the romans and was then extinguished and the tribes scattered, the
land remaining as a province of the empire. following the romans and
the byzantinians, the muslim egyptians ran it, then fought over it with
the crusaders, then the mongols, then the crusaders again until it was
subsumed into the ottoman empire - where it remained till its collapse
and takeover by britain, and in 1948 the european jews who had arrived
there after the 2nd WW declared independance from britain and
established the modern state of israel
>
> You talk of Buddhists as if they were a separate race of people
> with a religion totally divorced from Hinduism.
there are racial differences between the original buddhist inhabitants
of bengal and the hindu people who conquered them - which you see today
in the differences in appearance of bengalis
> What was the religion of the Buddhists before?
and that is exactly the attitude that non hindu indians complain about -
whatever it was is not relevant - they were what they were when they
were conquered. are you aware of how the Indian constitution defines
Hinduism? it is someone who is NOT a muslim, christian, sikh, jew,
parsi, buddhist or jain. we dont give them the option of being who they
want to be, we assume that they are or were part of "us" and thats all
there is to it
> Why is it reasonable to assume that
> "destruction must have taken place .."? Did Shivaji or Ranjit
> Singh destroy mosques in the areas they ruled?
>
i don't know, but their religion does not say as the christian and
muslim one does that idol worship is wrong and must be obliterated, so i
would imagine not. destruction takes place during warfare, its part of
the deal and unavoidable, in the olden days because it was a
pre-requisite for looting and the demonstration of power, nowadays
because of explosives
Daulat
Ishfaq Ahmed
If there are some convincible proofs other than usual Ram-kahani, then Hindu
sentiments should be adjusted. If it is usual Hindu bigotry to tear down everything
Muslim built in India, then it must be resisted or India divided to create safe havens
for all minorities.
Ishfaq
Mo
On 13 Mar 1998 22:43:09 GMT, ahme...@news.uidaho.edu (Ishfaq Ahmed)
wrote:
>If there are some convincible proofs other than usual Ram-kahani, then Hindu
sentiments should be adjusted. If it is usual Hindu bigotry to tear
down everything
Muslim built in India,<
No ,there would be written guarantees that after these sites
were acknowledged as Muslim and the Muslims then sold them to Hindus
at a much higher than replacement cost levels , there would be no more
demands on any other temple sites.
In fact as far as I know there never have been. This Taj Mahal
is Hindu stuff is the biggest piece of nonsense and even the VHP
doesnt want anything to do with it.
Joseph Daniel
A religious fanatic with ego the size of an elephant purporting to be a
proud hindu but in reality a hypocrite wrote:
Saurabh Jang <saur...@wwa.com> wrote in article
<6ea7o5$fvo$1...@hirame.wwa.com>...
> DSen (ds...@csc.com) wrote:
(some stuff deleted)
>
> : I think there is adequate documentation that the early inhabitants of
> : Bengal were Buddhist and were conquered by a Hindu king. I imagine
that
> : some destruction would have taken place somewhere along the line. Lets
> : say that Kalibari is on the location of an older Buddhist shrine ...
> : what then?
>
>
> You talk of Buddhists as if they were a separate race of people
> with a religion totally divorced from Hinduism. What was the religion
> of the Buddhists before? Why is it reasonable to assume that
> "destruction must have taken place .."? Did Shivaji or Ranjit
> Singh destroy mosques in the areas they ruled?
>
> Saurabh
>
>
chatterjee avik prasun
: : so help me understand this logic, say for example, the palestinian being
: : ejected from his house in an area being reserved for jewish settlement
: : thinks, hey, its great, i know we have lived here for centuries, but its
: : ok for the jews to throw me out cos they were here before us and i'm
: : fine with that!
: Yes. Who told the Arab nations to wage war with Israel and lose those
: territories?
Saurabh....are you saying that only might is right, in fact ?
In view of your previous argument (here snipped) the Palestinians
DO have rights in the land called Israel today, and even if they lost it
temporarily in the vicissitudes of warfare, are fully entitled to recover
it ! (Just as the Kar sewaks in your view were re-occupying that
disused pile of brick and mortar). I don't think you are answering
the question above.
For that matter, descendants of "Aryans" should pack up
and leave India, and return the land to Dravidians, to pursue
the argument to its conclusion (assuming one accepts the Aryan
invasion theory, I mean).
-Avik.
