From article <1990Dec12.180614....@vlsi.waterloo.edu>, by dhil...@vlsi.waterloo.edu (Harminder Dhillon):

I strongly condemn such crude behaviour, and crass thought process
of people such as the originator of above leaflets. ( I have no
reason to doubt the veracity of the above). In my there are always
such extremists in any ideological fold, and they need to be
silenced and weeded out. I do not think that RSS has brought out
these pamphlets, nor the above suggets there official policy.
Just as Sen. Jesse Helms can be a republican, so I guess there can
be some such extremists in VHP/RSS. But their personal viewpoints
are not/cannot/should not become the official views of the organisation.
I believe that such is possible by the presence of majority of the
people in these organisations who are more moderate and peace-loving
in their viewpoints.

I also do not believe in Hindu Rashtra shit, that some of the
followers of these organisations, are spewing forth. But I do
believe that an effort is to be made that control of these
organisations does not slip into the hands of the extremists,
and saner counsel prevails in their policy and decisions. But
there is a need to strengthen these organisations, and to strengthen
nationalistic fervour among the people, and in the country.
The RSS and BJP can become a vechicle for people who believe in
getting rid of India of evils of socialism, communism, beauracracy,
reverse discrimination and secatrian appeasement; and a provide a
modern capitalistic society where the individual initiative is at
the premium, and the govt. role in society is marginalised.

- arvind

        Somthing I can completely agree with.  I wish most people in
VHP -- at least most of the leadership -- had these views! There is
definitely a lot of scope to strengthen India by strengthening the
nationalistic pride in her people.  Nationalism can be a dangerous
weapon too (as history amply demonstrates). We have to be careful that
we instil only a moderate (the "right") dose of it in our people.

        It will be great if we can have one (or a few) organizations
in India that can rid our Bharath of its evils. The role of the
government in Indian society needs to be marginalized in a BIG way!
A country as diverse as our country definitely can do with a
decentralization of powers to more local bodies.

        I guess the only point on which I have to disagree with you
is the assessment of RSS, BJP etc. My experience with them, their
leadership (Advani& co for trying to gain political leverage out of
the RJB issue, being aware of the riots it can lead to etc), their
stance on issues (the Hindu Rashtra stuff that you mentioned etc),
their mouthpieces (Organizer) do not allow me to express the same
kind of optimism about them that you have expressed above.

P J Narayanan

"Samgachathwam samvadathwam         | Walk together, speak in unison
  Samvo manaamsi jaanathaam         |  may your minds and knowledge unite
 Devobhaagam yathaapoorve           | Like how the Devaas united
  Samjaanaanaa upaasathe            |  to share the fruits (?!)
 Samaanomanthra, samithissamaanee   | May thoughts unite, groups concord
  Samaanam mana, sahachithameshaam  |  may your minds unite, and your hearts
 Samaanam manthram abhimanthraye va | Chant manthras in unison and
  Samaanena vo havisho juhaami      |  make offerings (yagnas) together
 Samaaneeva akoothi                 | May your goals be one
  Samaanaa hrudayani va             |  may your hearts be together
 Samaanamasthu vo mano              | May your minds be united
  Yathava susahaasathi"             |  and you live happiness.
                               [This can surely do with a translation far
        -- RgVeda               better than my scant knowledge of Sanskrit
  (An obvious call for          and poor memory could do today -- a request
   unity to the tribes)         to such people on the net]

Come on, Mr. Pandey, don't try to whitewash RSS and BJP. It is
not a question of a few individuals gone berserk. When these verses
are being sung in BJP rallies, it then becomes a mainstream BJP thought,
not a few extremists with freaky ideas. Just to put  things in
perspective, it is RSS ideologues such as Golwalker and Hedgewar
who formulated this 'kick the Muslims out' pseudo-philosophy. So don't
tell us that it is just a question of a few individuals.

Standard right wing refrains. Great, I guess somebody gets impressed
by slogans such as 'sectarian appeasement' or 'evils of socailism',
otherwise you wouldn't be spouting them out.

Sanjeev

     With all due respect, Arvind, if you don't believe in the
Hindu Rashtra shit, as you call it, then why do support the BJP
and RSS as you do. If the Hindu Rashtra and its ramifications are
inconsequential, then how is the BJP and RSS different from any
other party. Clearly, a party cannot claim on the one hand that they
are for the Hindus, and that they plan to right the traditional
wrongs done to the Hindus, and that they stand for the Hindu
Rashtra, and then for their followers to claim that none of
them in fact believe in the Hindu Rashtra itself. First, Raj
Bhatnagar says that the people who want Muslims out of the country
are wrong, then you say that you don't believe in the Hindu
Rashtra. So, which is true? Is the BJP/RSS for Hindus and the
Hindu Rashtra or not? If not, then just how are they different
from the Congress or the Janata parties?

    I have no problem with people believing or espousing any cause
they want, as long as their arguments for such causes are clear
and consistent. At least, as long as the BJP/VHP/RSS speaks out
against Muslims, they are at least being consistent, even if their
views for doing so are not clear to me. However, when you constantly
change your color, I have to begin to suspect that something is fishy.

   So, since you don't believe in the Hindu Rashtra, just how do
think the BJP/RSS is going to solve the problems in India in a
way that is different from that of any other party? And while
you are doing that, could you also please tell me just what these
problems of socialism, bureaucracy, communism, reverse discrimination
and sectarian appeasement are that the BJP/RSS are planning to solve?
I suspect that the answer to this question will be the answer to
whether you do indeed believe in the Hindu Rashtra.

                                                Srinath
                                        srin...@unix.cis.pitt.edu

In article <3...@mrsvr.UUCP> pan...@mrsvr.UUCP (Arvin Pandey) writes
(regarding a leaflet circulated in RSS meetings, which calls on Hindus
to send Muslims away somewhere out of sight)

First let me congragulate you on the fact that your heart is in the
right place. I hope the moderate majority keeps power though I have
my doubts. In India (and elsewhere I suppose) power is acquired by
making deals, and by doing favours. Just look at the Congress party
today ! I am sure most people who vote for Congress are moderates,
but look who run the show even at the smallest level. In India the
potential for a movement being hijacked is enormous.

I have to agree with you about reducing the govt. role in
society. A paternal govt. and powerful centralised govt. are
something I am completely opposed to. But I wish I could share
your optimism about the role of BJP,VHP,RSS in fostering such
a change.
Pramath

From article <70...@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, by srin...@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan):

BJP :  Among all political parties in Indian spectrum, I find myself
       closest to BJP. I have an utter contempt for communists,
       and a total disregard for Congress-I, and its lack of any
       policy or principles. Although BJP leadership has proved
       disappointing at times ( in not knowing where they stand,
       Gandhian Socialism was one such gimmick in '80, instead of
       outrightly junking socialism, and proclaiming to be
       unabashed capitalists). Any way nowhere in BJP platform
       is their a demand for Hindu Rashtra or a theocratic state.
       In fact there leaders have always refuted this. ( I challange
       anyone to produce any party resolutions to that affect).
       While it is true that at present in BJP extreme viewpoints
       are dominating currently, that does not mean the moderate
       core of the party does not exist. The extreme tone has been
       accelerated by a failure by moderates to achieve any success
       ( because non-cooperation of VPS govt on RJB issue), and also
       need for a political polarisation in the country to diffrentiate
       BJP from other political parties in its position towards right.

RSS :  RSS is mainly composed of honest, hard-working individuals
       doing a great job in various parts of the country. Again it
       not being a political organisations ( it's members are entitled
       to a political point of view), does contain members of all kind.
       Including fanatics and the extremists from the right. The
       organisation does provide a platform to espouse their views
       but may not be the official line of the party. Just like
       David Duke is a republican, so I am sure there are some
       such fanatics in RSS. But that does not mean that I should
       not support the organisation. It just means that may be right
       now extremists voices are th eonly once that being heard.

