In Message-ID: <3...@mrsvr.UUCP> Date: 28 Nov 90 18:35:18 GMT
Arvind Pandey writes:
"Also at stake is the right of Hindues for religious freedom and
belief. Also human decency respecting the sentiments of the
million of Hindues, and respecting their faith."
Dear Arvind,
If having a sense for decency <==> respect for millions of Hindus'
beliefs is your criterion, I don't see how pandering to the stupidity
of lunatics who know exactly where this mythical guy rama was born
-------
is going to help your cause. Even if Babur did destroy a temple,
which is debated, so what? Aren't there thousands of other temples
which need `jeernoddhar' (aka resoration)? Unless some reason exists
as to why THIS temple of all is key, don't expect much support. Of
course if rama was indeed born there, tell me how you know? Which is
to say, proof, evidence, substantiation, anotka as myths, fairytales
---
passionate vouchings by sadhus, babas, fakirs, poets, bards,
my grandaunt's sister-in-law's brother's barber's word for it.
Basically, VHP type buggers want to rewrite the past and forget that
someone came in and beat the shit out of us a long time ago and put
hindus in a position of inferiority. Since these guys don't have
the brains, guts or ability to do anything constructive, and to
build a new scenario, what better way than to the intellectually
lazy path and indulge in blatant ancestor worship. What about
the bloody brahmanical kings that killed and persecuted jain and
buddhist monks? heretical hindu sects? what about the ugly face of
hindusim and caste? about sati? about a bunch of other ugly things?
And if these boogers are so bloody stupid/lazy that they can't even
begin to see all this dirt in Hinduism, what is the guarantee that they
are not lying or being glib when they say `of course that's not part of
hindusim'. To them, my only question is, of course the old one:
If all this crap ain't Hinduism, you better define exhaustively what
constitutes your bleedin' 'indu feelings and sentiments you is blabbin
about mate! If the muslims beat the s**t out of the hindus, that's
history and only if you feel that this historical fact diminishes you
as a hindu today would you get so bleedin' itchy and uptight about it.
Being embarrassed is a sign either of personal guilt or of insecurity.
And nothing is easier than to transfer this guilt or imsecurity to
an external source like muslims or whatever. Any society run on the
basis of a religion having primacy is fascist. PERIOD. Put all this
together and see why you can't get thru to the saner part of the human
race (if you belong to VHP that is). It may be possible that avenging
the non-issues resulting from historical facts ain't more important
to some of us than feeding, clothing, sheltering and educating 800
or so millions souls. This poison impedes the smooth pursuit of that
goal and that's why it is objectionable. VHP are basically raising a
slogan that can't be a basis for rational discusiion, only emotional
fury and destruction, hence my objections.
Then your posting goes on to say:
<TEXT FROM POSTING BEGINS>
> Mukhopadhyay reported, "a senior former ASI officer
> said that there was no question of deviating from the original
> findings which underline that modern Ayodhya was not a seat of Rama
> (if he existed) and that a temple to mark his birth place was not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> built on the site of the Babri Masjid."
It is the statements like this that hurt Hindu Psyche. May be
Hindues should start questioning others on the existance of their
particular loved ones/gods/stalins and so forth. The basic onus
has been put on Hindues to prove the existance of Lord Rama, to
claim their right to practice their belief. How come not one
muslim that I have met feels sorry, that Kashi Vishwanath temple
of Varanasi, Krishna Janmasthan of Mathura, and Ram Janmbhoomi
were desecrated by muslim invaders and rulers. And these biogted
intolerenaces cannot be papered over. A healing touch has to applied
to get over centuries of intolerance. Why is it that people always
call Hindues to maintain their tradition of tolerance and sacrifice?