: : so if a buddhist appears to you and says that you hindu's overran us in
Supratik Das
Basu plea for support to Cong. 'not for now'
Date: 16-03-1998 :: Pg: 13 :: Col: d
By Our Special Correspondent
NEW DELHI, March 15.
The West Bengal Chief Minister, Mr. Jyoti Basu's
statement on the need to back a Congress(I)
government has created confusion in Left circles here,
and senior leaders today sought to
explain that his remarks were not intended ``for
now''.
They said what he meant was that in the event of the
fall of the BJP government, likely to be
formed soon, the Left and the United Front should work
to instal a ``secular'' government; and
such a government could be led by the Congress(I).
Sources in the CPI(M) and the CPI maintained that
there was no change in the Left's position
and that Mr. Basu's statement should be read in the
context of the situation which might arise
after the ``defeat'' of the BJP government on the vote
of confidence in the Lok Sabha.
``There is no change in our central committee's
decision that in the event of a BJP government
being formed, the CPI(M), along with other Left and
secular forces, will oppose this
government on the floor of the Lok Sabha,'' said a
CPI(M) politburo member.
A CPI leader, even as he wondered about the timing of
Mr. Basu's comment, argued that it did
not represent a shift in the Left's stand against
intervening in government formation at this
stage. The Forward Bloc general secretary, Mr.
Debabrata Biswas, was also firm that there
was no question of supporting a Congress(I) government
now.
``Let the BJP be asked to form a government and once
we are able to defeat it in Parliament
then we should explore other options. After all there
has to be a government and if it means
supporting a Congress government we will discuss when
we come to it,'' he said.In a TV
interview on Saturday, Mr. Basu had said that in view
of the ``failure'' of the BJP to form a
government he was requesting all United Front partners
to support a Congress (I) government.
This created the impression that he was making a plea
for stopping the BJP from forming a
government. Observers were surprised that he should
have made such a statement so soon after
a similar proposal by the CPI(M) general secretary,
Mr. Harkishan Singh Surjeet, had evoked
protest even from within the Left. The attempt today
to put a gloss on it did not convince many.
Surjeet for support to Cong.(I)
PTI reports:
The CPI(M) general secretary, Mr. Harkishan Singh
Surjeet, has agreed with his senior party
colleague and West Bengal Chief Minister, Mr. Jyoti
Basu's view that the United Front should
support the Congress(I) from outside for forming a
government.
In an interview to a private TV channel, Mr. Surjeet
claimed that the BJP and its allies would
not be able to prove majority in the Lok Sabha.
``We (Congress and U.F.) have got more numbers than
the BJP and its allies. But let us talk to
the Congress first,'' the CPI(M) leader said.
Stating that the demands raised by Ms. Jayalalitha
were directly linked with the people's
sentiments in Tamil Nadu, he said in her support
letter to the BJP and the statements to the
media she had raised several instances of the BJP's
``high- handed'' attitude and charged the
BJP with humilating her.
On Mrs. Sonia Gandhi taking over as the Congress(I)
president and the ouster of Mr. Sitaram
Kesri, Mr. Surjeet said, ``this shows that the crisis
within the Congress has not yet been
resolved. However, her entry into active politics has
stopped people leaving the Congress.''
Asked how he was criticising the same party which the
CPI(M) intended to support, Mr.
Surjeet said, ``BJP's policies are worse than that of
the Congress. There is no other choice.
The country has to have a government and the BJP is
not in a position to provide it.''
Ishfaq Ahmed
.net>
Distribution:
I know you Hindus can't be that fool to dismental Taj as it attracts millions of
tourists and generates huge money for Your economy but there is no doubt, if you
could, you will try to destroy other Muslim structures particularly mosques, based on
your Ram-kahanis. However, if satisfactorily sufficient guarenties are provided to
Indian Muslims, a negotiaion with Muslims may start for those so called three sites.
Muslims are not bigot like you guys, they only react and resist your bigotry.
Ishfaq
Mo
On 16 Mar 1998 21:41:50 GMT, ahme...@news.uidaho.edu (Ishfaq Ahmed)
wrote:
> However, if satisfactorily sufficient guarenties are provided to
Indian Muslims, a negotiaion with Muslims may start for those so
called three sites.
Muslims are not bigot like you guys, they only react and resist your
bigotry.<
So anxious are Hindus tto build sites to Ram . Krishna and
Shiva at these three holist of holy sites that Muslims could name
their price and the NRIs would raise it $10m , $100m ? in a week.