       On Oct 25 ( after Advani's arrest on 24th), AB Vajpayee said
       at Amousi Airport ( Lucknow) before his arrest, " I wish
       that RJB could become a Temple, where all religions could
       pray, and all religious icons kept there, ( as long as Ram's
       icon was kept at the proclaimed JanmBhoomi)", but alas noone
       was even listening. Again none of these organisations officially
       call for Hindu Rashtra ( VHP probably does, but it is a
       religious orgnisation, and I am not very much knowledgable
       about it).

  BJP doesn't claim this. Uma Bharti may, but she is just
  an MP, and has a right of opinion with in BJP. But I do not
  think that, that is the majority opinion or the party's opinion.

  Just as Uma Bharti ( the MP who has been quoted on SCI), is
  entitled to her opinion I am entitled to mine. Any organisation
  can have many streams of thought. In fact it would have to
  be an undemocratic organisation to not have any dissenters.

  NO.

  BJP is seeking a conservative electoral platform, which identifies
  with majority of Hindues ( and thus majority of countrymen).
  It is seeking the support of religious conservatives, fiscal
  conservatives, and conservatives on the matters of national
  security and defence. It also has a very anti-communist stance.
  It also is seeking visions of revivalism in the present state
  of degradation in Indian society and politics. ( Both Janta
  and Congress are to the left of the political spectrum, those
  who call themselves socialists but not communists).

Well If you think I am inconsistent, you will have to quote me,
or at least kind of give some more evidence to refresh my memories
( for I have said a lot over the years). As for as organisations
go their views change over time. Some of the RSS guys said weird
things in 50's. But there is no reason why RSS cannot change.
I mean Democrats were for slavery in the South in this country, and
republicans were against voting rights to Afro-Americans.
I do agree that there should not be any contradictions in short term
views. And for this you are welcome to inform me of recent RSS
or BJP resolutions calling for Hindu Rashtra etc. at their national
commitee meetings etc.

  I have written other articles on each of the above, and to me they
  seem as problems, while to you they seem as panacea's for
  india. It just depends on where you look from. I think each of those
  terms are amply clear, and concise in what they mean. We could
  debate in another thread if they are problem for India or not.

  I am sorry to see you disappointed. But then I never pre-suppose
  what your answer is going to be.

It's me again,

- arvind

In Article <3...@mrsvr.UUCP> pan...@mrsvr.UUCP (Arvin Pandey) writes

]>      With all due respect, Arvind, if you don't believe in the
]> Hindu Rashtra shit, as you call it, then why do support the BJP
]> and RSS as you do.

]BJP :  Among all political parties in Indian spectrum, I find myself
]       closest to BJP. I have an utter contempt for communists,
]       and a total disregard for Congress-I, and its lack of any
]       policy or principles. Although BJP leadership has proved
]       disappointing at times ( in not knowing where they stand,
]       Gandhian Socialism was one such gimmick in '80, instead of
]       outrightly junking socialism, and proclaiming to be
]       unabashed capitalists). Any way nowhere in BJP platform
]       is their a demand for Hindu Rashtra or a theocratic state.
]       In fact there leaders have always refuted this. ( I challange
]       anyone to produce any party resolutions to that affect).
]       While it is true that at present in BJP extreme viewpoints
]       are dominating currently, that does not mean the moderate
]       core of the party does not exist. The extreme tone has been
]       accelerated by a failure by moderates to achieve any success
]       ( because non-cooperation of VPS govt on RJB issue), and also
]       need for a political polarisation in the country to diffrentiate
]       BJP from other political parties in its position towards right.

      It is interesting that you and I arrive at different results from
the same data. You say that the BJP leadership has been disappointing at
times and has tended to resort to gimmicks. They are still disappointing
(you have clearly not mentioned any proof to the contrary), and are still
using gimmicks, the latest being the Ram Janmabhoomi crisis. You say that
the extremists dominate presently, and this is precisely my concern.
Incredibly, you put the blame for the domination of the extremists on
the VPS government. Taking into account your reference to the KKK leader
David Duke later, this is like blaming the existence of the KKK on the
dark skin on the blacks. What you have just done is deplore the existence
of the extremists in an earlier sentence and then offer a ridiculous
apology on their behalf. It seems like a contradiction (read inconsistency
#1) to me. You say you support a party in spite of the fact that you find
very few good things to say about it. You characterize yourself as a
moderate but claim that a party dominated by extremists is the one
that is closest to your view. Looks like inconsistency #2 to me.

]RSS :  RSS is mainly composed of honest, hard-working individuals
]       doing a great job in various parts of the country. Again it
]       not being a political organisations ( it's members are entitled
]       to a political point of view), does contain members of all kind.
]       Including fanatics and the extremists from the right. The
]       organisation does provide a platform to espouse their views
]       but may not be the official line of the party. Just like
]       David Duke is a republican, so I am sure there are some
]       such fanatics in RSS. But that does not mean that I should
]       not support the organisation. It just means that may be right
]       now extremists voices are th eonly once that being heard.

    RSS workers may be hard-working and honest, but this hardly
precludes them from being extremist. Organizations, in general, do
not provide platforms for points of view that they do not wish to
be associated with, unless they have nothing to do with the people
who express them. This is because, if they do, they are immediately
labeled as being inconsistent, something which obviously doesn't
bother you at all (inconsistency #3).

    Also, you offer the example of David Duke as if his only defect were
a penchant for dressing up in sheets. For your information, Arvind, David
Duke is a (past?) KKK member, a member in a group devoted to killing and
subjugating blacks. The fact that you compare him with the extremists
in the BJP tells me that these people are dangerous and should be stopped
at all costs. Surprisingly, this only warms you to them. Strange! (#4)
When the "liberals" characterized the BJP/VHP/RSS combine as KKK, they
were termed "Communists". Here you are, characterizing them in
the same vein, and in spite of it claim you feel politically close to
them. (#5)

]       On Oct 25 ( after Advani's arrest on 24th), AB Vajpayee said
]       at Amousi Airport ( Lucknow) before his arrest, " I wish
]       that RJB could become a Temple, where all religions could
]       pray, and all religious icons kept there, ( as long as Ram's
]       icon was kept at the proclaimed JanmBhoomi)", but alas noone
]       was even listening. Again none of these organisations officially
]       call for Hindu Rashtra ( VHP probably does, but it is a
]       religious orgnisation, and I am not very much knowledgable
]       about it).

     OK, ABV is a moderate. So who else is? And how powerful is ABV now?

]> Clearly, a party cannot claim on the one hand that they
]> are for the Hindus, and that they plan to right the traditional
]> wrongs done to the Hindus,
]> and that they stand for the Hindu
]> Rashtra,

]  BJP doesn't claim this. Uma Bharti may, but she is just
]  an MP, and has a right of opinion with in BJP. But I do not
]  think that, that is the majority opinion or the party's opinion.

     Uma Bharati is an extremist. Her views prove this. She is also
part of the BJP leadership. When an organization has extremists as its
leaders, it is termed an extremist organization. But you deny that BJP
is an extremist organization. (#6) In any case, you have already admitted
that the extremists presently dominate, but here you claim that Uma
Bharati's opinion's are not the majority opinion. Why? (#7).

]  Just as Uma Bharti ( the MP who has been quoted on SCI), is
]  entitled to her opinion I am entitled to mine. Any organisation
]  can have many streams of thought. In fact it would have to
]  be an undemocratic organisation to not have any dissenters.

     You are definitely entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled
to be inconsistent if you so wish. And how many streams of thought have
you identified in the BJP so far. Uma Bharati's and yours. Since neither
Uma Bharati nor the BJP leadership consult you before they act, how many
streams of thought does it leave. (#8)

]> First, Raj
]> Bhatnagar says that the people who want Muslims out of the country
]> are wrong, then you say that you don't believe in the Hindu
]> Rashtra. So, which is true?

]> Is the BJP/RSS for Hindus and the
]> Hindu Rashtra or not?

]  NO.

]> If not, then just how are they different
]> from the Congress or the Janata parties?

