Illustration by Sandeep Adhwaryu
opinion
A Rose, By Any Other Name!
Colonial shadows still darken race issues. Australia can't shrug it off.
australia: attacks on indians
Australia denies it's racist, but why the spate of recent attacks on Indian students?
Janaki Bahadur Kremmer
The images of injured Indian students have once again raised the charged issue of race and its presence in Australia. A recent dissertation on overseas Indian students in Melbourne found that the influx of Indian students recruited by Australian universities as well as private institutions (offering courses such as hospitality and accounting) combined with the economic slow-down seems to have resulted in the increased attacks. As the researcher, Michiel Bass, states: "It is a small step from blaming a group...to more right-wing narratives on: kicking them out, eradicating them, teaching them a lesson." This group visibility is based on physical markers of racial difference.

Australia's racial history emerges from its colonial legacy of invading Indigenous lands. The Immigration Restriction Bill was one of the first laws signed off in the Australian Parliament in 1901. The colonial legacy of the division of the earth's population into racial, cultural and religious groups continues to inflect relationships in contemporary multi-ethnic communities around the world. This legacy is very much part of communalised politics in India. Yet why do Australian commentators have a difficulty with the word 'race' or 'racism'? For example, Gerard Henderson's opinion piece in The Australian begins with the sentence 'Race is an overused word'. Henderson seems to imply that people scream racism at the drop of a hat—or the stab of a screwdriver (as the Indian student in Melbourne was). I disagree entirely. In fact, it seems to be an underused word in the Australian context—unless, of course, an Indian cricketer is charged with a racial slur.

The Victorian police chief's statement—that carrying iPods and mobile phones may be a motivation for the attacks—illustrates this trend. If that were the case, every public transport commuter in Sydney and Melbourne would be attacked. Could it be that overseas students may be visible because of a shared set of physical attributes? Is this not what we would call a racialised vision? There are reasons for this underusage other than the obvious one—that describing the attacks as racially motivated would hurt Australia's education industry which profits from overseas students.

In the 1970s and '80s, when Indigenous self-determination and the rights of non-Anglo migrants were on the governmental agenda, social justice was a key word used in relation to racial discrimination. Since the 1990s, the Howard government systematically attacked a social justice agenda with regard to race relations, targeting Indigenous communities, multiculturalism, and since 9/11, Muslims (whose identity markers include race as well as religion). That government's approach is evidenced by the 2008 Northern Territory Emergency Response which discriminates against Indigenous populations. While the response was meant to address recommendations in a report on domestic violence and child abuse, its non-consultative approach is embodied in laws that take over the management of Indigenous lands—a right won by the land rights struggle in the 1970s.

In matters of race, the Rudd government appears to continue the Howard government's legacy. While the overt attacks against non-Anglo communities by politicians no longer grace pages of The Australian, any mention of racial discrimination is ignored. Policies discriminating against Indigenous communities continue. Social justice has become social inclusion—with the emphasis on helping disadvantaged communities. The rights-based agenda of social justice has been discontinued. Perhaps the Rudd government is attempting to envision a post-racial Australia where race shouldn't be an issue. Yet, despite the recent election of President Barack Obama, we don't live in a post-racial planet.

In Australia, the refusal to acknowledge racism doesn't remove the spectre of the invisible 'R'-shaped elephant in the room. Directed specifically at Asian immigration, the White Australia policy was phased out in the 1970s. Yet, white cultural ownership of nation and spatial ownership of suburbs in cities and towns keeps resurfacing as a charged issue, as illustrated by the Cronulla riots in 2005. The colonial management of Indigenous issues, the attacks against Indian and overseas students are continuing events in Australia's long racial history. And if some of the attackers prove to be from non-white communities, this is still an effect of the legacy of racism and stereotypical assumptions about overseas students. Unless there is an open debate about these issues, racial incidents will continue to occur.




(Dr Osuri teaches at Macquarie University, Sydney, and wrote An Open letter to Australia's Educational Institutions and Governmental leaders, condemning the recent racist attacks on Indians. It won the endorsement of many.)
australia: attacks on indians
Australia denies it's racist, but why the spate of recent attacks on Indian students?
Janaki Bahadur Kremmer
 
Daily Mail
COLLAPSE COMMENTS :
HAVE YOUR SAY
Jun 21, 2009 12:00 AM
61
As if that one passage from the Upanishads describes the behaviour and motivations of all Indians across time, space and the vicissitudes of political and historical change across 5000 years!
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jun 21, 2009 12:00 AM
60
Kumar,

>>The process of eradicating racism/casteism/communalism is not an easy process, it takes some very strong positive ideas/doctrines to overcome them, which makes it necessary to identify/acknowledge what those positive ideas/doctrines are.

What are those very strong ideas/doctrines? Are they religion based? We need secularistic/humanistic ideas obeyed/accepted by ALL of our citizens for that.
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 20, 2009 12:00 AM
59
Augustus,

-REFRESHER-

Vivek’s Comment:

“India is the only country where animals are worshipped while human beings are insulated, degraded or even subjected to worst kind of atrocities.”;

Your Reply:

“It is the fundamental fault of our cultural outlook.”

So, you specifically pointed your finger at animal/nature worshiping. And you spotted NATURE WORSHIPING AS THE FUNDAMENTAL FAULT OF INDIA’S CULTURAL OUTLOOK. And this is where ONLY, I disagreed with you. Nature Worshiping cannot be the fundamental fault of Indian culture.
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 20, 2009 12:00 AM
58
Augustus,

>>>>It is on the Indian subcontinent where it matters

>>>>But caste custom is not solely responsible for the maltreatment of people in this subcontinent, right?

>>You have any other commonly shared feature of our society to join this parade of shame?

Your commonly shared 'Caste Custom' was not responsible for the separation of greater India which is marked still now, as the bloodiest of the events in the history of this subcontinent. Caste custom was not responsible for the killing of 30 Lakh Bengali (a substantial segment was hapless Hindus) and violation of 2 lakh women as a response to logical demands by East Pakistanis. Caste Custom is not responsible for the killing of thousands of people by the terrorists that has been started on your soil since 1993. Caste custom is not fueling now to produce hourly basis dead bodies in Pakistan.

If we look out of this sub-continent, the situation is much gloomy. Caste Custom did not force a country's president to address the followers of a particular religion to act sensibly. Caste Custom was not the evil cause for the heinous killing of 1 lakh Iraqis by U.S. invasion. The list is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo
long.

So caste custom was not responsible for unfortunate separation, mass raping and killing in this subcontinent, let alone the cancerous social diseases like illiteracy, poverty, higher birth rate and fanatism in this sub continent.

>>>>Then what's that fundamental fault? Caste custom? Nature worshiping? Human degradation? Human degradation for following caste custom? Or Nature worshiping that evokes human degradation? What!

>>>>All of them and more…..their common feature is a low view of man and his place in the universe. Hate to be a reductionist, but almost all of our systemic pathologies can be trace back to that feature.

Read the REFRESHER part - this debate's origin and the cause of my denial of your concluding comment addressed to Vivek.


Augustus,

>>This is not about post-death situation but pre-death fixation.

If it's pre-death fixation then it's only to lead a virtuous life.

>>>>And that's for guiding their respective followers to practice the right conduct. And life-based philosophy of Hinduism only helps the cause.

>>>>I am saying you haven't established the basis for such a claim other than just asserting it.

As I've quoted earlier the Atharva Veda - the Prayer to the Earth, which declares:

I evoke the Earth, which gives shelter to all the seekers of truth, to those who are tolerant and have understanding, to all things strength-giving, nourishing; the source of the creative spirit, we depend upon you, O Earth.

The root cause of our environmental crisis is ego-driven self-interest. Our environmental crisis masks a spiritual crisis which has its source in the human mind, its genesis in greed and egotism. In our search for happiness and completion, we have moved increasingly outside of ourselves, attempting to find fulfillment in vast quantities of things and activities which leave us bored, jaded, and restless. Yet our greatest glory as human beings is our ability to leave self-interest behind. When our divine nature is unimpeded, we are noble and unselfish. Given the opportunity, we can find our greatest peace and fulfillment in renouncing the small desires which threaten to rob us and future generations of a habitable planet. If we can renounce the habit of putting ourselves first-at the expense of everyone and everything else, present and future-we will be leading the highest kind of spiritual life, and we will also protect the earth.
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 20, 2009 12:00 AM
57
Augustus,

>>>>Now tell me honestly, does your introspection suggest that Hindus are obsessed with death only to gain Moksha,

>>It can't be because they are enamored with life. Upanishads capture this pessimism with haunting eloquence-
“……. what good is the enjoyment of desires?”