The only problem is with the pseudosculars. Once they see that
this dispute is in danger of being resolved they will kick up a big
fuss as it destroys their vote bank .
I honestly dont think that any Hindu has problem with any
Muslim being an equal and valid citizen of India , if the Muslims just
respect this aspect of Hindu sentiment.
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
: Dr. Jai Maharaj <j...@mantra.com> wrote:
: >Dacoit and mass murderer Phoolan "Devi" was defeated in Mirzapur.
: >Throw the criminals out of office!
: 1) Do people who physically destroy places of worship (such as
: mosques), or abet in doing so, also qualify as criminals?
Just like Phoolan they too tried for long to get back their temple ;-)
: Just curious.
Regards, --Ramakrishna.
Saurabh Jang
As I said, the Jews had established their state of Israel thousands
of years before 1948, and as such they were only gaining what
was rightfully theirs.
If the Arabs had not been the fundamentalist
savages they are, Palestinians could have been living as a
free people in Syria.
Also, can't you guys come up with any other excuse other than
the tired old cliche of the Aryan Invasion Theory? The
validity of that hypothesis is no longer accepted in serious
academia. Go read a bit more about the current state of research
regarding the AIT. The whole concept of an Aryan race is a
bogus one, founded on zero historical evidence.
Saurabh
chatterjee avik prasun (apch...@staff.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Saurabh....are you saying that only might is right, in fact ?
Joseph Daniel
A religious fanatic with ego the size of an elephant purporting to be a
proud hindu but in reality a hypocrite wrote:
Saurabh Jang <saur...@wwa.com> wrote in article
<6ekvvb$j3t$1...@hirame.wwa.com>...
Supratik Das
Title: Row over Anglican Blair's bid to become Catholic
Author: L.K. Sharma
Publication: The Times Of India
Date: March 15, 1998
London as Prime Minister Tony Blair tries to capture Britain's
soul, some others have launched a battle for his soul. It all
started when Blair was spotted attending Mass alone at
Westminster Cathedral.
This perfect plot for a Graham Greene novel fired the imagination
of a few, but the established Church of England was not amused.
Mr Blair's presence in an eastern-looking building known for
sacramental quality of worship sparked speculation that the prime
minister may be thinking of converting to Roman Catholicism. The
very thought of the first-ever Catholic prime minister of Britain
provoked the believers and unbelievers alike in this Crhistendom
which was once the subject of Rome Rajya.
Mr Blair is an Anglican with a Catholic wife, bringing up their
children in her faith. The Church of England is concerned
because, of late, some high-profile politicians, royals and
socialites have defected to Rome under the guidance of a priest
at Westminster Cathedral. The self-confidence of the Church of
England is low. Some labour M.P.s frequently threaten it with
disestablishment. While Anglican churches keep closing down by
the dozens, the attraction of Rome's liturgical worship is
growing. Once the Roman Church was associated with Irish
immigrants and servant clases but under the leadership of
Cardinal Basil Hume, it has become chic, somewhat like in an
earlier period when writers such as Evelyn Waugh and Graham
Greene had converted.
There is no constitutional bar on the British Prime Minister
becoming a Catholic though the British monarch does not enjoy a
similar freedom. Still, when an Anglican prime minister of a
country, where law have historically discriminated against
Catholics, goes alone to Mass in a Catholic church, it does cause
a stir.
Ironically, the Church of England spoke to Mr Blair through the
voice of a Bishop of Pakistani origin. Michael Nazir-Ali publicly
counselled Mr Blair against defection. Nazir-Ali should know all
about religious conversions and is justified in praying the
loudest. It is yet another case of the Empire striking back.
Nazir-Ali wrote in The Times that a committed Anglican such as
the prime minister should not even contemplate becoming a Roman
Catholic. Reasons the Bishop: New Labour says it is committed to
democracy but the Roman Catholic church is one in which
government remains firmly in the hands of the Vatican, and to a
much lesser extent with bishops. There are no established
institutions for consulting clergy or laity on important issues.
Even when Priests are able to meet, they are not allowed to
discuss controversial issues such as the celibacy of clergy or
the ordination of women. There is no "open" government.