]  BJP is seeking a conservative electoral platform, which identifies
]  with majority of Hindues ( and thus majority of countrymen).
]  It is seeking the support of religious conservatives, fiscal
]  conservatives, and conservatives on the matters of national
]  security and defence. It also has a very anti-communist stance.
]  It also is seeking visions of revivalism in the present state
]  of degradation in Indian society and politics. ( Both Janta
]  and Congress are to the left of the political spectrum, those
]  who call themselves socialists but not communists).

    Wrong. There is no proof that BJP has the support of a majority
of anybody. There has been large scale support for the Ram Janmabhoomi
issue, yes, but so far the BJP is a party with a single agenda. Your
descriptions of the BJP platform echo eerily like that of the Republican
party of the U.S. If you think the voodoo economics and politics of the
Republican party are likely to work in India, you are in for a rude shock.
This strategy may work with the urban middle class to some extent, or
provide dividends in the short term as in Rajasthan, which is what BJP
has done so far, but it is likely to boomerang with the majority. And
in any case, the present success of BJP is based on RJB, not economics.
But of course, that is another discussion. The only reason I even bring
it up is that the only recourse for the BJP to stay in power will be to
constantly play the Hindu card (more Gimmicks). This tells me that they
will never solve the Ram Janmabhoomi crisis, or at least will encourage
other Janmabhoomis and that the recent spate of violence will be regular
fare when they come into power.

]>     I have no problem with people believing or espousing any cause
]> they want, as long as their arguments for such causes are clear
]> and consistent. At least, as long as the BJP/VHP/RSS speaks out
]> against Muslims, they are at least being consistent, even if their
]> views for doing so are not clear to me. However, when you constantly
]> change your color, I have to begin to suspect that something is fishy.

]Well If you think I am inconsistent, you will have to quote me,
]or at least kind of give some more evidence to refresh my memories
]( for I have said a lot over the years). As for as organisations
]go their views change over time. Some of the RSS guys said weird
]things in 50's. But there is no reason why RSS cannot change.
]I mean Democrats were for slavery in the South in this country, and
]republicans were against voting rights to Afro-Americans.
]I do agree that there should not be any contradictions in short term
]views. And for this you are welcome to inform me of recent RSS
]or BJP resolutions calling for Hindu Rashtra etc. at their national
]commitee meetings etc.

I have counted at least eight major contradictions so far and that is
because I got tired of counting. And yes, the Democrats were for slavery,
but the Republicans and Abraham Lincoln opposed them. Need I say more.
Both probably supported segregation and disenfranchisement of blacks,
but that doesn't change things much, ...

read more »

From article <71...@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, by srin...@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan):

Disappointing on certain issues at ceratin times. There is no way
anyone can agree with everything all the time. If you do, then you
are not thinking independently. They have also consistently
supported strong defence, territorail integerity, and cultural
and social conservatism. They have also shown consistenly
cried against minority appeasement by previous govts. ( unlike
communists etc.). Tbey have consistently been a pro-buisness
party. They have consistently supported freedom for all people
to move freely all over the country. And I can go on and on..
Also RJB issue is not a gimmick, nor all the emotions of millions
of people involved in this gimmick.

I wish you would have quoted my reference to David Duke, so that
I could point out where your inference was screwed up. The reference
was just meant to show that in any democratic party, people can
exist with extereme views, who may not be supported/agreed with
by a majority of people in an organization. Nothing more was
inferred. I beg/challange you to show how you drew reference
to Blacks/KKK etc. David Duke is a republican state senator
from Louisiana by the way. I hope you would respond on this issue
because in one sentence you have managed to call me a racist/bigot
and everything else without saying so. Better prove your case
with quoting my exact sentences.
by the way.

 May be re read my article, and read above. I can't see the
 inconsistencey that you say is there. Could you be more explicit.

  read above. I was just trying to deal with issue of RJB and
  utternaces of people, instead of writing a complete essay on
  BJP.

  The majority of the party is not moderate. The official line
  of the party is not extremists. You chose to ignore my comments
  where I had challanged you to produce any BJP resolutions
  agreeing with Hindu Rashtra/Theocratic state... that you are
  saying it wants. I said you are hearing Uma Bharti speak
  than AB Vajpayee or Jaspal Singh ( ex-police commisnor of Baroda).
  But that does not mean the moderates do not exist.

  No it doesn't. But the onus of proof is on you being the accusor,
  that the majority of RSS workers are extremists, or for that
  matter RSS is extermists. If wanting a temple at Ram JanmaBhoomi
  is being extremists; Hell ! Hey ! I am an extremists !

  I guess only organisations that you know of are communist
  organisations. For the above is not true of any democratic
  organisations. How do you account for the presence of
  both pro-choice and pro-life forces in Republican party ?
  How do you account for socially liberal, fiscally conservatives
  as well as socially conservative peoples presence in the
  republican party? Any political party needs to have a broad
  enough platform, to have a majority of people agree to some
  parts of it. For it is impossible to agree with everything
  by everybody.

  You have no idea of difference between orginsational views
  and individula views. That is why you have official resolutions
  and platforms/manifestos for an organisation. An individual
  cannot represent an orgnisation, nor the difference in views
  between views of different people in an organisation mean that
  the organisation is inconsistent.

Sanjeev you are a liar. Better quote where I charaterized the
exteremists as KKK. or drew an inference. I am sick of yellow
bellied people like you who dream up things, to lamblast
people they do not agree with. As far as I am concerned
this is the end of discussion for me, as I can talk on issues, but
have no intention of refuting every conjured lie that you spew forth.
Also how convenient of you to write most on my David Duke line
and not the issues I raised. But to quote my whole article
but not the referance to david duke.

I think you not lie, but stink. And are pretty good in false
propoganda and lies, not unlike those comming from the eastern
block for four decades.

 What leadership post does she hold? Please enlighten me
        - President of the party,
        - President of any state unit,
        - Parliamentry leadership of the party,
        - Parliamentry whip,
        - any of the general secreatries of the party,
        - any post that you can dream off.

 Just don't shoot lies all around !.

 The dominating voice, does not mean the majority voice.

You are entitled to your lies too. except in public you will
be called a lier. And I personally do not like debating
with liers.

  Did you miss the word 'seeking' ?  It seems you need eyeglasses
  too.

There has been large scale support for the Ram Janmabhoomi

It does. And it may be eerie to you, but it is sweet sound of
music as far as I am concerned.

Can't you understand the difference between supportin/disagreeing
with a person's view, and agreeing with an organisation on
general principles. But I give up, you are a lost cause. As
for you list of inconsistencies, they are nothing more than
bunch of lies, just like the most of the reest of your reply. Lies,
and falsehood created to suite your argument. Also interesting
that you did not quote me when I talked about how
democratic and republican parties have changed in this country, and
how I think RSS has changed/evolved in India. But went on to
illustrate how I BJP/RSS supported slavery. Please let us end
this discussion, if you have nothing else, but lies to post.

- arvind

What the hell is minority appeasement, Mr. Pandey? I am sick of hearing
these slogans from you people. Please clarify what you mean by that?

It certainly is not a gimmick, it is a portent for a holocaust.

If the verses (I quoted) are being propagated at regular BJP rallies,
how can you say that it is just a few extremists gone berserk.

Oh, yeah!! I recently read an article in The Times Of India, in which
that jerk Advani (if he is not in the leadership, who is?) he said that Muslims
should adopt Hindu way of life or face the consequences? What do you
have to say to that?

It is not me who wrote the article you responded to, so I will let Srinath
defend this for himself.

Thanks for your very enlightening comments.

She is a BJP MP.

Say 'You are a liar' a few more times and people will start believing you,
I guess.

You got that right, and it should sound eerie to every sane person, unless
they think holocaust is a great thing.

anjeev

From article <1...@fornax.UUCP>, by maha...@fornax.UUCP (Sanjeev Mahajan):

        - Artcle 370 on kashmir,
        - Paigamaber Mohammeds B'Day as national holiday.
        - Muslim Personal Law,
        - Govt. subsidy/payements for Haj travel ( and
          not for travel to Hindu piligrims),
        - Shah bano Bill,
        - VPS announcement from Red Fort of grant of Rs
          50 lakh for Imam of Jama Masjid,
        - Quota systems in Jobs and education...

        and the list could go on and on..