Now read Gita for an optimistic view,

“The Supreme Lord said: When one is completely free from all desires of the mind and is satisfied with the Eternal Being (Brahm) by the joy of Eternal Being, then one is called an enlightened (Sthit-prajn) person, O Arjun. (2.55) A person whose mind is unperturbed by sorrow, who does not crave pleasures, and who is completely free from attachment, fear, and anger, is called Sthit-prajn --- a sage of steady intellect. (2.56) Those who are not attached to anything, who are neither elated by getting desired results, nor troubled by undesired results, their intellect is considered steady. (2.57)

And God's teaching for a life full of work,-

“No one attains perfection by merely giving up work. (3.04) Because, no one can remain actionless even for a moment. Everyone is driven to action --- helplessly indeed --- by the forces of nature. (3.05) The deluded ones, who restrain their organs of action but mentally dwell upon the sense enjoyment, are called hypocrites. (3.06)

One who controls the senses by a trained and purified mind and intellect, and engages the organs of action to selfless service, is superior, O Arjun. (3.07) Perform your obligatory duty, because working is indeed better than sitting idle. Even the maintenance of your body would be impossible without work. (3.08) “

Hindus are obsessed with death, yes?


>>When you stop babbling about “prioritization of duty” as a way to get out the corner your philosophy paints you into. One can be kind to “god's creatures” (which has a nasty connotation of Gandhi and his low grade bullshit about “harijans”) out of condescension or mere sentiment or outright selfishness to earn cosmic brownie points.

As I've said before 'Love for all' does not conflict with 'prioritization of duty'. If your brother and your pet dog fall sick at the same time, ensuring proper medication for your dear brother will naturally be your first priority but the sympathy and love to your pet dog will remain same in your heart. But treating it would be your second priority in such a situation. The remaining part of your comment does not suggest a wider outlook at life.
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 20, 2009 12:00 AM
56
Augustus,

>>But personification or anthropomorphic is calling thunder and sun father and moon and earth mother. Which Biology book does that?

It's the sense of the human being that influences his country's river as Mother (Ganga amaar Ma, Padma amaar Ma - Ganga is my Mother, Padma is my Mother; a nostalgic song by Vupen Hajarika), he/she calls his country as Mother - Bangla Ma, Bharat Mata! That's not biology - that's LOVE.

BTW, Biology does not suggest either a virgin Mother who was believed to be conceived by the Holy Spirit, does it?

>>Don't shed your dignity….case for reform is inherently weak if one can't strongly articulate why the reform is needed in the first place.

But it is reforming while others are shedding blood when they are called for a reform!

>>Of course you did by implication.

Don't be so angry, you've just made a mistake by saying, “It is the fundamental fault of our cultural outlook.”

>>I think you lost the focus of this debate about a million words ago.

Stop scratching your head.

>>Let's see. Hindus do X…..They are not doing Y….That's what you said. Why did you juxtapose if they weren't connected? So, the correct answer is yes.

Your XY theory game has lost other axioms.

>>By all means….criticize those behaving badly…just make sure you have a basis for that criticism.

If I don't have the basis, who else has?

>>What I am saying is the flaw of creating and sustaining of caste discrimination is symptomatic of the low view of man that is implicit (and sometimes explicit) in Hindu philosophy…

Yes, you are continuously saying that forgetting the focal point of this discussion, and I still disagree as you've said, ““It is the fundamental fault (Nature Worship) of our cultural outlook.”

dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 20, 2009 12:00 AM
55
Dip,

>> Racism, catism and communalism are self-destructive and should not be followed by any human-being who respects humanity.

True and the ideas/doctrines/philosophy that help eradicate racism/casteism/communalism needs to be acknowledged and appreciated, while the ideas that do not do it needs to be condemned. The process of eradicating racism/casteism/communalism is not an easy process, it takes some very strong positive ideas/doctrines to overcome them, which makes it necessary to identify/acknowledge what those positive ideas/doctrines are.

>> We are talking about civilized people who are leading their respective society. He'll pick the righteous notes of diversity and lead accordingly. And you see, success comes to them naturally.

Diversity is good when coupled with human rights/justice/freedom, a free flowing open debate of ideas and a culture that works on the sole criteria of letting the best ideas win (cutting all barriers). That is when success comes naturally.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
54
>>>>It is on the Indian subcontinent where it matters

>>But caste custom is not solely responsible for the maltreatment of people in this subcontinent, right?

You have any other commonly shared feature of our society to join this parade of shame?

>>>>>>There are other reasons responsible for that too. And you marked it as “It is the fundamental fault of our cultural outlook” as if your society is a complete religiously driven society.

>>>>The most fundamental values (either exhortation or prohibition) of a society are derived from religion.

>>Then what's that fundamental fault? Caste custom? Nature worshiping? Human degradation? Human degradation for following caste custom? Or Nature worshiping that evokes human degradation? What!

All of them and more…..their common feature is a low view of man and his place in the universe. Hate to be a reductionist, but almost all of our systemic pathologies can be trace back to that feature.

>>>>Here's my quote, “However, the striving to go up a notch in the cosmic hierarchy or achieving Moksha only happens upon death….making Hindus focus on it obsessively and contradicting your life-based philosophy claim.”

>>Every religion explains in its own way about the post-death situations.

This is not about post-death situation but pre-death fixation.

>>And that's for guiding their respective followers to practice the right conduct. And life-based philosophy of Hinduism only helps the cause.

I am saying you haven’t established the basis for such a claim other than just asserting it.

>>Now tell me honestly, does your introspection suggest that Hindus are obsessed with death only to gain Moksha,

It can’t be because they are enamored with life. Upanishads capture this pessimism with haunting eloquence:

“In this ill-smelling, unsubstantial body, a conglomerate of bone, skin, sinew, muscle,
marrow, flesh, semen, blood, mucus, tears, rheum, feces, urine, wind, bile, and phlegm
– what good is the enjoyment of desires? In this body, which is afflicted with desire, anger,
greed, delusion, fear, despondency, envy, separation from the desirable, union with the
undesirable, hunger, thirst, senility, death, disease, sorrow and the like – what good is the
enjoyment of desires?”
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
53
>>Anybody can tell following the thread who is really confused and masking it under obstinacy and stratagem.

We will let them judge it for themselves.

>>>>Then why were you willing to let either the cat or the little girl die in the burning house?

>>Any matured person will understand that 'be kind to God's creature' is the message here. When will you stop babbling?

When you stop babbling about “prioritization of duty” as a way to get out the corner your philosophy paints you into. One can be kind to “god’s creatures” (which has a nasty connotation of Gandhi and his low grade bullshit about “harijans”) out of condescension or mere sentiment or outright selfishness to earn cosmic brownie points.

>>>>You are personifying nature with your anthropomorphic characterization.

>>I recommend a class ten Biology book for you. Nature has its own personification. Every creature has its own utility to the environment, some are known - some unknown.

No doubt, one can argue that they form an interlocking, mutually dependent grand design. But personification or anthropomorphic is calling thunder and sun father and moon and earth mother. Which Biology book does that?

>>>>And how does creating and sustaining caste discrimination discharge the supreme duty to serve mankind?

>>Don't shed your tears! It is reforming.

Don’t shed your dignity….case for reform is inherently weak if one can’t strongly articulate why the reform is needed in the first place.

>>>>Why else would you engage in it? Unless you have a perverse character to engage in activities thought to be inferior?

>>So, I did not claim the 'superiority' of nature worship, right?

Of course you did by implication.

>>I am just trying to stop your nonsense mockery on a religious belief, that cannot be the cause of human degradation. And this is the focal point of this debate.

I think you lost the focus of this debate about a million words ago.

>>>>Here's your quote, “Hindus get self satisfaction worshipping/caring nature. They are not engaged in piling up dead bodies around the world. Do you have any problem?” In other words, the alternative to worshiping nature is piling up dead bodies around the world, no?

>>No.

Let’s see. Hindus do X…..They are not doing Y….That’s what you said. Why did you juxtapose if they weren’t connected? So, the correct answer is yes.

>>If according to you the nature worshipers are degrading human beings, then I can say the sophisticated religions are not appearing saintly either. They are engaged in killing one another or invading, using jihad/crusade as their destructive tools.

By all means….criticize those behaving badly…just make sure you have a basis for that criticism.

>>>>I have no doubt about your sincerity of wanting quick reform, but you are oblivious to Hindu philosophy's role in creating and sustaining caste discrimination …

>>You will find flaws in every religious doctrine but that does not nullify the whole philosophy that it suggests.

What I am saying is the flaw of creating and sustaining of caste discrimination is symptomatic of the low view of man that is implicit (and sometimes explicit) in Hindu philosophy…which is the narrow focus of this discussion; not nullification of the “whole philosophy” which is an entirely different discussion.
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
52
ANWAAR
DALLAS UNITED STATES
12:15:20PM (IST)
you to Ghai.

It is not necessary either for you to remind the forum that you are a BJP adversary separately nor to shy away from your known stand only to pretend as a liberal Muslim.
Will the Congress ever be truly secular when it is taking support from fundamentalist parties like the Muslim league,MQM,Kerala Congress etc.Are these parties known for their anti Hindu stand.To remain in power the congress could go any extent.Why people like you want to treat the Muslim community as a commodity.BJP has nothing to talk to any one seprately.Its the nature of the congress to sleep with the separatists and divisive forces.Muslims cannot demand what the BJP should do and what not.There are many supporters in the BJP already from that community who are well aware of the BJP 's relationship with the RSS.The BJP expects not only the Muslim but any one to come to it not as a vote bank.The records speak that its the entire country that has done poorly under the sixty years of congress rule.Show where the Muslim have don bad under the BJP rule.So leave it to the Muslims to decide.why some idiots like you enforce what your fatwa savvy bosses tell you to do.
vinod
Bangalore, India
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
51
>>But why does it have to be spelled out at all? A sense of charity and compassion can exist without quoting from scriptures. Practice and behaviour can precede theory. "Birth" of the feeling of compassion could occur autonomously, or be catalysed by exposure to different behaviour and environments.