The bishop asks the prime minister whether a modem democratic
leader can order his spiritual life in a dogmatic framework since
papal authority is still exercised by the Vatican. It insists
that the truth of papal teaching is not established by its
perceived consonance with scripture and tradition but simply by
the fact that it is papal teaching.
According to the bishop, this becomes very important when it
comes to the Roman Church's teaching in the area of personal and
family morality. The teaching seems obsessed with the sexual act
both in the case of contraception and artificial insemination and
fertilisation. The bishop goes on to Point Out problems with the
church's approach to divorce and abortion and its attitude to the
place of women in the family, society and the church. He
criticises the Roman Catholic Church's refusal to ordain women
and asked the prime minister whether the leader of a party
committed to equality for women really belong to a Church which
denies them this equality in a central aspect of its life.
The bishop concludes that in the past 40 Years, the Roman
Catholic Church has changed dramatically but in the meantime, the
message to Mr Blair must be: "You should not become a CAtholic
(or, at least not yet)."
Some Roman Catholics ciiticised the Bishop for mixing up church
teaching and a political culture. Harsher critics question the
"democratic" and "modem" credentials of the Church of England
which also remains a class- based institution. The bishop is
also being told that Church is not a debating society. To such
critics, Michael Nazir-Ali's article has only confirmed Cardinal
Newman'S observation: "I do not disguise the fact that
Catholicism is a different religion from Anglicanism." This is a
debate that would run.
It has been said that Mr Blair's spiritual journey towards Rome
or in any direction must remain a private matter. But in a
country where Camilla's sleeping arrangements in Prince Charles'
house were made public last week. This argument will not do. The
public probing of the prime minister's religious faith is not an
intrustion too far because Blair himself has proclaimed his
Christianity very often.
Before the general election, Mr Blair was even attacked by his
secular critics for inducting religion into Politics. Of course,
he was not trying to inflame communal passion or woo minority
votes. All that he said was that Christianity and Conservatism
did not go together because the latter was based on greed and
free market excesses. It was like saying that Hindu party cannot
aim for high growth rate.
But when a politician prays, some suspect his motives. One unkind
critic is sure that if , Mr Blair goes over to Rome he will
probably want to be the next Pope. Confessional jokes have
started doing rounds. Critics would like to see Mr Blair
identified with a sense of sin rather than a state of grace.
They may ask whether Mr Blair, the Christian, is following an
inner call or Mr Blair, the politician, is trying to be all
things to all men. May be, Mr Blair the moderniser, wants to deal
a symbolic blow to anti-Catholic discrimination and to the 500
year old post-reformation protestant tradition of treating Rome
as "the other".
For long, the Church of England was considered to the Tory Party
at prayer. However, when some radical clergymen attacked the
harsher face of Conservatism, the relations between the party and
the church deteriorated.
Irritated Tory leaders began to denounce inconvenient clergymen
as lefties. Margaret Thatcher asked them to keep off, saying that
the Church was for spiritual redemption, not social reforms. A
few of the clergy echoed Paul Tillich, the theologian, who said
that "socialism is the only Possible economic system from
Christian point of view.
Mr Blair began to portray new labour as the embodiment of
Christian values. In a way, he is justified since British
socialism stemmed from Christianity rather than from Marxism.
However, religion and politics are not matters of doctrines
alone. Sectarian Politics can kill. It happened again last week
in Northern Ireland. Two friends, a Catholic and protestant, were
killed. They were victims of bigotry which made them live across
the divide and made them die across the same.
Thus, whatever be the force of his religious impulses, Mr Blair
can hardly ignore the impact of any move by him on the Northern
Ireland peace talks. Protestants in Northern Ireland would be up
in arms if a non-Protestant were to occupy 10, Downing Street.
Thus, there are limits to Blair's, ecumenical fervour or leap of
faith. Northern Ireland will not be ready to bury sectarianism
in the near future even if a modern Britian somehow gets ready to
tol- erate a Catholic or a Hindu prime minister.
Joseph Daniel
A religious fanatic with ego the size of an elephant purporting to be a
proud hindu but in reality a hypocrite wrote:
Saurabh Jang <saur...@wwa.com> wrote in article
Supratik Das
Title: All about displacement
Author: Smita Deshmukh
Publication: The Times Of India
Date: March 15, 1998
When the Maharashtra government asked Rajiv Shah to make a
documentary film on the rehabilitation of adivasis displaced by
the construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam in the Narmada valley
two years ago, he didn't realise that the film would turn out to
be much more than government propaganda. The 20 minute
documentary Sardar Sarovar Punarvasan shown at the Fifth Mumbai
International Film Festival, is a gritty account of the other,
unseen side of Narmada struggle. It portrays the true account of
the adivasis who have now started living in new houses and begun
farming through modern technology. This tribe which has, for
generations, been a relic of the pre-electricity era, has now
moved closer towards modern science.