I haven't heard it, though I was around one held in my town
in Oct. of this year.

Could you please post exact quote of what Advani said. I have
posted what AB Vajpayee said on RJB on Oct 25 and Oct 29.
Or post the date of TOI so I could look at the local university.
Also BJP leaders talk a lot about 'Hindu way of life' ( which
is not the religion by the way).

I am sorry if I mixed up someone else's
article for yours. I am sorry again. I thought it was written
by you ( but I guess I am posting too much these days, and
need to take a break :-)). So I apologize once again Sanjeev.

But the guy, who wrote the piece, where he claimed the above
should  respond how he gathered "me equating Klan and RSS" from
my article.

Being an MP is not the same as being a leader. I don't know
the names of all BJP MPs or the views they hold. Nor do I think
they are the leaders of the party. Duke is no republican leader
( he may be a republican state senator from Louisiana).
Again Uma Bharti does not hold any leadership post in BJP party,
parlimentry group, or national committe.

I don't know how sounding like a republican, sounds eerie
to your ears, or for worse to all sane people. Do you
mean to say that all republicans are insane, and so are
all their supporters close to a majority in this country,
and the ruling US govt is insane. I mean you are entitled
to your views, but they may not be very sane !
Or are the majority conservative viewpoint prevailing in
the developed world sound insane to you ( US, Canada, UK,
Germany, Greece,.....).

Great Republicans are Nazis in your opinion.
This takes the cake. Be happy in your cocoon, Sanjeev.

- arvind

- arvind

Article 370 was implemented at the behest of Kashmiri Brahmins. Want
documentation on this?

What is wrong with that?

Don't know much about this, but I will read up on that?

Again don't know about this? Could you please quote some sources. I am
not doubting you, just wish to check it out for myself.

There is a long story behind this, but I don't want to shoot my mouth
off before I get all the documents straight (have been burnt before :-))

Again I am totally ignorant of this. Could you please quote some sources.

But anyways, even if all you said was true, it still doesn't match the
'majority appeasement' that was happening during Cong-I's terrorist
regime (I don't know what the situation is now, but I suspect if much
has changed, since the same parasitic state instituions are still very
much intact). The recent conversion of the Nizamuddin burial ground
into a Hindu cremation ground, the 'riots' in which mostly Muslims
get killed at the exhortation of the state machinery are only some
of the examples of this 'appeasement'.

Again there has been much discussion on the 'reservation issue'. I only
need to point out that dwijas which comprise less than one third of
the population control most of the bureaucratic jobs in the Government.
And most of the educational institutions are controlled by twice
borns too.

So I guess Manushi is lying?

Yes, I will.

Enough double talk from you people, I am fed up with it. What th ehell
is Hindu way of life.

Being an MP means she is a high profile person, what more do you want?

So what? Your ignorance still doesn't deter from the fact that she
is high-profile.

Sanjeev

              It prevents sikhs (minority) from buying land owned by
pundits(majority) in Kashmir

               and also Valmiki's birthday, Mahatma Gandhi's birthday (he
belongs to minority and not VHP/RSS/BJP majority

              How about personal law which is applied differently for different
castes and communities (they are all minorities). Personal law world over where
it exists is applied based on the person's choice.

           I do not know about it and don't want to dispute
            This is not minority appeasement but a slap in the face of
minorities and appeasing the reactionaries muslims ( I am sorry it is minority
appeasement because it appeases minority of a minority)
             (for what purpose? Did no Hindu organization ever get a government
grant?)

             for whom? SC, ST, backward class? They are majority in the country
from which we came.

             What is the use? The list shows how minorities are discriminated.

K. Sankara Rao                         ks...@power.eee.ndsu.nodak.edu
Department of Electrical Engineering
North Dakota State University, Fargo

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let me take you to the absolute roots of the minority appeasement policy.
Yes, it's a page from Indian history.

Congress leadership till 1915 was committed to the concepts of
one-man-one-vote and elected representatives for territorially demarcated
constituencies. Muslim League opposed the idea of territorial
constituencies, wanted electorates divided based on religion, and
wanted number of seats in legislatures reserved based on religion,
with excessive representation given to minorities.

Mohammad Ali severely opposed the idea of territorial constituencies
saying "the most important fact in India [is] that the cleavage
between various political interests is denominational and not
territorial." He ridiculed the idea [as suggested by Congress] of a
Muslim legislator chosen by voters of both the communities saying
for such a legislator `the lips and tongue might be Muslim, but the
voice would be that of the Brahmin.'

There were also many arguments to support their stand on excessive
representation for Muslims. One of the arguments being their special
importance in Indian Politics. (I can dig up the reference
if somebody is interested.)

After opposing these demands for a long time, finaly the Congress
in its Lucknow session in 1916, conceded to these demands - even though
most Congress leaders expressed unhappiness over it. WHat carried the
argument was the desire to bring Muslim League closer to Congress at
any cost so that a united front could be presented to the British.

The 1916 agreement accepted separate electorates based on religions,
with the provision that minorities would get representation in excess
of their population. In Bihar 13% muslims were allocated 25% seats,
in Bihar 20% muslims received 33% seats, in Central Provinces 4% muslims
got 10% seats, in Madras 7% muslims were given 15% seats, in Punjab 45%
Hindus received 50% seats, and in Bengal 52.5% muslims were given 40% seats.
The negotiations for UP were stuck because ML was demanding 40% seats for
14% muslims. The agreement was finally reached at 30%.  

And this was the beginning of the acceptance by Congress of the concept
of Minority Appeasement.

And this was a complete and total subversion of the concepts of
democracy, secularism, and equality of (wo)men before state. This
was the assassination of the idea of a common Indian Nationality
irrespective of one's religious beliefs.

All other later policies of Congress which come under the category
of "appeasement policies" are the logical extensions of this acceptance
in 1916 that minorities should be given more rights than the majority.
Whatever hapened to the equality of citizens before a democratic
government.

Anyways, the Congress-ML agreement of 1916 was presented to the British
and the 1919 reforms act of Montagu and Chelmsford was based on this
report. In their report Montagu and Chelmsford have the following to say
on page 423:

"[Separate electorates and weightages] were opposed to the teachings
of history. . .The history of self-government among nations which
developed it. . . is decisively against the admission by the state
of any divided allegiance . . . The division by castes and creeds
means the creation of political camps organizing against each other
and teaches men to think as partisans and not as citizens . . . "

The same report, however, goes on to suggest the separate electortaes
justifying them on the basis of the 1916 agreement between Congress
and ML.

And the quote from the Montagu-Chelmsford report above should be seen
in the context of the attempts by the GOI to institutionalize the caste
and religious divisions in Indian society.

It is also interesting if we now go back to see what actually happened to
the agreement about separate electorates. In Punjab and Bengal the ML
leadership revolted because of more representation being given to the
minoriy Hindus. The agreement was hailed as the final settlement between
the two communities by leadership on both sides but
the part of ML leadership opposed to the agreement took control of
the 1917 session of Muslim League in Calcutta and tried to revive all the
arguments once again by demanding that the proportions agreed for the
legislatures also apply to the local elected bodies, public services,
and University admissions etc. [Positive feedback in the cycle of
appeasement politics can be seen here]

                                                   ---raj

From article <1...@fornax.UUCP>, by maha...@fornax.UUCP (Sanjeev Mahajan):

  So what Kashmiri Pundits are a minority in the country too.
  Why should they be appeased ?

        Now Do we need a Ram's Birthday as a national holiday?
        and Buddha Jayanti, and Mahavir Jayanti and Kabir Jayanti ?
        and what not ? Number one all these religious holidays
        are stupid. Number two most of the religious holidays
        are not national holidays ( There were only four national
        holidays before Paigambar Jayanti 15 Aug, 26Jan, 2 Oct and
        one another I am not sure of). Also from what I hear
        Paigambar B'day is not celeberated as his B'day and D'day
        coincide ( I heard it somewhere). Anyway it could be on
        the some other list of holidays where all other holidays
        like holi, diwali, idul-Juha, Idul-fitr etc come from.