Not quite. Let’s assume charity and compassion are more than feelings but knowledge. This is what the North African theologian/philosopher Augustine has to say.

He begins by accepting two of Plato’s claims (1) Knowledge worthy of the name is fixed, immutable. Therefore, Plato thinks (2) the objects of knowledge must be fixed and immutable too. Augustine argues any knowledge worthy of the name is of ideals, of standards - in short, of divine ideas.

On the other hand, the human intellect is a creature. If you accept the general principle that the lower cannot act on the higher, it follows that creatures cannot act on the divine ideas. Creaturely minds cannot reach up and grasp the divine ideas - grab them, as it were, and pull them down into the minds themselves - since that would be doing something to them, and would violate the hierarchical arrangement of Augustine's universe.

Hence, Augustine's principle of order and justice and his view that souls are creatures leads him to a qualified denial of Plato’s other claim called the Principle of Acquaintance because objects of real knowledge worthy of the name must be present to the mind in person. Augustine didn’t like the unqualified version because we don't have the power to produce in ourselves a knowledge of the only proper objects of knowledge. Since we do have knowledge, it must be produced in us by something higher. That is, we don't do it; it is done to us. That is his Doctrine of Illumination. Simply put, nothing less than the objects of knowledge, which are divine, can produce that knowledge in us, for basically the same reason that we cannot do it ourselves: it would involve a violation of the hierarchical order of things. Hence, illumination is done by God. No one else could do it.

But this gets us into Christian epistemology with Christian suppositions of God being personal, man created in His image etc. etc. For purposes of this discussion, I am interested in how the Hindu philosophers explain your claim that “feeling” or “knowledge” that charity and compassion are autochthously generated.

>>Hindus are capable of displaying compassion to family and non-family, without needing to quote from some holy book.

The fact that some display doesn't explain why they display.

>>And yes, there are Hindus who can be uncaring and unfeeling even toward family, just like non-Hindus.

What is the explanation for that?

>>One needn't add that animalistic feelings of loyalty to family and clan exist within countries that are Christian; the fact of them having converted to Christianity x-centuries ago does not pre-empt these tribal/animalistic sentiments.

Perhaps. But we can’t tell until we have a comprehensive theory to explain such loyalty.

>>By common sense, I just meant the perception that Hindus are capable of appreciating others' sacrifices, in the same way that non-Hindus appreciate others' sacrifices(like soldiers or workers for example). It doesn't require a quotation from X Holy Book or Y Holy Book to appreciate a sacrifice.

I am not saying they won’t appreciate others’ sacrifices. I am pressing you for an explanation why that is so.
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
50
Though its none of my business out of curiosity I would like to ask you Anwaar,if at all you have any time left after writing so many posts, what do you do for your living?

Your posts suggest you are akin to a full time professional blogger, aren't you? Whos is your pay master?
sandilya
Chennai, India
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
49
Ghai,

>> Muslim consider BJP as Hindu/tavi Party and anti -Muslims.

The BJP is a hindutvadi party and is anti-minorities. Talks between the BJP and the Muslims will not yield results. The BJP can become a mainstream party by dropping hindutva and cutting loose from the RSS. Muslims should stay engaged in the political process, and should give their support to the party that has a progressive agenda and that they can trust. The BJP's claim that Muslims have done poorly under Congress rule is just politics. They may have done a lot worse under BJP rule. Muslims themselves should decide what is in their best interest, and in the interest of communal harmony and national security.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
48
Kumar,

Racism, catism and communalism are self-destructive and should not be followed by any human-being who respects humanity. The evolution of civilization suggests that. We are talking about civilized people who are leading their respective society. He'll pick the righteous notes of diversity and lead accordingly. And you see, success comes to them naturally.
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
47

But why does it have to be spelled out at all? A sense of charity and compassion can exist without quoting from scriptures. Practice and behaviour can precede theory. "Birth" of the feeling of compassion could occur autonomously, or be catalysed by exposure to different behaviour and environments.
Hindus are capable of displaying compassion to family and non-family, without needing to quote from some holy book. And yes, there are Hindus who can be uncaring and unfeeling even toward family, just like non-Hindus. One needn't add that animalistic feelings of loyalty to family and clan exist within countries that are Christian; the fact of them having converted to Christianity x-centuries ago does not pre-empt these tribal/animalistic sentiments.
By common sense, I just meant the perception that Hindus are capable of appreciating others' sacrifices, in the same way that non-Hindus appreciate others' sacrifices( like soldiers or workers for example). It doesn't require a quotation from X Holy Book or Y Holy Book to appreciate a sacrifice.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
46
Augustus,

>>Or you only think you did without actually doing it….

Swim until you reach the shore.

>>It is on the Indian subcontinent where it matters

But caste custom is not solely responsible for the maltreatment of people in this subcontinent, right?

>>>There are other reasons responsible for that too. And you marked it as “It is the fundamental fault of our cultural outlook” as if your society is a complete religiously driven society.
>>The most fundamental values (either exhortation or prohibition) of a society are derived from religion.

Then what's that fundamental fault?
Caste custom?
Nature worshiping?
Human degradation?
Human degradation for following caste custom? Or
Nature worshiping that evokes human degradation?
What!

>>Here's my quote, “However, the striving to go up a notch in the cosmic hierarchy or achieving Moksha only happens upon death….making Hindus focus on it obsessively and contradicting your life-based philosophy claim.”

Every religion explains in its own way about the post-death situations. And that's for guiding their respective followers to practice the right conduct. And life-based philosophy of Hinduism only helps the cause. Now tell me honestly, does your introspection suggest that Hindus are obsessed with death only to gain Moksha, when so many suicide bombers and invaders are loitering in your yard?

>>Confusion and obfuscation are your two basic defenses to stay in the shallow end

Anybody can tell following the thread who is really confused and masking it under obstinacy and stratagem.

>>Then why were you willing to let either the cat or the little girl die in the burning house?

Any matured person will understand that 'be kind to God's creature' is the message here. When will you stop babbling?

>>You are personifying nature with your anthropomorphic characterization.

I recommend a class ten Biology book for you. Nature has its own personification. Every creature has its own utility to the environment, some are known - some unknown.

>>And how does creating and sustaining caste discrimination discharge the supreme duty to serve mankind?

Don't shed your tears! It is reforming.

>>Why else would you engage in it? Unless you have a perverse character to engage in activities thought to be inferior?

So, I did not claim the 'superiority' of nature worship, right? I am just trying to stop your nonsense mockery on a religious belief, that cannot be the cause of human degradation. And this is the focal point of this debate.

>>By not disturbing a marginal nature preserve though it costs people livelihood.

You need clarifications.

>>Here's your quote, “Hindus get self satisfaction worshipping/caring nature. They are not engaged in piling up dead bodies around the world. Do you have any problem?”
In other words, the alternative to worshiping nature is piling up dead bodies around the world, no?

No. If according to you the nature worshipers are degrading human beings, then I can say the sophisticated religions are not appearing saintly either. They are engaged in killing one another or invading, using jihad/crusade as their destructive tools. And your saying-
“But in your opinion, if you are not worshipping nature, your only other option is to pile up of dead bodies around the world.” is a lie. The operative word is 'only'. I did not say that and my comment does not imply that.


>>I have no doubt about your sincerity of wanting quick reform, but you are oblivious to Hindu philosophy's role in creating and sustaining caste discrimination …

You will find flaws in every religious doctrine but that does not nullify the whole philosophy that it suggests.



dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
45
>>Even taking the crude, simplistic view of Hinduism that it lacks a concept of societal charity (since such a concept is not explicitly spelled out in X or Y Hindu scripture,unlike Christianity)

Its not that the concept is not spelled out…but there is no basis to derive or infer that concept from what IS spelled out

>>and that what sense of service it does possess is oriented toward personal salvation or satisfaction,

In other words, selfish motives?

>>Hindus certainly are capable of being unselfish and compassionate with regard to family members and to the extended family and the clan.

I agree 100%. But they cannot say why? the reason behind this small circle of unselfish compassion? Animalistic loyalty to one’s own? is there a more substantive reason for it? And why is this circle of compassion is limited?

Does it is not follow then, those outside this circle (like victims of caste discrimination) have to look outside Hindu system of thought for expanding this circle of compassion?

>>They are also capable of appreciating unselfish acts and sacrifice that others make.

It’s always easier from the sidelines.

>>That's just common sense; it doesn't have to be stated or non-stated in a holy book. All it takes is the birth of the idea that charity and compassion are both ethical and practical.

My initial concern is the sound and adequate footing for charity and compassion to be declared as ethical and practical; and not some feel good airy concept that is self-evident. Moreover, if it is just "common-sense" every one would be charitable and compassionate...just as everyone knows it is common sense not to touch a hot stove and won't intentionally. Since, everyone are not charitable and compassionate, this common-sense is not all that self-evident.