The environmental imbalance and the subsequent rehabilitation of
the adivasis has so far dominated the Sardar Sarovar project
thanks to the international media attention received by the
agitation led by the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) under the
leadership of Medha Patkar.
However, Shah's documentary questions the logic of the NBA
agitation since a majority of 10,000 tribal families have been
rehabilitated. It focusses on the core issue the lack of progress
of the dam over the past three years which has cost the Centre a
whopping Rs 1,600 crores. The film brings home the point that the
worst sufferers of this delay are not the villages under
submergence, but the people of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh
which were to get 1,450 MW electrictv out of this Project. Around
15 crore people were likely to get employment.
The documentary has questioned the direction of the entire NBA
agitation since a majority of the adivasis have been resettled,
while the Union government continues to suffer a loss per day by
way of interest on its total investment of Rs 5,000 crores.
'The 1995 Supreme Court order restricts the height of the dam to
81 metres, instead of the proposed 146 metres, which means the
irrigation plans meant to cover 18 lakh hectares of land and
drinking water to 130 townships and 8,000 villages in Gujarat and
Suarashtra, including the desert of Kutch, have been on hold." he
says.
The film also dwells on the most important, yet untouched subject
the voluntary displacement of the adviasis. On the base of
Saatpuda hills in Dhule district, five major rehabilitated
housing areas have sprung up. The revenue officers have
successfully convinced the adivasis to stay-after allotting them
no less than 4.200 hectares of farming land.
"Each family is given 502 sq metres of housing land along with
alternate land for agriculture, Rs 4,500 annually for house
expenses, Rs 750 as rehabilitation allowance, free seeds and
equipment for farming and Rs 14,500 cinder the Indira Vikas
Yojana to build their houses, informs Shah.
Shooting in .these hilly areas was a daunting ask for Shah and
his crew which survived several attacks from the NBA activists.
In fact, the non-cooperation of the sarpanch of Manibeli and an
NBA activist, Narayan Tadvi, surprised the crew the most. few
men attacked us with weapons, we had to literally run with our
equipment," says a crew member.
"Medha Patkar made a valuable contribution by forcing the
government to change its harsh rehabilitation methods. But since
the villagers have accepted new land offered to them on their own
terms, the agitation has lost its bite, explains Shah.
Woody
For the Prime minister any religion is OK, I think most sensible people in
the UK would agree, provided there is no political action or moral finger
wagging that is or appears to be based on one religion or another.
Woody
--
In a culture that encourages feeble minded political correctness, great monuments and great works of art are not to be expected.
sayan bhattacharyya
Supratik Das <d...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>Title: All about displacement
>Author: Smita Deshmukh
>Publication: The Times Of India
>Date: March 15, 1998
>
>When the Maharashtra government asked Rajiv Shah to make a
>documentary film on the rehabilitation of adivasis displaced by
>the construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam in the Narmada valley
So this was a government-sponsored film :-) Hardly the kind of
film likely to paint a neutral picture.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Dacoit and mass murderer Phoolan "Devi" was defeated in Mirzapur.
Throw the criminals out of office!
Prime Minister Vajpayee has now started the cleansing process.
Jai Maharaj
Jyotishi, Vedic Astrologer
http://www.flex.com/~jai
Om Shanti
<a href="mailto:j...@mantra.com?subject=Bharat">Dr. Jai Maharaj</a>
Ramesh
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> Dacoit and mass murderer Phoolan "Devi" was defeated in Mirzapur.
> Throw the criminals out of office!
>
> Prime Minister Vajpayee has now started the cleansing process.
>
> Jai Maharaj
So when will the PM throw 'bandit queen' Jayalalitha in jail.
Kaushik Ghosh
government of Kalyan Singh is resting on the shoulders of pious saints
with no records of criminality and who are ministers because they are
saints and not horses which were bought with a handful of grams.
Crooks, BJP and Jai Maharj-ji: the three avatars of Hindutva!