Probably any 16th Aug indian newspaper would be enough.

May be you need to elaborate on your "majority appeasement" theme.

I think that is dead wrong. In the unfortunate situation in the
country in last three months, it has been hindues that have
been slaughtered. Right from Bijnore, Aligarh, Kanpur till
Hyderabad, and of course perennial killings in Punjab and Kashmir.

  So do you believe that there should be quotas for people
  based on their population percentage. I persume that is the
  your idead about individula liberty, freedom and justice.

  No you said it is being sung in BJP rallies being held all over
  the country ( persumably you meant India). I did not hear about
  in Indian newspapers or hear about it personally till I came
  back to SCI in Nov. So I am not saying it never happened, but
  I don't think that the phenomenan is universal.

  So who is a leader in the party ? Anyone with high profile at any
  given time ?

- arvind

In Article <3...@mrsvr.UUCP> pan...@mrsvr.UUCP (Arvin Pandey) writes

]Disappointing on certain issues at ceratin times. There is no way
]anyone can agree with everything all the time. If you do, then you
]are not thinking independently. They have also consistently
]supported strong defence, territorail integerity, and cultural
]and social conservatism. They have also shown consistenly
]cried against minority appeasement by previous govts. ( unlike
]communists etc.). Tbey have consistently been a pro-buisness
]party. They have consistently supported freedom for all people
]to move freely all over the country. And I can go on and on..
]Also RJB issue is not a gimmick, nor all the emotions of millions
]of people involved in this gimmick.

Of course, no two people can agree with each other all the time. The
problem here is that you almost never agree with yourself. This, IMHO,
is a very serious problem.

Also, the problem is not that I think the BJP does not give people the
freedom to "move freely all over the country". The problem is that they
want one set of people to move out of the country. Similarly, the RJB
issue is not a gimmick to the millions who have a strong emotional
attachment to it; it is a gimmick as far as BJP is concerned. And
I could go on and on....

]I wish you would have quoted my reference to David Duke, so that
]I could point out where your inference was screwed up. The reference
]was just meant to show that in any democratic party, people can
]exist with extereme views, who may not be supported/agreed with
]by a majority of people in an organization. Nothing more was
]inferred. I beg/challange you to show how you drew reference
]to Blacks/KKK etc. David Duke is a republican state senator
]from Louisiana by the way. I hope you would respond on this issue
]because in one sentence you have managed to call me a racist/bigot
]and everything else without saying so. Better prove your case
]with quoting my exact sentences.
]by the way.

Let me point out to you just where your inference is screwed up.
You are not trying to prove that in a democratic party there are
extreme views. What you are trying to prove is that a party with
extremists is democratic. Big difference. As far as David Duke is
concerned, you brought him up, not I. I merely suggested ever so
slightly that maybe your slip was showing, your Freudian slip that
is. Obviously, the point hit home even harder than I expected. Truth
is a difficult thing to face sometimes. Maybe you should be more
modest the next time around.

] May be re read my article, and read above. I can't see the
] inconsistencey that you say is there. Could you be more explicit.

You are saying that a blind man cannot see. That doesn't surprise
me at all.

]  read above. I was just trying to deal with issue of RJB and
]  utternaces of people, instead of writing a complete essay on
]  BJP.

]  The majority of the party is not moderate. The official line
]  of the party is not extremists. You chose to ignore my comments
]  where I had challanged you to produce any BJP resolutions
]  agreeing with Hindu Rashtra/Theocratic state... that you are
]  saying it wants. I said you are hearing Uma Bharti speak
]  than AB Vajpayee or Jaspal Singh ( ex-police commisnor of Baroda).
]  But that does not mean the moderates do not exist.

Don't try to deal with utterances of other people. Just try to deal
with your own. You say that the majority of BJP is not moderate. Then
you say that the official line is not extremist. Obviously, it is
not moderate either. What does that leave. Are you saying that your
party is as inconsistent as you are?

]  No it doesn't. But the onus of proof is on you being the accusor,
]  that the majority of RSS workers are extremists, or for that
]  matter RSS is extermists. If wanting a temple at Ram JanmaBhoomi
]  is being extremists; Hell ! Hey ! I am an extremists !

I didn't accuse the RSS of being extremist. I merely said that there
was nothing to prevent them from being extremist. What I said was
   "     RSS workers may be hard-working and honest, but this hardly
     precludes them from being extremist."
Anyway now the point is moot, since you agree to being extremist. And
yes, wanting to build a temple at the exact spot of the mosque is being
extremist.

]  I guess only organisations that you know of are communist
]  organisations. For the above is not true of any democratic
]  organisations. How do you account for the presence of
]  both pro-choice and pro-life forces in Republican party ?
]  How do you account for socially liberal, fiscally conservatives
]  as well as socially conservative peoples presence in the
]  republican party? Any political party needs to have a broad
]  enough platform, to have a majority of people agree to some
]  parts of it. For it is impossible to agree with everything
]  by everybody.

All this is fine for the Republican party. However, you have not
provided one iota of proof that the BJP/VHP/RSS are not extremists.
Simply claiming they are not extremist in the overwhelming face
of the proof of their actions and their utterances won't get
you anywhere. The only consistent political platform the BJP/VHP/RSS
adhere to is anti-muslim diatribe.

]  You have no idea of difference between orginsational views
]  and individula views. That is why you have official resolutions
]  and platforms/manifestos for an organisation. An individual
]  cannot represent an orgnisation, nor the difference in views
]  between views of different people in an organisation mean that
]  the organisation is inconsistent.

Really. If people don't represent organizations, what does. And who
writes the platforms/manifestos that you speak of. Ajay Shah, for
example, claims he represents the VHP. See what I mean by you
BJP/VHP/RSS guys being inconsistent.

]Sanjeev you are a liar. Better quote where I charaterized the
]exteremists as KKK. or drew an inference. I am sick of yellow
]bellied people like you who dream up things, to lamblast
]people they do not agree with. As far as I am concerned
]this is the end of discussion for me, as I can talk on issues, but
]have no intention of refuting every conjured lie that you spew forth.
]Also how convenient of you to write most on my David Duke line
]and not the issues I raised. But to quote my whole article
]but not the referance to david duke.

   You are not only unaware of what you say, you are also unaware
of who you are talking to. If ignorance is bliss, you must be in
a state of constant rapture. Hell-elujah! [sic]

]I think you not lie, but stink. And are pretty good in false
]propoganda and lies, not unlike those comming from the eastern
]block for four decades.

   What language, and from someone trying to prove he is a moderate.
Why don't you just admit that I have pointed out the flaws in your
arguments, and that you have nothing more to say. Resorting to name
calling only points to your lack of a substantial rebuttal.

] What leadership post does she hold? Please enlighten me
]       - President of the party,
]       - President of any state unit,
]       - Parliamentry leadership of the party,
]       - Parliamentry whip,
]       - any of the general secreatries of the party,
]       - any post that you can dream off.
]
] Just don't shoot lies all around !.

       Uma Bharati is an MP. What more do you want. If the fact
that David Duke is a republican State Senator means something to
you, why shouldn't the fact that Uma Bharati is a BJP MP mean
something to me.

For the record, the fact that Jesse Helmes and David Duke are republicans
makes me wary of the Republican party, just as the fact that you and
Uma Bharati belong to the BJP makes me wary of the BJP. However, you
have completely missed the most important point. The fact that extremists
exist in some party does not make extremism legitimate. Just because
a government bans one book, it doesn't mean that other books should
be banned. Good and bad and right and wrong are relative, but not
reactionary.

] The dominating voice, does not mean the majority voice.

   Yes, but the dominating voice means that it is the only one that
counts, and that is precisely the problem.