>>In the final analysis, it doesn't really depend on whether one reveres Ram, Krishna, Zoroaster, Christ or whomever.

That’s one point of view. Whether it is a convincing point of view is a different issue. But if this “final analysis” were truly believed (as opposed to merely mouthed), the issue of religious conversions (following one versus the other or changing who they followed) should be a non-issue to those claim “it doesn’t really depend on…” whether one reveres A or B.
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
44
Varun,

>> Hindus certainly are capable of being unselfish and compassionate ..

Yes, and that is the case with people of all religion/races etc including Muslims whom you tend to bracket negatively.

>> All it takes is the birth of the idea that charity and compassion are both ethical and practical.

In other words, good ideas that are higher on moral/ethical/factual/logical plane should take precedence cutting across cultural/religious/traditional barriers.

>> In the final analysis, it doesn't really depend on whether one reveres Ram, Krishna, Zoroaster, Christ or whomever.

It might, in some cases. For example people take ideas such as personal non-vengeance, forgiveness, humility, truthfulness, non-violence etc (or values that are different/opposite from these) by virtue of reverence or being followers of certain religious figures (which they may not have the motivation to do so otherwise).
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
43
Even taking the crude, simplistic view of Hinduism that it lacks a concept of societal charity( since such a concept is not explicitly spelled out in X or Y Hindu scripture,unlike Christianity) and that what sense of service it does possess is oriented toward personal salvation or satisfaction, Hindus certainly are capable of being unselfish and compassionate with regard to family members and to the extended family and the clan. They are also capable of appreciating unselfish acts and sacrifice that others make. That's just common sense; it doesn't have to be stated or non-stated in a holy book. All it takes is the birth of the idea that charity and compassion are both ethical and practical. In the final analysis, it doesn't really depend on whether one reveres Ram, Krishna, Zoroaster, Christ or whomever.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
42
Dip,

>> that's the usefulness of the concept of diversity..

An important word of caution though. Diversity is good when we are talking about morally neutral/equal things, ideas or behavior. Otherwise, ideas which are morally/factually on a higher plane should take precedence. For example, a racist/casteist/communalist or a vengeful person etc cannot claim that he is merely being 'different' or ‘diverse’ - he is actually picking that which is at a morally lower plane, and discarding known ideas that are at a higher moral plane. The issue of diversity should be seen in the right perspective.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
41
>>>>I said our cultural outlook was at fault. You disagreed without any explanation. Though, I goaded you into explaining yourself, you still haven't!

>>I did and it's clear that you could not perceive it.

Or you only think you did without actually doing it….

>>>>In other words, not a single substantive point on why culture isn't at fault for mistreating people and venerating animals.

>>You will find mistreating of people in every country/society. So, caste custom is not solely responsible for that.

It is on the Indian subcontinent where it matters

>>There are other reasons responsible for that too. And you marked it as “It is the fundamental fault of our cultural outlook” as if your society is a complete religiously driven society.

The most fundamental values (either exhortation or prohibition) of a society are derived from religion.

>>>>I began to show that your “life-based” philosophy of Hinduism is contradicted by Naipaul's observation that Hinduism is obsessed with death and gave you a plausible explanation why.

>>You did not. Quote your comment, which explained specifically Naipaul's observation that Hinduism is obsessed with death.

Here’s my quote, “However, the striving to go up a notch in the cosmic hierarchy or achieving Moksha only happens upon death….making Hindus focus on it obsessively and contradicting your life-based philosophy claim.”

>>>>So your life-based philosophy falls apart under the mildest of questioning.

>>Obstinacy and stratagem are basic two weapons you are exploiting without diving into the depth.

Confusion and obfuscation are your two basic defenses to stay in the shallow end

>>Yes, as the creation of God all life is sacred.

Then why were you willing to let either the cat or the little girl die in the burning house?

>>Every creature is contributing the Mother Nature.

You are personifying nature with your anthropomorphic characterization.

>>According to Hinduism serving the mankind is our supreme duty.

And how does creating and sustaining caste discrimination discharge the supreme duty to serve mankind?

>>>>You also asserted the superiority of nature worship.

>>Superiority? When?

Why else would you engage in it? Unless you have a perverse character to engage in activities thought to be inferior?

>>>>That nature worship can crush real flesh and blood people under the weight of the devotion of its devotees.

>>How?

By not disturbing a marginal nature preserve though it costs people livelihood.

>>>>But in your opinion, if you are not worshipping nature, your only other option is to pile up of dead bodies around the world.

>>Rubbish.

Here’s your quote, “Hindus get self satisfaction worshipping/caring nature. They are not engaged in piling up dead bodies around the world. Do you have any problem?”

In other words, the alternative to worshiping nature is piling up dead bodies around the world, no?

>>I cleared my point on caste custom, and I repeated my view on many occasions in this forum for a quick reform.

I have no doubt about your sincerity of wanting quick reform, but you are oblivious to Hindu philosophy’s role in creating and sustaining caste discrimination and too easily giving that philosophy credit for motivating reform when it clearly doesn’t care beyond some generic pablum about serving humanity (even that is motivated by selfishness to earn one’s moksha.)
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 19, 2009 12:00 AM
40
Augustus,

>>I said our cultural outlook was at fault. You disagreed without any explanation. Though, I goaded you into explaining yourself, you still haven't!

I did and it's clear that you could not perceive it. I've just tried to clear the smoke out but you sticked to your smoky goading.

>>Instead, you talked about everything under the sun except why the culture wasn't at fault.

Because nature worshiping does not evoke human degradation, got it?


>>In other words, not a single substantive point on why culture isn't at fault for mistreating people and venerating animals.

You will find mistreating of people in every country/society. So, caste custom is not solely responsible for that. There are other reasons responsible for that too. And you marked it as “It is the fundamental fault of our cultural outlook” as if your society is a complete religiously driven society.

>>I began to show that your “life-based” philosophy of Hinduism is contradicted by Naipaul's observation that Hinduism is obsessed with death and gave you a plausible explanation why.

You did not. Quote your comment, which explained specifically Naipaul's observation that Hinduism is obsessed with death.


>>So your life-based philosophy falls apart under the mildest of questioning.

Obstinacy and stratagem are basic two weapons you are exploiting without diving into the depth. Yes, as the creation of God all life is sacred. Every creature is contributing the Mother Nature. According to Hinduism serving the mankind is our supreme duty. As Swami Vivekananda said "Jiva is Shiva" (each individual is divinity itself).This became his Mantra, and he coined the concept of daridra narayana seva - the service of God in and through (poor) human beings. And caring for nature with a religious outlook is nothing but forcing yourself to look after the balancing factors on earth.

>>Next, you also asserted, “Hinduism…is characterized by a rich variety of ideas and practices resulting in what appears as a multiplicity of religions under one term 'Hinduism'. I observed because it has no unifying idea for it cohere together; let alone the idea that people shouldn't be degraded or insulted or discriminated.

You jut failed as you are mentally blind.

>>You also asserted the superiority of nature worship.

Superiority? When?

>>That nature worship can crush real flesh and blood people under the weight of the devotion of its devotees.

How?

>>But in your opinion, if you are not worshipping nature, your only other option is to pile up of dead bodies around the world.

Rubbish.

>>Finally, I showed that the religious roots of the cultural institution of caste-based discrimination. Which brings the original point of people being degraded and animals being venerated in this culture.

I cleared my point on caste custom, and I repeated my view on many occasions in this forum for a quick reform. So, do not try to use that overused, blunt weapon again on me.




dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 18, 2009 12:00 AM
39
>>Hinduism teaches that there are many paths to reach that ONE.

What makes you think the ONE wants to be reached?

>>If we look deeply into the many-sided vision of Hinduism we will discover that it has much wisdom to teach everyone.

Its defenders talking out of many sides of their mouth is of more interest to me.

>>Today in the emerging global era we must learn to handle the great diversity of human beings and their often very different cultures. This requires a pluralistic vision in all aspects of life, from which religion, often the most important aspect of human culture, cannot be excluded.

Pluralistic vision does not mean uncritical acceptance of any kind of blather that comes down the pike.

>>>>I am all for measuring it…how many angstroms is your wavelenth?

>>My comment was about the people as a whole believe in Hinduism. You've mistakenly taken it personally. Though I am not trying to put out your fume with a puff!

I am not taking it personally…I am applying what you said to actual persons. If the claim is people with lower wavelength would find it unconvincing, shouldn’t we measure the length of wavelengths to check out such an assertion?

>>>>It is called resignation and unwilling to grapple with difficult choices…which leads to intellectual flabbiness.

>>This is called sacrifice/compromise with a big heart. That’s the rare value instilled into the mind of its followers by Hinduism. And that leads to open up all avenues of mind to sharpen the intellectual ability only.

I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence of that.

>>>>Isn't seeking self-satisfaction a form of selfishness?

>>Yes it is, and I was talking about your sarcastic 'cavemen' comment and the self-satisfaction you tried to enjoy from that.

You were seeking self-satisfaction out of nature worship. Here’s what you said “…a supreme attribute like 'care for nature' of Hinduism, that can fulfill your self-satisfaction only.”

>>>>In other words, your universal thought has no practical meaning in the real world.

>>If caring for life/nature and the related thought do not have any practical meaning, we are happy to live impractically!