<TEXT FROM POSTING ENDS>
Dear Arvind,
If telling you that you have no basis for the so called claims
you are making is hurting your psyche, it is high time you got
yourself a new one (psyche I mean). So, if you want to go break
my house because rama threw some stuff at that spot, I'm going
to demand proof. But if you want to go jump off a cliff because
rama didn't accept sita after she came back from ravana's court
or if you feel that this shows him up to be a rather insensitive
male chauvinist goon, and want to choke to death on it, I don't
have any objection, nor will I demand that you prove your case
that a bloke by the name of rama actually existed and pulled all the
stunts that I've read about. It is only when your beliefs clash
with those of others that you have to adduce proof and to adhere to
mutually acceptable standards of decency. You can't just lay down
your own standards of decency and expect them to be universally
accepted. Now, to link this to my earlier comments, your next remark
is muslims don't express regret for desecration of places. Why should
they? They didn't do it. More likely than not, their ancestors
were probably hindus who converted to islam. So why expect them
to have regrets for something they had no part in, did not
authorize, approve of, promote etc...? Just so that they can
make people like you hurt less because somebody (in the past)
beat the s**t out of somebody else? It is there that your flaw lies
and that your true colours shine thru. Basically the small mind
of all fundamentalists, hindu or muslim or any other type
is unable to accept that your own beliefs are as much subjective
and based on myths and unfounded tales as anybody elses. So, you
challenge others. But muslims and communists are better than you
by your own standards. Mohammed was a historical figure, as was
Stalin. And the Muslims or communists don't accept them as divine
either. They merely follow the teachings. And Stalin is not even
acknowledged as a theorist, so following his teachings is debatable
at best. Try Marx or Mao or Lenin, why the comparison to Stalin?
Rama is not the founder of a philosophy, he is a mythical folk hero.
A bit like a Robin Hood, except more in keeping with Indian tradition.
He is a king and a good son etc. but a lousy husband and father.
So what Ram janmabhoomi is about is building a temple on the exact
birth-spot of some mythical Robin Hood type character by breaking
an existing religious structure. All for a guy who is some type of
folk hero. Boy what a tolerant, nice, calm, rational religion!!!!
And then you have the gall to turn around and complain of unfair
treatment. I think its very unfair that you haven't died laughing at
your own joke, I'm almost on the verge of death by hilarity!!!!!
And as to your question about why hindus should turn the other cheek.
Ater independence, muslims have been economically and politically
discriminated against and hence their further opression is even more
reprehensible. Hindus are not particularly more tolerant than others
no matter what you think about the much vaunted peaceful co-existence
myths you have been taught to parrot. Recent research shows that
the much vaunted tolerance myths are exactly that: myths. So when
Hindus in your terms are asked to do more than others, they are really
asked to do nothing but behave like civilized animals, not beasts.
Of course given historical standards, that maybe too much to expect
from these hindu fanatics. Again, if the point is not yet clear,
let me reiterate: it is not your love of Hinduism thats at stake, its
your fanaticism that is irritating and your megalomaniac pretensions
that are dangerous. Be a Hindu if you want, don't expect me to treat
you with more respect because you are one of a majority. That kind
of logic is simply the rule of big stick and that is not what the
new India is all about. High time you realized that.
The next part of your posting is:
<TEXT FROM POSTING BEGINS>
"> The letter was signed by eminent historians and then academics:
> Romilla Thapar, Muzaffar Alam, Bipan Chandra, R Champaka Lakshmi, S
> Bhattacharya, H Mukhia, Suvira Jaiswal, S Ratnagar, M K Palat, Satish
> Saberwal, S Gopal and Mridula Mukherjee.
The academics in India, especially in places like JNU and Calcutta
have stopped being academics and become crusaders and torc-bearers
of left, in their struggle to get indian's rid of the opioum of
religion. Thank God, that they have failed in their endeavour, and
their (mis)rule is contained to periphery of WBengal and Kerla."
<TEXT FROM POSTING ENDS>
So you want them to be on opium do you? Your narco-terrorist leaning
neo-fascist background (ideological of course) shows thru, but I bet
you think you are just voicing a reasoable thought. Have you read Marx?
Have you read Engels? Lenin? Mao? Do you know why they did what they
did? Do you understand why Marx called religion the opium of the masses?
Precisely because asses like you can use religion to lead the masses by the
nose. To whet passions and to exploit peoples poverty, frustration and
ignorance. Do you know why the people of Bengal voted these Marxists into
-----
power? Do you know about the sacrifices they made to implement land reforms?
Do you know that they were the only people who went into the villages to
give the people their rights and to politically educate them? Not that I
they are paragons of virtue but they did start out by doing good. Till
you link up their failures to your notion of Hindu rights, don't throw
around empty words: if you are indeed literate and can make cogent points
as access to the net leads me to assume, don't drivel man, be sensible.
The Marxists are a
...
read more »