]You are entitled to your lies too. except in public you will
]be called a lier. And I personally do not like debating
]with liers.

You are the one who has called me a liar...etc, and in public too.
So that doesn't mean anything. As for you, it means that you had
better think long and hard before you say something that doesn't
contradict what you have said before, because, it is inconsistency
and contradiction that makes one a liar.

]  Did you miss the word 'seeking' ?  It seems you need eyeglasses
]  too.
]
]It does. And it may be eerie to you, but it is sweet sound of
]music as far as I am concerned.

     I know that. What I am saying is that what is music to your
ears is poison to most others.

]Can't you understand the difference between supportin/disagreeing
]with a person's view, and agreeing with an organisation on
]general principles. But I give up, you are a lost cause. As
]for you list of inconsistencies, they are nothing more than
]bunch of lies, just like the most of the reest of your reply. Lies,
]and falsehood created to suite your argument. Also interesting
]that you did not quote me when I talked about how
]democratic and republican parties have changed in this country, and
]how I think RSS has changed/evolved in India. But went on to
]illustrate how I BJP/RSS supported slavery. Please let us end
]this discussion, if you have nothing else, but lies to post.

What I can clearly understand is a pathetic attempt to call me
names when you have realized that I have shown your claims to
be bogus.

Also, since you guys (and gals) from the BJP/VHP/RSS hate the
liberals so much, I would have expected that if you wanted to say
something really vile about the Democratic party, you would pick
Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo. If you had picked Kennedy or Cuomo,
I would have at least given ...

read more »

Well, who said anything about anybody apologizing?

What I posted was from Indian history and my claim was that
"this 1916 stuff" had started the acceptance by Congress of
the concept that being in minority was a justification for
having mroe rights than the majority. Its the historical background
and precedent of what is perceived as minority appeasement in
post-1947 India.

Well, is my history information flawed ? Or my claim erroneous?
Or is it just that you are itching to hurl some abuses on someone?
Anyways, what made you imagine about this "apology" business?

Well, I am sorry if I made you sick and tired. Had you been near
Cincinnati I would have invited you to my place, offered you good
food, not talked a word about politics, and tried my best to make
you un-sick and un-tired.

But there are other things on the net - staements like "kashmir refugees
are not actually refugees, but only relocatees" and "Indian independence
movement led by Gandhi was colored by Hindu communalism," etc. which make
some others sick and tired. Things we all must accept are the reality
of multiplicity of views, and respect for individuals irrespective of
differences of opinions. That is something highly lacking among us. For
some of us abuse is the first response to a differing opinion.

Oh well, I wouldn't be making you more sick and tired - One of my resolutions
for 1991 is to cut the time spent on sci reading/writing to 1/10 of the
currently devoted time.

                                          ---raj

You might be right (factually) in everything that you say, Mr. Bhatnagar.
But all you really describing is the realpolitik of the Congress, it
has nothing to do with minority appeasement. If, as you say, Muslims
and other minorities (most notably the dalits, who are not really the
minorities, that is another quirk of the right-wingers when they say that
OBCs are minorities) have a priviliged status in India, why is it that
it is the Muslims, dalits and OBC's are the marginalized sections of
our society (hope you don't need documentation for this depressing state
of affairs), why is it that most of the bureaucratic jobs are controlled
by upper caste Hindus, why is it that in most of the so-called riots it
is mainly the Muslims who are the real victims? Now don't tell me that the
reason that Muslims are in the state that they are in, is because they
themselves do not want to change their attitudes towards education,
that they want to stick to their rigid Islamic beliefs and so on. This
argument would be no different from the one that says that Blacks are
in the state they are in because they like to live in the filth
of the ghettos.

Sanjeev

If a Parsee is elected by 100 Hindus and 10 Muslims, what (s)he says in
parliament SHOULD reflect the views of the Hindus and Muslims in that
proportion, regardless of his/her Parseeness. In that respect, Mohammad
Ali was RIGHT. I can understand why he said 'of the Brahmins' instead of
'not of the Muslims', and I think that deep inside, you do, too. Does a
sizeable, but geographically distributed constituency require its own
representation ? Here are some examples :

a) The minorities in Pakistan have their own candidates (3 to 5, I think)
   so that they are heard. Otherwise, considering the small size of the
   minorities there, they would have NO voice for their unique concerns
   that differentiate them from the Muslim Pakistan around them.
b) In post-Independence India, the Muslims were not a overly reserved
   constituency but Anglo-Indians were (2 seats, I think).

Do you have anything to say about these ? Would you classify these as "minority
appeasement" ? The RSS leader, VHP founder-member Golwalkar tacitly hinted at
why so much noise about Muslims ONLY, when he said ...

"... whatever we believed in, the Muslim was wholly hostile to it. If we
worship in the temple, he would desecrate it. If we carry on bhajans and
car festivals, that would irritate him. If we worship cow, he would like
to eat it. If we glorify woman as a symbol of sacred motherhood, he would
like to molest her. ... HIS NUMBER WAS NOT SMALL. NEXT TO THE HINDUS, HIS
WAS THE LARGEST" <emphasis mine>
(Bunch of Thoughts, 4th imprint, 1968, M.S. Golwalkar, Vikram Prakashana,
Bangalore 18, page 147-8)

So, insecurity, fear, desire to dominate and homogenize the community in
the Hindu mold... were the motivations, and THAT has continued to this day.
That is why, even today, people say minority appeasement. That is why you
have to give an example of pre-Independence India, which was not followed
after 1947.

Was this continued after Independence ? Was the situation the same after
Independence ? Do you want statistics about the gross underrepresentation
of Muslims in the government, police, armed forces, bureaucracy TODAY ?
JUST ASK me please. THOSE are the real questions. If these had been done,
maybe the question of "appeasement" now would be non-existent.

Your argument adds up to: Because in 1916 ... was done, even though today,
the ground facts indicate gross misrepresentation in the country (indicating
a resultant advantage to the majority community), we should stop granting the
religious and other desires of the minority, because that would be FURTHER
appeasement.

Peace ...

Yes, your claim is erroneous. What I saw here is when Arvind  Pandey's examples
of minority appeasement were shown to false then you came up with this 1916
stuff. I think quoting a historical fact if it is not legal any more is hair
pulling nothing else. For example using sati as an example of how backward we
hindu's are will be equally stupid. Anyway, Ranabir Gupta has done a much
better job of pointing out problem here in his posting.

Also, painting Gandhiji and our freedom movement as communal was done by
Sanjeev Mahajan.  "SANJEEV MAHAJAN's historical distortions"
 was posted by me if you cared to notice. I was equally sickened by that and
calling kashmir refugees as relocatees which also has been already pointed out
by some one ( I think Bapa Rao ) on the net.

The thing here is not a difference of opinion but how far you and similar
 minded people are willing to goto to stick it to muslims and present concept
of secularism. Sanjeev Mahajan seems equally extreme to be unduelly anti hindu
pro muslim. The question is keeping the discussion with relevant information.
It is violation of that is what I have found sick and tiring. I meant no
personal offence so if you took it that way, I am sorry.

I hope this clears things up.

Sanjay

In article <1990Dec22.174143.9...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> kum...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Sanjay Kumar) writes:

May be I should clarify something here. My posting about the 1916 incidents
was not meant to augment the list of instances of minority appeasement posted
by Arvind.  

My objective was to provide the historical background for the phenomenon
called "minority appeasement" and how it came to be accepted as a good
practice by Congress leaders. I know that it is not something which
currently exists but it sure has a role in understanding what exists today.

I think I answered it above.

It sure does.

                                                     ---raj

You have to decide first whether the state should look at individuals
as citizens, or partisans belonging to this or that religion.

In my posting the minority appeasement had referred to the idea of more
representation being given to those recognised as minority, and not as much
to whther the constituencies are territorial or denominational. I would
however prefer the former approach in which the state is not concerned about
the denominational belongings of its subjects.