You are doing a good job of it….
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 18, 2009 12:00 AM
38
>>>>You didn't have to. But that is the clear implication of your philosophical position if you bothered to think through it.

>>My philosophical proposition does not mean that.

Of course, it does.

>>It does not hold spaces for irrationals, who talks unreasonably.

No space because it is filled with your own irrationality: For example, all life is sacred except when it isn’t….because of “Prioritization of duty, urge of saving own kind of species are encoded in genes in almost every creature naturally”

>>>>So, the inclusive love of all life now has an exception for a “prioritization of duty” (like Brahmins looking after brahmins?), urge of saving own kind of species (who care about urges if it is wrong?).

>>Don't roam in a blind alley; the concept of 'love for all' does not conflict with 'prioritization of duty.'

Thus Brahmins can discriminate against others because their “prioritization of duty” to other Brahmins doesn’t contradict their “conceptual” love for all other castes?

>>>> Suppose there is no cat around? or the only cat around is a nature-loving philosophical cat that can talk itself into inaction by asking what's the value of two dead cats? In other words, your grandiloquent philosophy becomes a cheap joke wherever the rubber meets the road.

>>I've already answered that, don't babble like an autistic.

It’s painfully obvious which one of us is babbling like an autistic.

>>>> Now, if they are the highest, what's the basis for discriminating of one over the other by caste?

>>Caste custom maybe initiated in Hinduism with the thought that exploitation free society is not the same as casteless society.

Your defense of your many-sided Hinduism is making you speak out of many sides of your mouth.

>>Just as a human is not possible without its limbs, so is the establishment of a casteless society not conceivable. But discrimination is there (though it exists in all religion/society. A mathematically equal society is a Utopia). Hinduism should completely come out from caste custom without wasting any time.

Why should it come out? Especially if it is not conceivable?

>>>>Whence cometh this expectation?

>>From morality/humanity/rationality.

And where do they come from?

>>>>It's a rip-roaring satire of your unsustainable philosophical position.

>>Oh really? Crazy people's happiness dwells in their thoughts only!

You must have achieved absolute bliss in your incoherent and indefensible thoughts, then.

>>>>Why not? It's a culturally formed institution.

>>>>You are tirelessly mingling religion with culture. Culture does not take everything from a practiced religion.
Try telling that your Hindu friends who claim everything Muslims do is religiously motivated. However, the most important aspects of culture ARE religiously derived.

>>>>Try marrying outside your caste and then we will talk about it!

>>It has already become a normal phenomenon in Hinduism.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! And king cobras make good house pets!

>>>> Besides, nobody will call you someone who can explain why he believes what he believes, either.

>>Who cares?

Apparently, not you.
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 18, 2009 12:00 AM
37
Let’s look back and recapitulate. A poster observed, “..India is the only country where animals are worshipped while human beings are insulated, degraded or even subjected to worst kind of atrocities.”

I said our cultural outlook was at fault. You disagreed without any explanation. Though, I goaded you into explaining yourself, you still haven’t!

Instead, you talked about everything under the sun except why the culture wasn’t at fault. For example, Bangladeshi’s cultural association with India, beginning of rainy seasons, Udichi, Bakul tree, “life-based” philosophy of Hinduism, alleged similarity of Eid and Durga pooja, your Discovery and National Geography television watching habits, nature worship. Along the way, you complained dharma was being manipulated for profit and took comfort that culture was trusted by “crores” of people.

In other words, not a single substantive point on why culture isn’t at fault for mistreating people and venerating animals.

Convinced you can’t back up your claim, I began to show that your “life-based” philosophy of Hinduism is contradicted by Naipaul’s observation that Hinduism is obsessed with death and gave you a plausible explanation why.

You claimed the life-based philosophy “…includes human beings as well as animals, trees and every creature on earth.” Such sweeping statement fails to distinguish between little girls and cats or bakul trees and their relative importance with my burning house hypothetical. Finally, you admitted, “Scriptural texts continually state that human beings are the highest of all of God's creations.” But not before embarrassing yourself with the fate of the sacred life of a cat in a burning building is best left to another cat; based on a “prioritization of duty” exception to the general rule that all life is equally sacred. And sacrificing a few goats during Eid or Durga pooja is okay because you feel good about giving food to poor people. Yet another exception to the all life is equally sacred philosophy. So your life-based philosophy falls apart under the mildest of questioning.

Next, you also asserted, “Hinduism…is characterized by a rich variety of ideas and practices resulting in what appears as a multiplicity of religions under one term 'Hinduism'. I observed because it has no unifying idea for it cohere together; let alone the idea that people shouldn’t be degraded or insulted or discriminated.

You also asserted the superiority of nature worship. I pointed out deification of nature is nothing new or a mark of sophistication because even cavemen did it. That nature worship can crush real flesh and blood people under the weight of the devotion of its devotees. But in your opinion, if you are not worshipping nature, your only other option is to pile up of dead bodies around the world.

Finally, I showed that the religious roots of the cultural institution of caste-based discrimination. Which brings the original point of people being degraded and animals being venerated in this culture.
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 18, 2009 12:00 AM
36
Varun,

>>Yet, he retains his respect for and degree of involvement in, other features of the culture- the devotional, the contemplative, the meditative, because there is a worth in them.

Clear-sighted as always!
Beautifully depicted, and you see that's the usefulness of the concept of diversity in Hinduism. We can say it 'practicality' as well.
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 18, 2009 12:00 AM
35
Augustus,

>>Diversity means nothing if you are unable to judge between the profound and the profane or between the sublime and the ridiculous.

Hinduism teaches that there are many paths to reach that ONE. Hinduism recognizes a total and profound unity but one that is broad enough to allow for diversity and to integrate multiplicity, like the many leaves on a great banyan tree. If we look deeply into the many-sided vision of Hinduism we will discover that it has much wisdom to teach everyone. Today in the emerging global era we must learn to handle the great diversity of human beings and their often very different cultures. This requires a pluralistic vision in all aspects of life, from which religion, often the most important aspect of human culture, cannot be excluded.

>>I am all for measuring it…how many angstroms is your wavelenth?

My comment was about the people as a whole believe in Hinduism. You've mistakenly taken it personally. Though I am not trying to put out your fume with a puff!

>>It is called resignation and unwilling to grapple with difficult choices…which leads to intellectual flabbiness.

This is called sacrifice/compromise with a big heart. That’s the rare value instilled into the mind of its followers by Hinduism. And that leads to open up all avenues of mind to sharpen the intellectual ability only.

>>Isn't seeking self-satisfaction a form of selfishness?

Yes it is, and I was talking about your sarcastic 'cavemen' comment and the self-satisfaction you tried to enjoy from that.

>>In other words, your universal thought has no practical meaning in the real world.

If caring for life/nature and the related thought do not have any practical meaning, we are happy to live impractically! And we invite automatons to our world.

>>You didn't have to. But that is the clear implication of your philosophical position if you bothered to think through it.

My philosophical proposition does not mean that. It does not hold spaces for irrationals, who talks unreasonably.

>>So, the inclusive love of all life now has an exception for a “prioritization of duty” (like Brahmins looking after brahmins?), urge of saving own kind of species (who care about urges if it is wrong?).

Don't roam in a blind alley; the concept of 'love for all' does not conflict with 'prioritization of duty.'

>> Suppose there is no cat around? or the only cat around is a nature-loving philosophical cat that can talk itself into inaction by asking what's the value of two dead cats? In other words, your grandiloquent philosophy becomes a cheap joke wherever the rubber meets the road.

I've already answered that, don't babble like an autistic.

dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 18, 2009 12:00 AM
34
Augustus,

>>Glad you are coming around to my way of thinking…

Your way of thinking? No way, that's incomplete.

>> Now, if they are the highest, what's the basis for discriminating of one over the other by caste?

Caste custom maybe initiated in Hinduism with the thought that exploitation free society is not the same as casteless society. Just as a human is not possible without its limbs, so is the establishment of a casteless society not conceivable. But discrimination is there (though it exists in all religion/society. A mathematically equal society is a Utopia). Hinduism should completely come out from caste custom without wasting any time.

>>Whence cometh this expectation?

From morality/humanity/rationality.

>>selfless in blocking rush hour traffic in large cities?

Ha? Bangladeshis are importing though!

>>It's a rip-roaring satire of your unsustainable philosophical position.

Oh really? Crazy people's happiness dwells in their thoughts only!

>>All your philosphising leads into the cul-de-sac, yes, go ahead?

Again, come out from the blind alley.

>>I am jeering at ideas that are unsupportable and ridiculous.

Bloodshed ridicules you, the worse is still coming.

>>Why not? It's a culturally formed institution.

You are tirelessly mingling religion with culture. Culture does not take everything from a practiced religion.

>>Try marrying outside your caste and then we will talk about it!

It has already become a normal phenomenon in Hinduism. Don't worry about that.

>> Besides, nobody will call you someone who can explain why he believes what he believes, either.

Who cares?
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 18, 2009 12:00 AM
33
>>The world is observing the awful impact of singular dominant idea; diversity teaches us tolerance and gives an unending hunger for seeking the best.

Diversity means nothing if you are unable to judge between the profound and the profane or between the sublime and the ridiculous.

>>Yes, it may appear as weakness for the people with lower wave length.

I am all for measuring it…how many angstroms is your wavelenth?

>>Compared to other religions, the fact is, Hindus are least bothered about Hell/Heaven/Nirban.
And you are talking about their obsession for it! If that's not true, our predecessors would have seen an expansionist India - self-centered, intolerant and bloodthirsty. Live and let live and care for nature have always been the fundamental Mantra of Hinduism.

It is called resignation and unwilling to grapple with difficult choices…which leads to intellectual flabbiness.

>>A sarcastic comment can't nullify a supreme attribute like 'care for nature' of Hinduism, that can fulfill your self-satisfaction only.

Isn’t seeking self-satisfaction a form of selfishness?

>>Have you thought through the full implications of such a claim when you are done being enamored by its perceived magnanimity?

>>Caring for life is a universal thought. A literary meaning would make it more complex.

In other words, your universal thought has no practical meaning in the real world.

>>>>My cooking starts with mashing of your philosophy. If all life were equivalent, then a person who chooses to rescue a Bakal tree or a cat over a little girl from a burning building is just as moral as one who rescues the little girl because all life is equally “sacred.”

>>Did I say that?

You didn’t have to. But that is the clear implication of your philosophical position if you bothered to think through it.

>>Prioritization of duty, urge of saving own kind of species are encoded in genes in almost every creature naturally.

So, the inclusive love of all life now has an exception for a “prioritization of duty” (like Brahmins looking after brahmins?), urge of saving own kind of species (who care about urges if it is wrong?). By the way, which particular codon is this tendency encoded in?

>>In such a situation a cat will try to save a cat and a human being will save a helpless human being.

Suppose there is no cat around? or the only cat around is a nature-loving philosophical cat that can talk itself into inaction by asking what’s the value of two dead cats? In other words, your grandiloquent philosophy becomes a cheap joke wherever the rubber meets the road.

>>And if he/she can save the person in danger, will of course try to save the life of the cat too. Scriptural texts continually state that human beings are the highest of all of God's creations.

Glad you are coming around to my way of thinking…Now, if they are the highest, what’s the basis for discriminating of one over the other by caste?

>>They are then expected to conduct themselves morally and justly to continue to deserve a human life in future lives.

Whence cometh this expectation?
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 18, 2009 12:00 AM
32
>>Caring/loving/worshiping nature as a whole is humanistic; it may be revealed by caring/loving/worshiping the symbolic creatures. It maybe a selfless cow

selfless in blocking rush hour traffic in large cities?

>>>>Seeing generally requires opening of eyes

>>Only blockheads will see this materialistic world then. They won't see the guiding light of spirituality with their inner eyes.

While others trip all over their wavelengths…

>>>>So the goats lose their sanctity of life once or twice a year for you to FEEL moral and magnanimous if not outright sanctimonious?

>>Is that an argument or tickling?

It’s a rip-roaring satire of your unsustainable philosophical position.

>>>>May be others get self-satisfaction piling up dead bodies around the world….isn't the principle here at work “to each his own”?

>>Oh, yes. Go ahead!

All your philosphising leads into the cul-de-sac, yes, go ahead?

>>>>I am talking real life flesh and blood humans with all their faults as a given reality.

>>No, you are not. You are just jeering at a religion.

I am jeering at ideas that are unsupportable and ridiculous.

>>>>Institutions like caste discrimination?

>>No

Why not? It’s a culturally formed institution.

>>>>Perhaps. But on what religious or cultural principle can you detest it?

>>I can, that's the freedom we enjoy. Nobody calls me an apostate!

Try marrying outside your caste and then we will talk about it! Besides, nobody will call you someone who can explain why he believes what he believes, either

>>>>Casteism would not have passed the test of time without the deep and strong belief that casteism is part of the Hindu religion.

>>Isn't it reforming?

Because it is shamed into cosmetic reforms by other thought systems with different presuppositions….thus reform has been disappointingly slow.
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 18, 2009 12:00 AM
31
Dip, yes, picture that. A Hindu who thinks through certain time-honoured or supposedly time-honoured customs or ideas, then lets them go out of his own volition, because he sees the irrelevance, perniciousness or illogicality of the practice or idea. Yet, he retains his respect for and degree of involvement in, other features of the culture- the devotional, the contemplative, the meditative, because there is a worth in them. He's not an apostate, nor in fear of being attacked for any reputed apostasy.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jun 18, 2009 12:00 AM
30
Augustus,

>>We block-mindeds who are firmly grounded have to keep the balance in nature vis-à-vis the blockheads.

Yeah, enough proof is there of your delicate balancing in respect of tolerance, conversion, bloodshed, invasion, crusade/jihad! Enough is enough.

>>That it has no one overarching idea is obvious. Some see it as a strength, others weakness. However, the striving to go up a notch in the cosmic hierarchy or achieving Moksha only happens upon death….making Hindus focus on it obsessively and contradicting your life-based philosophy claim.

The world is observing the awful impact of singular dominant idea; diversity teaches us tolerance and gives an unending hunger for seeking the best. Yes, it may appear as weakness for the people with lower wave length. Compared to other religions, the fact is, Hindus are least bothered about Hell/Heaven/Nirban. And you are talking about their obsession for it! If that's not true, our predecessors would have seen an expansionist India - self-centered, intolerant and bloodthirsty. Live and let live and care for nature have always been the fundamental Mantra of Hinduism.

>>You can worship whatever you want. But deification of nature is neither new nor sophisticated per my cavemen comment.

A sarcastic comment can't nullify a supreme attribute like 'care for nature' of Hinduism, that can fulfill your self-satisfaction only. The nature and sign we think/imagine in God is reflected in selfless earth, isn't it? Sophistication or modernity is very much relative when we are talking about religion.

>>Have you thought through the full implications of such a claim when you are done being enamored by its perceived magnanimity?

Caring for life is a universal thought. A literary meaning would make it more complex.

dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 18, 2009 12:00 AM
29
Augustus,

>>My cooking starts with mashing of your philosophy. If all life were equivalent, then a person who chooses to rescue a Bakal tree or a cat over a little girl from a burning building is just as moral as one who rescues the little girl because all life is equally “sacred.”

Did I say that? Prioritization of duty, urge of saving own kind of species are encoded in genes in almost every creature naturally. In such a situation a cat will try to save a cat and a human being will save a helpless human being. And if he/she can save the person in danger, will of course try to save the life of the cat too. Scriptural texts continually state that human beings are the highest of all of God's creations. They are then expected to conduct themselves morally and justly to continue to deserve a human life in future lives. Caring/loving/worshiping nature as a whole is humanistic; it may be revealed by caring/loving/worshiping the symbolic creatures. It maybe a selfless cow or a fruit giving, mind soothing flowery tree.

>>Seeing generally requires opening of eyes

Only blockheads will see this materialistic world then. They won't see the guiding light of spirituality with their inner eyes.

>>I include among the abusers those who deify nature and crush real people under the weight of their devotion to it.

Again, close your eyes and try to see.


>>So the goats lose their sanctity of life once or twice a year for you to FEEL moral and magnanimous if not outright sanctimonious?

Is that an argument or tickling?

>>May be others get self-satisfaction piling up dead bodies around the world….isn't the principle here at work “to each his own”?

Oh, yes. Go ahead!

>>I am talking real life flesh and blood humans with all their faults as a given reality.

No, you are not. You are just jeering at a religion.

>>Institutions like caste discrimination?

No

>>Perhaps. But on what religious or cultural principle can you detest it?

I can, that's the freedom we enjoy. Nobody calls me an apostate!

>>Casteism would not have passed the test of time without the deep and strong belief that casteism is part of the Hindu religion.

Isn't it reforming?


dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 17, 2009 12:00 AM
28
>>Come down to the ground, it seems like book warms are becoming block minded nowadays.

We block-mindeds who are firmly grounded have to keep the balance in nature vis-à-vis the blockheads.

>>>> As VS Naipaul says, Hinduism is obsessed with death. What is this "life-faced" philosophy?

>>Hinduism is marked by an attitude which seems to accommodate religious and cultural perspectives other than one's own, and so is characterized by a rich variety of ideas and practices resulting in what appears as a multiplicity of religions under one term 'Hinduism'.

That it has no one overarching idea is obvious. Some see it as a strength, others weakness. However, the striving to go up a notch in the cosmic hierarchy or achieving Moksha only happens upon death….making Hindus focus on it obsessively and contradicting your life-based philosophy claim.

>>Hinduism sees nature as a manifestation of Brahman-the infinite…“I evoke the Earth, which gives shelter to all the seekers of truth, to those who are tolerant and have understanding, to all things strength-giving, nourishing; the source of the creative spirit, we depend upon you, O Earth.”

You can worship whatever you want. But deification of nature is neither new nor sophisticated per my cavemen comment.

>>>> What does that mean? And what difference would it make if it included LIFE exclusively?

>>Hinduism discusses about the material world too. Using life inclusively meant not only the life of human beings but also the life of every creature on earth.

Have you thought through the full implications of such a claim when you are done being enamored by its perceived magnanimity?