I have stated in an earlier post also and would restate here that I did not
present the 1916 incident as an addition to the list of instances of
minority appeasement, but as a background for seeing how the idea of
minority appeasement took root in the minds of Congress leadership. Yes,
I know that 1916 agreement is not currently being applied and to claim
that was never the intention anyway.

I htink I answered it above.

Peace and prosperity to all (irrespective of God/Goddess/ism followed)

                                                     ---raj

Thanks for your frank clarificatory post. My closing words now ...
First, a word about your comments above. All this denying concessions
to minorities is for the sake of democracy which you cherish; am I right ?
Well, if so, REMEMBER that the "You" in your first sentence refers to THE
PEOPLE, not to Raj Bhatnagar or Ranabir Gupta. "People" also does not mean
the majority, but also the minorities, whose rights and desires are pro-
tected in a democracy. In fact, freedom of the very association is a matter
of CHOICE. You might prefer one approach, and you have every right to phrase
it in those terms, but neither you, nor any party has the right to PRESCRIBE
that for everyone. "the state" is what ALL people in it make it to be. If you
see the state as a prescriptive agency, you are advocating fascism (No, I do
not believe in Stalin. See the defns. for yourself, please). All this is quite
besides the fact that today's BJP/RSS/VHP combine in India not only does not
agree with you, but reserves the right to say what is appeasement, what is
right despite judicial decision, and wants the majority to define and dictate
"India" the state.
So,
a) You were opposed to the 1916 way of representation, but since it was
   not followed after independence, and the leaders and situation are totally
   different, you agree with me that REAL electoral and representational
   reform has not happened. The figures make this undisputable.
b) Perhaps you agree that this is mainly why there are extra-legislative
   powerful minority associations which run alternative writs.
c) Perhaps you agree also that the Hindu organizations today are organized by
   higher castes with established power bases, which have been getting eroded
   by creeping reforms. (Evidence ? Chitpavan Br., ex-landed gentry and royalty,
   financed by Mercantile castes) Yes, I know, lower castes participate too,
   but some have to be made to participate, as tools of politics.
d) The 'appeasing' measures taken by Congress have little to do with the
   'trends' set of by 1916 affairs, as point (a) suggests. But they were a
   last-ditch effort to counteract the  efforts of (b)
e) The (c)'s would not even allow that now, because it further erodes their
   own base, let alone allowing real reform, since that would basically
   finish the traditional monopoly. (Ask for 'evidence' of this, if you want)

What does all this add up to, in your eyes ?  Should the concessions that are
now coming as demands be further opposed ?  What exactly do you think RJB is,
if not 'majority incitement' ?  What is the purpose behind the (c)s pushing
this issue ? Will it put food in anyone's stomach ? Or is there too much food
already ?  Without first ensuring protection of the perceived minorities, second
ensuring them their symbolic (and yes, populist) self-expression AND ALL THIS
LEADING UP TO TRUE ELECTORAL AND REPRESENTATION REFORM, do you, my friend,
really think you will lead India to a democracy ?

Thanks for your peaceful wishes. One's opinions must act in concordance with
one's wishes, sometimes to the detriment of one's own "class and caste interest"
if true goodwill is there. Iadd my own "Peace" to yours, and wish you Merry
Christmas.

From article <73...@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, by srin...@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan):

I have no intention of indulging in a mud-slinging match with
you. Hence forth, this thread is dead from my end. I am just
requoting from original article, so as to set the record straight.
After all you are entitled to your opinions, your powress of
inference and deductions etc. May be you will re-read it and
figure out if you are drawing honest inferences from my articles
or indulging in sophistry, and dishonesty just for the sake
of your argument.

     "..RSS is mainly composed of honest, hard-working individuals
       doing a great job in various parts of the country. Again it
       not being a political organisations ( it's members are entitled
       to a political point of view), does contain members of all kind.
       Including fanatics and the extremists from the right. The
       organisation does provide a platform to espouse their views
       but may not be the official line of the party. Just like
       David Duke is a republican, so I am sure there are some
       such fanatics in RSS. But that does not mean that I should
       not support the organisation. It just means that may be right
       now extremists voices are th eonly once that being heard.

       On Oct 25 ( after Advani's arrest on 24th), AB Vajpayee said
       at Amousi Airport ( Lucknow) before his arrest, " I wish
       that RJB could become a Temple, where all religions could
       pray, and all religious icons kept there, ....."

  While in the I compared likes of Uma Bharti to Republican
  extremists like Duke ( and Helmes etc.). While I clearly
  stated the views of Vajpayee ( who by the way is the leader
  of parliamentary party of BJP, an ex-president and so on),
  whose views I support. But you conveniently chose to ignore
  the thrust of my argument. Instead labelling me as a racist,
  slavery promoter, and Duke supporter. While I clearly called
  him an extremist. I have no problems with you name-calling
  me. But may be you should back your statements with facts
  and reason.

  I guess after making a statement like the above, you must
  be familiar with BJP manifesto of 1980, 1984 and of Jan
  Sangh in elections of 1971. May be you should quote their
  consistent political platform from these documents. Onus
  is on you to prove BJP as an extremist ( and not a rightist)
  party, working under the guidelines of the indian constitution.
  And all you have done is quotee one of MP, as proof of their
  extremists view. One MP in BJP does not mean much as far as
  I am concerned. If you quote BJP resolutions, quote from
  speeches of Vajpayee or even Advani in context, than we
  shall see. If you quote from BJP political manifestoes I
  shall agree. But all I hear is silence from you on issues.

  Number one I was talking of BJP and not VHP, and please do
  not confuse the two. Second a person represents an organisation
  to the extent of his individuality. Until and unless the person
  is given a right by the organisation to speak for it, like a
  president, a secreatry a press spokesman. Any way how about
  producing something more than what Ajay Shah says, or for that
  matter I say. For I represent my self and not BJP.

Since I have quoted my original refernce to david duke. I still
stand by my personal opinion of your honesty.

   Neither above means much to me. If I like Republican party
   then it is because I know that there are a lot of people
   with different views then Helms and Duke, and so is the case
   with BJP. It is unfortunate that they associate with the
   same organisation that I do. But so be it.

   It's the majority that counts; be it silent or otherwise.

- arvind

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

No problem with that I guess.

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

No problem with that either I guess.  But it is Congress that was GOI for most
of the time(barring the 2 1/2 year gap in late 70's and the 11 month one which
ended recently).  Do you agree on that?

                                                              ^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't understand this 'minority' business.  Any way can anybody club
dalits and OBCs with minorities when talking about religous minorities?

             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who said this?  Would be good if you can back this up.

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't club Dalits and OBCs with religious minorities.

              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Such questions are similar to 'Why is it that the Jews control the economy
in US' or 'Why is it that Marwaris control business in India'?

They don't mean much.  You are unnecessarily sidetracking the issue.

I think the issue was minority appeasement.  Even Shah Banu's case was
definitely minority appeasement.  It may not be for the good of the community
which is a different ballgame.  

Appeasement is different from the action being good/useful for the community.
How would you like the sentiments of the Imam et al who said that even if
there is suffiecient proof that there was a temple at the same site that
they would like to get it overridden by the parliament?

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What do yuo mean by 'real' victims?  I thought victims are victims and they
can't be classified as 'real' and 'imaginary' in a riot.  And how do you say
that it is Muslims who are 'real' victims in the so-called(whatever that means)
riots?  It takes TWO hands to clap.

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The reason that anybody is in  a state is same as the reason why Muslims in
India are in the state they are in.  Nothing different. Nothing worse.

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How can you see this being different from that of the dalits or other backwards
whoever they are?  Or is there some thing special about Muslims.  What about
christians and other religous minorities?

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why not?  Recently we have seen 'dress code' being implemented.  It WILL be
implemented if the more sensible ones don't come out and fight it.
It would be no use blaming the VHP/RSS/BJP et al for all this.  It would be
like blaming the British for our own inabilities to manage ourselves.  It is
US who let them in the first place(not that you said this).

This above comparison holds for Dalits of India who are similar to Balcks in
SA and elsewhere who got similar treatment over the centuries.  The same cannot
be said of Muslims of India .  They are not treated in the same way over the
centuries.  The above arguement would not hold for OBCs of India either.

So it would be like mixing apples and oranges and any other fruits.
All you are doing is giving us a 'mixed fruit jam' in the name of
jsutification and reasoning.

In conclusion:

Don't club Indian Muslims with Dalits and OBCs.  Appeasement though not for the
good of the community(Muslims) is there and that has been the attitude of the
Congress in general to get the secular image and get votes.  Shah Banu case is
a typical example of the late 80s.  That it is bad for Muslim women is true(SC-
ruling being over turned in Parliament) which is a different ballgame.

Declaring Religious National Holidays is the same sick stupid gimmick.

Ramakrishna.

In Article <3...@mrsvr.UUCP> pan...@mrsvr.UUCP (Arvin Pandey) writes

]I have no intention of indulging in a mud-slinging match with
]you. Hence forth, this thread is dead from my end. I am just
]requoting from original article, so as to set the record straight.
]After all you are entitled to your opinions, your powress of
]inference and deductions etc. May be you will re-read it and
]figure out if you are drawing honest inferences from my articles
]or indulging in sophistry, and dishonesty just for the sake
]of your argument.

Good move. Your mud is no match for the facts. If my inferences were
dishonest, why didn't you just point out what was wrong instead of
calling me a "yellow bellied liar". On the contrary, I pointed out
the repeated inconsistencies and contradictions in your arguments.

]     "..RSS is mainly composed of honest, hard-working individuals
]       doing a great job in various parts of the country. Again it
]       not being a political organisations ( it's members are entitled
]       to a political point of view), does contain members of all kind.
]       Including fanatics and the extremists from the right. The
]       organisation does provide a platform to espouse their views
]       but may not be the official line of the party. Just like
]       David Duke is a republican, so I am sure there are some
]       such fanatics in RSS. But that does not mean that I should
]       not support the organisation. It just means that may be right
]       now extremists voices are th eonly once that being heard.
]
]       On Oct 25 ( after Advani's arrest on 24th), AB Vajpayee said
]       at Amousi Airport ( Lucknow) before his arrest, " I wish
]       that RJB could become a Temple, where all religions could
]       pray, and all religious icons kept there, ....."
]
]  While in the I compared likes of Uma Bharti to Republican
]  extremists like Duke ( and Helmes etc.). While I clearly
]  stated the views of Vajpayee ( who by the way is the leader
]  of parliamentary party of BJP, an ex-president and so on),
]  whose views I support. But you conveniently chose to ignore
]  the thrust of my argument. Instead labelling me as a racist,
]  slavery promoter, and Duke supporter. While I clearly called
]  him an extremist. I have no problems with you name-calling
]  me. But may be you should back your statements with facts
]  and reason.

    The gist of my argument is this. You have repeatedly rationalized
the existence of extremists in the BJP/RSS by comparing them to David
Duke in the Republican party. My contention is that the presence of
David Dukes in any party is cause for alarm. Rationalizing the existence
of extremists in the BJP/RSS with David Duke is like saying that the
presence of a cancerous lung in an otherwise healthy person is not
significant. My contention is that the lung cancer is sufficient cause
for alarm. The cancer indicates that the person is sick. I cannot
understand why you don't see this. Instead, you hypothesize that
moderates exist, without any clear proof of their existence.

The quote from Vajpayee is at best ambiguous, while the quote from Uma
Bharati is extremely specific. Vajpayee's statement seems to create
more problems than it solves. For example, why does it bring in other
religions when Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, etc. have expressed no interest
in RJB. Also, just exactly what does he mean by "I wish that RJB could
become a temple". Does that mean modifying the present structure in some
way. What issues does Vajpayee consider before he comes to such a conclusion.
This is not to say that ABV may not have made other statements clarifying
his stand. Only, the statement you quoted cannot serve as proof of a
moderate stand on RJB.

Secondly, please point out where I have called you a racist, slavery
promoter or Duke supporter. On the other hand, you have called yourself
an extremist (besides calling me a liar). You said
   "If wanting a temple at Ram JanmaBhoomi
   is being extremists; Hell ! Hey ! I am an extremists !"
To which I remarked that wanting to build a temple at the exact spot
of RJB is being extremist. I do think, however, that the fact that you
choose to justify the extremists in the BJP/RSS with the presence of
David Duke in the Republican Party is extremely significant. It clearly
shows that the extremists in the BJP/RSS are bad news, even as David Duke
is. This bothers me a great deal. The only reason you should be offended
at my castigation of the extremists in BJP/RSS is if you are an extremist
yourself, and are only pretending to be a moderate. After all, you do
agree that extremists exist in BJP/VHP/RSS.

]  I guess after making a statement like the above, you must
]  be familiar with BJP manifesto of 1980, 1984 and of Jan
]  Sangh in elections of 1971. May be you should quote their
]  consistent political platform from these documents. Onus
]  is on you to prove BJP as an extremist ( and not a rightist)
]  party, working under the guidelines of the indian constitution.
]  And all you have done is quotee one of MP, as proof of their
]  extremists view. One MP in BJP does not mean much as far as
]  I am concerned. If you quote BJP resolutions, quote from
]  speeches of Vajpayee or even Advani in context, than we
]  shall see. If you quote from BJP political manifestoes I
]  shall agree. But all I hear is silence from you on issues.

Why should I do any such thing. In particular, why should I even
consider the stand of the Jana Sangh in 1971 in discussing your
position when you have stated that the BJP past is of no interest
to you and that you do not identify with their past "gimmicks" and
"Gandhian socialism (whatever that means)". On the contrary, the
onus is on you to prove that moderates exist in the BJP/RSS. While
the quotes on Uma Bharati and the BJP meetings are very specific,
the best you can come up with is a vague quote from Vajpayee.
Finally, if one extremist BJP MP means nothing, why should one
questionable quote from a BJP leader by you mean anything. The
onus is on you, not me.

]  Number one I was talking of BJP and not VHP, and please do
]  not confuse the two. Second a person represents an organisation
]  to the extent of his individuality. Until and unless the person
]  is given a right by the organisation to speak for it, like a
]  president, a secreatry a press spokesman. Any way how about
]  producing something more than what Ajay Shah says, or for that
]  matter I say. For I represent my self and not BJP.

]  Since I have quoted my original refernce to david duke. I still
]  stand by my personal opinion of your honesty.

    The issue here is your contention that a person cannot represent
an organization. To which my reply is "Bull! People represent organizations
all the time". Ajay Shah's political views are not what's being debated.
The fact that he says he represents the VHP is. The issue also is not
that you represent the BJP, the issue is that you publicly support their
policies. My stand is that if you want to be taken seriously, you must
state your reasons clearly and consistently.

   Since I have repeatedly pointed out the inconsistencies in your
arguments, while all you have done is attack me personally, it is
your honesty that is in doubt.

]   Neither above means much to me. If I like Republican party
]   then it is because I know that there are a lot of people
]   with different views then Helms and Duke, and so is the case
]   with BJP. It is unfortunate that they associate with the
]   same organisation that I do. But so be it.

    If there are moderates in the BJP, you certainly haven't proved
it, either by your positions or theirs. You have also attempted to
defend the RSS by saying that they said weird things in the 1950's,
just as Democrats supported slavery in the 1860's. My answer is that
the BJP/VHP/RSS is still saying weird things. If the stuff spewed by
RSS in the 1950's must be rationalized by comparing them to slavery,
then they are best avoided. Extremism, whether by the Nazis, KKK,
Khmer Rouge or KGB, usually ends in grief. It also astounds me that
the beliefs of the RSS forty years ago, that you rationalize by comparing
them to the Democratic party's support for slavery, allows you to accept
them now, but that the beliefs of Babar five hundred years ago still
meet with your disapproval.

]   It's the majority that counts; be it silent or otherwise.

     Not if the majority is so silent that they are a figment of
your imagination.

                                                 Srinath
                                        srin...@unix.cis.pitt.edu