>>>> Rescuing a little girl or a cat or a Bakul tree from a burning house will be morally equivalent in your hocus pocus philosophy.

>>Now, you are cooking a hotchpotch.

My cooking starts with mashing of your philosophy. If all life were equivalent, then a person who chooses to rescue a Bakal tree or a cat over a little girl from a burning building is just as moral as one who rescues the little girl because all life is equally “sacred.”

>>>> Appealing features like....

>>Close your eyes and try to see.

Seeing generally requires opening of eyes
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 17, 2009 12:00 AM
27
>>>>to whom? Is the punchline to this joke that we love the whole nature so much that we don't give a damn about its constituent parts....like people?

>>Ask the abusers.

I include among the abusers those who deify nature and crush real people under the weight of their devotion to it.

>>>>Are the goats with their throats slit part of this nature lovefest?

>>Though I don't personally like mass animal slaughtering during festivals, but this is the time once or twice in a year we distribute good foods among the poor.

So the goats lose their sanctity of life once or twice a year for you to FEEL moral and magnanimous if not outright sanctimonious?

>>>>Taking care of it and worshiping it are categorically different activities.

>>Hindus get self satisfaction worshipping/caring nature. They are not engaged in piling up dead bodies around the world. Do you have any problem?

May be others get self-satisfaction piling up dead bodies around the world….isn’t the principle here at work “to each his own”?

>>>>It lends itself to be manipulated like that?

>>Are you talking from heaven, with angels around?

I am talking real life flesh and blood humans with all their faults as a given reality.

>>1.the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.

Institutions like caste discrimination?

>>I detest discriminations based on Castes.

Perhaps. But on what religious or cultural principle can you detest it?

>>Hinduism is reforming slowly but surely from caste customs - this is not a blocked belief exclusively from God.

Casteism would not have passed the test of time without the deep and strong belief that casteism is part of the Hindu religion.
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 17, 2009 12:00 AM
26
Augustus,

>> Cavemen worshiped nature too....out of awe and fear.

I see, books are not helping you much. Go out, have a walk in the rain and think what our carelessness has done to the nature. Perhaps, we'll have to look back and do some caring like those cavemen to save ourself from greenhouse effect!

>> Appealing features like....

Close your eyes and try to see.

>>to whom? Is the punchline to this joke that we love the whole nature so much that we don't give a damn about its constituent parts....like people?

Ask the abusers.

>>Are the goats with their throats slit part of this nature lovefest?

Though I don't personally like mass animal slaughtering during festivals, but this is the time once or twice in a year we distribute good foods among the poor.

>>That's the critical test for you? how many documentaries are produced?

No, that was a tapping on your shoulder.

>>Taking care of it and worshiping it are categorically different activities.

Hindus get self satisfaction worshipping/caring nature. They are not engaged in piling up dead bodies around the world. Do you have any problem?

>>It lends itself to be manipulated like that?

Are you talking from heaven, with angels around?

>>Because it is the culture that differentiates people by their castes and discriminates based on that....that is what is "trusted" by crores of people. Because if you knew the basic definition of culture...it is man-made things that don't exist in nature.

The word "culture" is most commonly used in three basic senses:
1.the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.
2.an integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning
3.excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities
I detest discriminations based on Castes. Hinduism is reforming slowly but surely from caste customs - this is not a blocked belief exclusively from God. Culture includes vast things as it suggests from the three basic things mentioned above. It bears good things as well as bad. People's trust strengthens its bondage to a culture when its overall appeal is virtuous/humanistic. Care for nature does not conflict with judgmental behavioural pattern with human beings. Rather it nourishes the sense of humanity in us.
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 17, 2009 12:00 AM
25
Augustus,

>>No wonder your arguments are all wet....

Yes, could not overflow your vague snobbery.

>> Try reading a book instead of watching TV...

I was in fact one of the performers there. Come down to the ground, it seems like book warms are becoming block minded nowadays.

>> As VS Naipaul says, Hinduism is obsessed with death. What is this "life-faced" philosophy?

Hinduism is marked by an attitude which seems to accommodate religious and cultural perspectives other than one's own, and so is characterized by a rich variety of ideas and practices resulting in what appears as a multiplicity of religions under one term 'Hinduism'. Hinduism sees nature as a manifestation of Brahman-the infinite, all-pervading divine Reality. From its earliest manifestation thousands of years ago, Hinduism has maintained a deeply rooted conviction in the interconnectedness of life and the sanctity of nature. The ancient Atharva Veda contains the Prithvi Sukta, the Prayer to the Earth, which declares:
“I evoke the Earth, which gives shelter to all the seekers of truth, to those who are tolerant and have understanding, to all things strength-giving, nourishing; the source of the creative spirit, we depend upon you, O Earth.”

>> What does that mean? And what difference would it make if it included LIFE exclusively?

Hinduism discusses about the material world too. Using life inclusively meant not only the life of human beings but also the life of every creature on earth.

>> Rescuing a little girl or a cat or a Bakul tree from a burning house will be morally equivalent in your hocus pocus philosophy.

Now, you are cooking a hotchpotch.
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 17, 2009 12:00 AM
24
Let's also not forget that the main subject here is Australia, and the recent attacks on overseas Indian students there.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jun 17, 2009 12:00 AM
23
>>First of all we the Bangladeshis are culturally associated with India irrespective of religion.

we are glad to be of assistance...

>>Yesterday we celebrated the first day of Rainy Season.

No wonder your arguments are all wet....

>>A renowned music group named 'Udichi' performed music, dance, and recitation beneath a Bakul Tree (a sweetly smelled flower) in Charu Kala Institute (Institute of Art & Culture). The tree is so much popular and famous that every special occasion of our Bengali culture is nationally celebrated there. All prime TV channels telecasted the program live.

Try reading a book instead of watching TV...

>>The 'life-faced' philosophy of Hinduism carries a pristine image of life.

As VS Naipaul says, Hinduism is obsessed with death. What is this "life-faced" philosophy?

>>Yes, it includes LIFE inclusively.

What does that mean? And what difference would it make if it included LIFE exclusively?

>>It includes human beings as well as animals, trees and every creature on earth.

That must be why the former are treated badly and latter venerated...Aristotle said moral degeneration is when unlike things are treated the same and like things are treated differently. Rescuing a little girl or a cat or a Bakul tree from a burning house will be morally equivalent in your hocus pocus philosophy.

>>Hinduism worships mother nature.

Cavemen worshiped nature too....out of awe and fear.

>>Culture everywhere has taken the appealing features of religions as well.

Appealing features like....

>>The vibrancy and nature caring features in Hinduism have a magnetic appeal.

to whom? Is the punchline to this joke that we love the whole nature so much that we don't give a damn about its constituent parts....like people?

>>We observe it now in a Muslim marriage ceremony, we can't differentiate much between an Eid and Durga Puja, leave alone Barsha Baran (new year celebration) and other national celebrations.

Are the goats with their throats slit part of this nature lovefest?

>>Look at National Geography or Discovery channels. They are producing many documentaries based on Hindu rituals and its significance on care on nature.

That's the critical test for you? how many documentaries are produced?

>>The channels are giving such terrifying news on the impact of our torturous behavior on nature that, it's really frightening. Worship comes from respect, when it is Mother Nature, your rational thinking should convert it into care, shouldn't you?

Taking care of it and worshiping it are categorically different activities.

>>Exaggeration, superstitions are the weapons used by the persons who exploit Dharma as Business/hypocrite politicians.

It lends itself to be manipulated like that?

>>If human beings are insulted/degraded, then you have to mend your society. Don't blame your culture as it is tested by time - trusted by crores.

Because it is the culture that differentiates people by their castes and discriminates based on that....that is what is "trusted" by crores of people. Because if you knew the basic definition of culture...it is man-made things that don't exist in nature.
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
22
Dip, very nicely said.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
21


Sorry Augustus, I misspelled your ID.
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
20
Augutus,

>>Is that an argument? May be you can make your argument even stronger by sticking your tongue out and make a face at me and yell really loud...."IT IS NOT."

First of all we the Bangladeshis are culturally associated with India irrespective of religion. Yesterday we celebrated the first day of Rainy Season. A renowned music group named 'Udichi' performed music, dance, and recitation beneath a Bakul Tree (a sweetly smelled flower) in Charu Kala Institute (Institute of Art & Culture). The tree is so much popular and famous that every special occasion of our Bengali culture is nationally celebrated there. All prime TV channels telecasted the program live.

The 'life-faced' philosophy of Hinduism carries a pristine image of life. Yes, it includes LIFE inclusively. It includes human beings as well as animals, trees and every creature on earth. Hinduism worships mother nature. Culture everywhere has taken the appealing features of religions as well. The vibrancy and nature caring features in Hinduism have a magnetic appeal. We observe it now in a Muslim marriage ceremony, we can't differentiate much between an Eid and Durga Puja, leave alone Barsha Baran (new year celebration) and other national celebrations.

Look at National Geography or Discovery channels. They are producing many documentaries based on Hindu rituals and its significance on care on nature. The channels are giving such terrifying news on the impact of our torturous behavior on nature that, it's really frightening. Worship comes from respect, when it is Mother Nature, your rational thinking should convert it into care, shouldn't you?

Exaggeration, superstitions are the weapons used by the persons who exploit Dharma as Business/hypocrite politicians. If human beings are insulted/degraded, then you have to mend your society. Don't blame your culture as it is tested by time - trusted by crores.
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
19
Chatterjee and any other critics of KPS Gill: How would you have done it differently i.e wipe out terrorism in Punjab? And would your putative approach have guaranteed an end to terrorism and a general return to normalcy? If not, your criticisms are impertinent and mindless.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
18
Stopperbhai, you are right. The Islamists and the Christian evangelists and missionaries are very anti-Indian in spirit. They serve to draw people away from the richness of India's culture and history and impose on them an aggressive, bigoted anti-Hindu world view. There are many egalitarian, reformist movements within the Indic culture that can deal with the inequalities, superstitions and feudalism present in India. There's no need to bring in Christianity and Islam.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
17
Chatterjee, the horrific Khalistan insurgency( which by the way was not a visionary movement for more democracy, secularism and pluralism waged against an entity actively opposing these values) was put down by a combination of true grit displayed by Gill and his men, democratic elections held right from the village level, and a growing disgust by ordinary Punjabis with the levels of violence of the Khalistani terrorists. You could say it was a combination of the carrot and stick. The stick was absolutely necessary though, and India under KPS Gill if anything, behaved in a far more civilised manner than would have just about any other country. The US, UK, France, Russia and China would have been far more ruthless and mass murdering, including using poison gas dropped from aircraft. Don't let your anti-Gill sentiment cloud your judgement.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
16
>>why dont you understand the reality in this way.

Because that is not reality...

>>The Hindu majority does not have any problems with any other minorities other than the Jihadi kind of Muslims and the missionary kind of Christians.

Because that is a self-serving propaganda designed to serve as a fig leaf to cover up naked discrimination and bigotry...

>>Every one and everything is accountable
here.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

>>Ther
e is a long history behind these two evil duos perpetrating crime,inflicting injuries and insult over the Hindus.

Did you stop taking your hallucinatory tablets, again?

>>We re living in a democracy and even then the so called secular governments engage in selective minority vote bank politics and appeasement at some one else's cost.

Like building a temple in ayodhya?

>>There is no discrimination from the majority on any minorities.

Which raises the question...do you know the meaning of the word "discrimination"? Is that why there are two sets of laws on adoption; one for Hindus and another for non-hindus? And absolute prohibition of renting houses to people from wrong caste or wrong religion?
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
15
>>IT IS NOT.

Is that an argument? May be you can make your argument even stronger by sticking your tongue out and make a face at me and yell really loud...."IT IS NOT."
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
14
Augustus,

>>It is the fundamental fault of our cultural outlook.

IT IS NOT.
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
13
Vivek writes:

>>A general tendency amongst the majority of Hindus in this country is to turn a blind eye to the angsts of the minorities, when they are not directly responsible for committing atrocities on the minorities.

While I don't believe Hindus should care about the "angst" of minorities, they should care about minorties' right to life, liberty and other activities guaranteed by the constitution and the law. Not so much for altruistic reason as for very selfish reason--If minorities' rights are derogated and compromised easily, what will prevent Hindus' rights also to be cast aside easily? Either everyone's rights are scrupulously defended or noone's rights are safe.

>>Whenever riots have taken place, horrific crimes have been committed on the minorities, as done to the Sikhs in 84, or to Muslims in Bhagalpur,Mumbai or Gujarat or to the xtians in Khandmahal/Orissa. More often than not, no legal follow up happens in most of the communal riots cases,

These cases result from the deadly combination of incompetence and indifference.

>>and even if an inquiry starts (after much political pressure)the police is scandalously busy sabotaging evidence in the cases where an enquiry has been ordered.

Because the police utterly lack professionalism in their ability or pride in their duty. Just another criminal gang--with uniforms and lathi sticks.

>>I don't hesitate to say that India is the only country where animals are worshipped while human beings are insulated, degraded or even subjected to worst kind of atrocities.

It is the fundamental fault of our cultural outlook.
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
12
chutterjee

rembember 1971 in bangladesh.

10 million bongos sought refuge in animal loeing india. untold numbers killed,raped etc.
banitoadolfo
roma, Italy
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
11
>> In matters of race, the Rudd government appears to continue the Howard government's legacy.

While Rudd may have the rputation of being more liberal, the situation of Asians has not improved since he became Prime Minister. If anything it has further deteriorated.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
10
I think the Indian team lost due to:
a)Hubris of Dhoni and company.
2)The conspicuous absence of Sehwag in the important match against England.

Dhoni and his team were too busy doing ads,photosessions with skimpily dressed women and partying; they barely had no time to give their 100% to the game.
Vivek Chatterjee
Calcutta, India
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
9
KPSGill, who eliminated khalisthanis in Punjab, should be brought in as minister for inernal security, to set things right on eastern India. V.Seshadri

I can understand as to why this scum, KPS Gill is your hero. KPS Gill is still fighting a litigation for groping a female IAS officer's buttocks in a party. KPS Gill is credited with eliminating militancy from Punjab. The reality is that without the active help from Benazir Bhutto, the then PM of Pakistan, Khalistanis would not have been wiped out. Once the supply of arms and munitions from across the border stopped, the insurgency ran out of steam. In many of the anti-insurgency operations, the Punjab police, under the aegis of Gill, eliminated the entire families (women and children included)of Sikh militants. Grave violations of human rights took place all in the name of wiping out terrorism.
Vivek Chatterjee
Calcutta, India
Jun 16, 2009 12:00 AM
8
If Indian government routinely fails to protect its citizens where it has absolute sovereign authority (i.e. inside the country), how can it protect its citizens outside the country?
AUGUSTUS AAA

A general tendency amongst the majority of Hindus in this country is to turn a blind eye to the angsts of the minorities, when they are not directly responsible for committing atrocities on the minorities. Whenever riots have taken place, horrific crimes have been committed on the minorities, as done to the Sikhs in 84, or to Muslims in Bhagalpur,Mumbai or Gujarat or to the xtians in Khandmahal/Orissa. More often than not, no legal follow up happens in most of the communal riots cases, and even if an inquiry starts (after much political pressure)the police is scandalously busy sabotaging evidence in the cases where an enquiry has been ordered. To sum it up India's track record in preventing riots or bringing the culprits to book in riot cases has been very dismal. The Congressis may vehemently shout on podiums about secularism, but they too are just chameleons, being closet Hindutatvadis.
I don't hesitate to say that India is the only country where animals are worshipped while human beings are insulated, degraded or even subjected to worst kind of atrocities.
Vivek Chatterjee
Calcutta, India
Jun 15, 2009 12:00 AM
7
khushi ram

i know you are the best-

however not just minorities, i suggest to all
people to immigrate if they are so unhappy.

i did- sometimes its best to do so.

there is no point in bmw all the time.
banitoadolfo
roma, Italy
Jun 15, 2009 12:00 AM
6
"minorities in india can not leave india, as
there is no place they can go to.

howver if possible christians could immigrate to
usa, canada etc- it "

Sir we are loyal Indians and will never betray or forsake our motherland !
Khushi Ram
ambala cantt, India
Jun 15, 2009 12:00 AM
5
aaa

minorities blame the hindus, bjp for their problems.

i earlier time english puritans and french hugenots left their countries and settled abroad.

minorities in india can not leave india, as
there is no place they can go to.

howver if possible christians could immigrate to
usa, canada etc- it will be good for them in all ways- those who can not should build christian communities in some parts of india.

same for muslims.

its worth experimenting with.

after all there are many educated and talented minorities who can build their own societies-

better then grumbleing and blameing others.
banitoadolfo
roma, Italy
Jun 15, 2009 12:00 AM
4
aaa

india has several states. many ruled by congress
and commies.

adress your complaints to mother sonia.

ask the blacks. latinos is usa- pakistani,s in
britain, amd alegerians in france.
banitoadolfo
roma, Italy
Jun 15, 2009 12:00 AM
3
>>Indians are always targets everywhere,its because the Indian government does not take the issues seriously. While the governement is very keen on the foriegn exchange overseas Indians generate.

If Indian government routinely fails to protect its citizens where it has absolute sovereign authority (i.e. inside the country), how can it protect its citizens outside the country?

Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Jun 15, 2009 12:00 AM
2
Indians are always targets everywhere,its because the Indian government does not take the issues seriously. While the governement is very keen on the foriegn exchange overseas Indians generate.

India needs to get self reliant such that we don't need to go out to make a livelihood.
The former colonial masters will never treat us well racism it just a reflection of the past.
vencsv
london, United Kingdom
Jun 10, 2009 12:00 AM
1
Indians are being attacked in Australia and Canada. In Britain, the racist British National Party (BNP), which never won a Parliamentary seat before, has now won two seats in the European Parliament. It is an anti-immigration party, like the anti-immigration parties that exist in several West European countries.

While we do not need to get paranoid, we shouldn't be too complacent either. Some degree of racism exists quite near the surface in both white and non-white populations. It is likely to come to the fore during an economic downturn when jobs become scarce. It is also true however that a large percentage of Europeans, Canadians and Australians are opposed to and embarrassed by such overt expressions of racism.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
COLLAPSE COMMENTS   
Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY