Post a Comment
Share your thoughts
You are not logged in, please log in or register
Must See
Daily Mail
Digression
Order by
1/D-64
Oct 15, 2010
09:25 AM
>> Subsequently, as more research pointed otherwise, the goalpost was quietly shifted. In her deposition as an expert for the Waqf Board, the Aligarh historian, Shireen Moosvi, suggested that “the legend of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Rama is found from the 17th century, prior to which there is no legend about Rama’s birthplace in medieval history”. However, during cross-examination, Moosvi also admitted: “It is correct that in Sikh literature there is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had darshan of Ram janmasthan and had bathed in the River Saryu.”

>> A horrific misrepresentation was sought to be covered up without the slightest show of contrition.

These are our "eminent" historians, who have been feeding lies and half truths to generations of school going kids. It's wonderful that the court has given them a big one on their hinds.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
2/D-68
Oct 15, 2010
09:31 AM
Further eminence from our "eminent" historians

>> Nor was Bhan the only armchair archaeologist. Echoing Moosvi, the medieval historian who felt that “to ascertain whether it is temple or mosque, it was not necessary to see the disputed site”, the professor, D. Mandal, another expert witness for the Waqf Board, admitted he wrote his Ayodhya: Archaeology After Demolition without even visiting Ayodhya and with an eye to the presidential reference to the Supreme Court. Mandal also admitted that “Whatsoever little knowledge I have of Babur is only that Babur was (a) ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.” The judge, Agarwal, was sufficiently moved to say about Mandal that “the statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge on the subject”.

So one "expert" wrote a report on archeology without even visiting the site. Another "expert's" expertise is limited to the knowledge that Babur was a ruler of 16th century.

Why don't we just pick a bunch of high school kids and make them expert witnesses? Even they shall know this much. Likely more.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
3/D-70
Oct 15, 2010
09:34 AM
Usual excellent article by Swapan Dasgupta. Tough as it was, it did manage to increase the contempt for these scoundrels strutting around as "eminent" historians.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
4/D-73
Oct 15, 2010
10:22 AM
It is easy to selectively quote bits and pieces to build a propagandist objective to tar all non-hindutva view points as unreliable. This has been the strategy of hindutva ideologues for long. Mr. Swapan Dasguptas collection of quotes is like what is mentioned in another article, "One judge stated that he did not delve into the historical aspect since he was not a historian but went to say that history and archaeology were not absolutely essential to decide these suits"

Instead, those interested in history/archeology related to this issue should just focus on the debate of evidences, weighing the evidences and assessing the level of probabilities etc. That is an academic issue of debate for a different forum and not for courts to decide title suits of litigants. There can be many issues related to history/archeology which are subject of debate and if one is interested, one is entitled to look at evidences presented by various sides and form opinions on what is probable. On a side note, it needs to be noted from a purely religious point of view, that what may be lying beneath a mosque is hardly of religious value - it is the philosophical/spirit...spiritual/historical relevance of the story of Ram itself that has value from a purely religious/spiritual point of view. So for the truly faithful/spiritual, the focus on 'what may have been there beneath' itself is a misplaced focus.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
5/D-85
Oct 15, 2010
11:09 AM
>> It is easy to selectively quote bits

Usual succu tactics. Don't counter any evidence with facts. Make general statements, berate people for launching attacks, and then do exactly the same, except of course, without the honesty of producing any evidence.

Their lies, corruption, plagiarism, etc. had been detailed earlier too by Shourie. That time too, you indulged in similar meaningless defense. Unable to counter a single fact, you tried to attack Shourie. Now you are doing the same with Swapan. Here's a suggestion. Why don't you actually provide some evidence that the judges were wrong to disregard their testimony, and hence the comments they passed were uncalled for? If you can't, will you have the honesty to admit that you are, as usual, incapable of anything more substantial than farting.

As for this column, these are not selective quotes. These are their testimonies under oath.

It is not surprising, but nevertheless disgusting, to see slimeballs like you rise to the defense of these charlatans. Do we really need experts who shamelessly lie (no legend of the birthplace before 17th century, and then recanting later), or one who claims that all he knows is that Babur was a ruler in 16th century.

Worse, after all this, they were slamming the courts. On what grounds should their views be given credence? They have shown themselves to be intellectually, morally and ethically corrupt and incompetent.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
6/D-87
Oct 15, 2010
11:13 AM
>> Instead, those interested in history/archeology related to this issue should just focus on the debate of evidences

This is exactly what happened.

If you want to give credence to people who admitted under oath that they neither had any expertise, nor had they done any research, and that they had lied earlier; well, you are a scumbag.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
7/D-88
Oct 15, 2010
11:18 AM
>> Usual succu tactics. Don't counter any evidence with facts. Make general statements, berate people for launching attacks ...

All that Swapan or Shourie or anyone who thinks they have some arguments/evidences on a subject of historical debate is to present their arguments/evidences and let the readers decide. I have given the example of how a selective quote can be made even on judges themselves if one wants to. But that is not how matured/professional/academic debates take place.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
8/D-89
Oct 15, 2010
11:27 AM
>> If you want to give credence to people who admitted under oath that they neither had any expertise, nor had they done any research ...

Swapan throws some names and says that so and so person said he is not an expert on so and so. Now, one has to go into the details of what that person is really an expert on, in what context or on what point he/she may have said that etc. Not everyone is an expert in everything. Even an expert in one field with one kind of specialization can say that he is not an expert in another field or in a specific point that a question is being asked about etc (to make it clear to the judge what he can tell with expertise what he does not etc).
Kumar
Bangalore, India
9/D-99
Oct 15, 2010
12:12 PM
"Once the ASI excavations confirmed that the Babri Masjid wasn’t built on virgin land, “impartial” history turned to imaginative history." (Swapan Dasgupta)

If one's theories do not coincide with the theories of the ASI or of one of the justices, they immediately become "imaginative history"!
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
10/D-113
Oct 15, 2010
12:54 PM
>> All that Swapan or Shourie or anyone who thinks they have some arguments/evidences on a subject of historical debate is to present their arguments/evidences and let the readers decide.

That's exactly what they are doing.

You are the one who says they should not indulge in ad-hominem attacks, without of course, countering any arguments.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
11/D-114
Oct 15, 2010
12:58 PM
>> Now, one has to go into the details of what that person is really an expert on

Feel free to research and post if you find any evidence of their expertise in subjects under discussion.

But does the expertise of such a person, allow him to write an article on Ayodhya excavation without visiting the site? What kind of expertise is this, which prompts an expert to say that no evidence prior to 17th century exists of the legend, and then under oath, change that stance?

I can think of only one kind. Expertise in lying shamelessly, but being smart enough to cover your ass, when under oath.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
12/D-116
Oct 15, 2010
01:02 PM
>> On a side note, it needs to be noted from a purely religious point of view, that what may be lying beneath a mosque is hardly of religious value

The snob bears his ugly head once again.

Who are you to decide the religious value of something for others? Let people decide that for themselves.

The same superior attitude was visible during Hussain's painting controversy, when you declared that only politically indoctrinated people found them offensive.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
13/D-140
Oct 15, 2010
07:24 PM
>>Swapan throws some names and says that so and so person said he is not an expert on so and so. Now, one has to go into the details of what that person is really an expert on, ………………..

Vintage Kumar argument - long winding statements and deliberately avoiding the judgment itself. Next time he fumes about Hindutva militants destroying the Babri mosque, I propose the following line of argument : “One has to see whether they are all bad people or whether there were good among them, whether they were good husbands, good fathers and did social work also. One should also try and ascertain whether the people under whose orders they demolished the mosque had any expertise in painting and pottery (which should be debated in the arts arena). One should also look at the context of their criminal acts (if they did any). Off course one should also leave the Babri destruction case to historians and archaeologists and let them debate it out in the academic arena. Most of all it should be noted that any outrage at the Babri Masjid demolition is an artificial construct as in mature societies, offence should be tolerated!
RSM
Delhi, India
14/D-142
Oct 15, 2010
07:28 PM
>>If one's theories do not coincide with the theories of the ASI or of one of the justices, they immediately become "imaginative history"!

It is impossible to argue with someone who can’t differentiate between right and wrong.
RSM
Delhi, India
15/D-206
Oct 15, 2010
11:57 PM
'Ayodhya verdict constitutes dangerous precedent'

"NEW DELHI: The Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya dispute constitutes a "dangerous precedent" which can be used against vulnerable groups, eminent civil society members and academicians said here today.

"Addressing mediapersons after a day-long conference on 'Repercussions of the Ayodhya judgement and possible civil society intervention', the group, comprising activist Shabnam Hashmi , advocate Anupam Gupta and historian professor Paniker among others, were unanimous in conveying their "dismay over the verdict".

"The meeting was of the opinion that the verdict constitutes a dangerous precedent, which can be used against vulnerable groups. We are dismayed over it," Gupta, who was the standing council for the Liberhann Commission which probed the Babri masjid demolition, for eight years, said."

http://economictimes...icleshow/6756107.cms
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
16/D-9
Oct 16, 2010
12:21 AM
Would be nice if they stand for truth to actually take a stand and say it unambiguously that what the Eminent historians did also sets a "dangerous precedent". Wait, they cannot say that, because they only depend on precedents like those. god save india, if these guys have appointed themselves as the moral guardians of the nation. what a bunch of hypocritical liars!
Ajit Tendulkar
Seattle, United States
17/D-34
Oct 16, 2010
01:03 AM
The amount of self-righteous bullshit spouted by the jhola wallas is just incredible. They need no stinking evidence and they are right because they said so.
They have gone to the extent of lying in court, maligning respectable institutions and rubbishing all evidence that does not conform to their view.
Abhishek Agrawal
Mumbai, India
18/D-38
Oct 16, 2010
01:15 AM
'Ayodhya verdict constitutes dangerous precedent'

"The meeting was of the opinion that the verdict constitutes a dangerous precedent, which can be used against vulnerable groups. We are dismayed over it,"
"
Always ill-informed opinions. Never facts. And dangerous precedent for doing what? Not giving in to the Wakf board's serial land scams?
Abhishek Agrawal
Mumbai, India
19/D-48
Oct 16, 2010
02:00 AM
DC,

In a hurry as I have to leave.

The old suit of 1885 was dismissed. An orderly division and demarcation of possession was made. As far as I am concerned, we should have continued to honour it.

Of the four title suits under consideration, the first one (Gopal Singh Visharad) was filed on January 18, 1950. Nirmohi Akhara filed in 1959. Sunni Board in 1961 and on behalf of Ram Lalla it was filed in 1989.

So, the current legal cases are all after Independence and after the illegal act of 1949 when idols were smuggled inside the mosque. It was locked up. Instead of their removal being ordered, the locks were allowed to be opened in 1986.

For what it is worth, I have never been one of those who have taken the historical route in this debate. My stand has always been that it would have to be a constitutional and/or practical negotiation.

For the purposes of debate, I have not considered it necessary to figure out whether or not there was a temple there before. Indeed there was a functioning temple outside the mosque. There had been a case in 1885. That case was decided. Possession was nicely formalised and demarcated.

As for the relevance or otherwise of ASI report: I was only actually clarifying to someone's question about why MK considers ASI report to be irrelevant.

We know that religious places were destroyed in history. For this debate, we do not want to even discuss who else destroyed those or whether they ever did. We have discussed Mathura and Kashi before.

Frankly, it was not a life and death issue for secularism as long as basic law had been followed locally. 1949 smuggling-in of the idols should have been reversed.

I think it should have been allowed to remain a land dispute in a provincial town, but with politicisation at a local level and vote-banks, the fire was fanned at the national level first by Congress and then of course by the BJP which of course then spiralled out of control.

But considering that some historians had involved themselves positions hardened, and in the lack of other conclusive evidence, I can see why the courts would ask for ASI etc to help them out. They should know and so should we, that these things would always be contentious.

For what it is worth, Justice Khan does not buy the theory based on the ASI report that a temple was demolished. He thinks what existed was a non-Islamic structure for sure. But that's about all. Other two judges differ. It is perfectly ok to look at the reasoning of all three judges. Which is why I was interested in providing a summary by a qualified lawyer. One such now exists on the home page since yesterday.

I am also more than willing to state actually that in case the ASI showed that there was no temple, its competence would still have been questioned -- by the other party. So I would leave that for experts to figure out in SC for that is where it is headed. Let's not fool ourselves that it would not have gone to SC had the result been different. Yes, the more aggrieved and the less aggrieved would definitely have changed places.

As for criticising the judges' reasoning: yes, that is par for the course. Judgments are routinely scrutinised and those fraught with so much history etc are bound to be. My own request actually would be for people to have informed debates. Which is why I personally took the trouble to ensure that we have all the full texts and summaries available for easy browsing.

I would also expect the SC judges to look into 1949 and 1992 episodes which changed the situation on the ground. I am not looking for criticism or a lecture from them, I am looking for them to factor these things into their reasoning and decisions in allocating the disputed land.

The historians and their testimonies and their cross-examination does not make for edifying reading at all. Their role definitely deserves scrutiny. And of course they would get a platform to offer their side of the story as well. We do need people to help clarify rather than confound the confusion.

Hope this answers some of your questions. Now I will have to maintain radio silence and will be available to respond to questions only after a few days.
Sundeep Dougal
New Delhi, India
20/D-50
Oct 16, 2010
02:11 AM
Most of the regulars seem to be acquainted with the judgments to an extent by now.

For others, for an informed debate, I strongly urge a reading of the following:

http://www.outlookin.../article.aspx?267502
http://www.outlookin.../article.aspx?267309
Sundeep Dougal
New Delhi, India
21/D-63
Oct 16, 2010
02:50 AM
RSM,

>>>> If one's theories do not coincide with the theories of the ASI or of one of the justices, they immediately become "imaginative history"!
>> It is impossible to argue with someone who can’t differentiate between right and wrong.

That's why it is so difficult to argue with sanghi revisionists of history.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
22/D-67
Oct 16, 2010
05:03 AM
>> I think it should have been allowed to remain a land dispute in a provincial town, but with politicisation at a local level and vote-banks, the fire was fanned at the national level first by Congress and then of course by the BJP which of course then spiralled out of control.

Thanks for the nice, detailed post.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say. We had an opportunity in 47 to become a truly secularist state, but we chose not to. Not only did the leaders that time chicken out in giving us uniform civil laws, they (Nehru primarily) gave special treatment to Kashmir since it was a Muslim majority. And of course, our constitution gave special rights to some communities, and denied them to others. So, this is not an isolated incident.

Moreover, we decided to correct historical wrongs by giving reservations to entire communities, based, not on their present or individual status, but historical injustices. And remember, it was compounded in the 70s (when Mandal commission was formed), in the late 80s, when it was implemented, and then in 2000s, when it was extended to education. So, to suggest that this is the only instance of correction of historical wrongs is plainly dishonest.

And finally, I don't agree that the fires were spanned only by political parties. I think the non-political liberal crowd (though it's a different matter, that their politicking shall put most professional politicians to shame) takes a huge blame. Apart from their general antipathy to anything related to BJP (notice their glee when 59 Kar Sevaks were killed), they have consistently lied and revised history on this issue. Plus, they keep bringing in unrelated subjects. For example, they have been raising the bogey of Hindus destroying Buddhist places of worship (without mentioning, if the reverse happened too). Apart from relevance to this issue, such claims have been repeatedly shown as false. Yet, they shamelessly parade them. On this forum itself, probably the most regular member shamelessly lied about it.

This vitiates the atmosphere, and ruins any respect or trust the two sides might have for each other. I strongly feel that for reconciliation to take place, the secular crowd shall have to rid itself of this abscess called the secular intellegentia or the liberal crowd, or eminent historians, or whatever they like to call themselves. They are a disease, and the sooner we are rid of them, the faster we heal.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
23/D-70
Oct 16, 2010
07:26 AM
>> >> If one's theories do not coincide with the theories of the ASI or of one of the justices, they immediately become "imaginative history"!

No. It's because they are based on lies, instead of evidence.

Why don't you ask your favorite historians, who lied about the history of the legend, only to recant it under oath?
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
24/D-76
Oct 16, 2010
07:49 AM
>> We had an opportunity in 47 to become a truly secularist state, but we chose not to

Not true. The constitution strives secular democracy in spite of all the complications, hyper religiosity of people, casteism and many long standing social evils in the name of religion etc. And the country overall continues to strive for that (even if it is a two steps forward and one step backwards at times)

>> Moreover, we decided to correct historical wrongs by giving reservations to entire communities, based, not on their present or individual status, but historical injustices

It is based on the current status of being disadvantaged/deprived sections. For example, there was not even a thin creamy layer among dalits and highly disadvantaged in the scheme of things. You may disagee with the approach, but that was the thinking. For example, regardless of historical injustices, if at the time of independence, dalits are found to have high social/educational/economic standard, at the average, there would have been no reservations for dalits.

>> I don't agree that the fires were spanned only by political parties. I think the non-political liberal crowd (though it's a different matter, that their politicking shall put most professional politicians to shame) takes a huge blame

Nothing of that sort Academicians are always allowed to present arguments, hypothesis etc. It is all part of a normal debate and academic exercise. If a particular historian's presentation/argumen...n/argument/evidences are found to be inadequate, others can rebut it and many times, the original writer can revise it too. All this is normal process. There are of course some (hindutva folks in this case) who must take one and only one absolutist stand - to justify they lawlessness, demolition, agenda of creating political-communal tension etc - the only way they can deal with an otherwise free-flowing academic debate is to go on an Ad Hominen rampage on everyone who do not toe their absolutist stands. But then, one has to deal with this elements like this, and continue with the Academic debates/process nevertheless.

>> I strongly feel that for reconciliation to take place, the secular crowd shall have to rid itself of this abscess called the secular intellegentia ...

While the hindutva folks and islamists etc have a free hand to do whatever they please?
Kumar
Bangalore, India
25/D-78
Oct 16, 2010
08:29 AM
>> Not true.

As usual, you have not understood the post.

>> It is based on the current status of being disadvantaged/deprived sections.

Wrong again.

Historically deprived was the reason given then, and is still trotted around, when there is a creamy layer.

>> Nothing of that sort Academicians are always allowed to present arguments, hypothesis etc

And lie, and express glee when innocent people burn to death.

>> While the hindutva folks and islamists etc have a free hand to do whatever they please?

Is that what you got from the post?
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
26/D-81
Oct 16, 2010
08:53 AM
>> >> Nothing of that sort Academicians are always allowed to present arguments, hypothesis etc

>> And lie, and express glee when innocent people burn to death.

The academicians make their assessments/arguments etc - no one is barred from the process - whether left, right, center, neutral etc. This healthy and free flowing debates, rebuttals, arguments etc, if that culture prevails, help prevent extremist positions if any. The academic process cannot be held responsible for "innocent people burning to death". Such things happen when some section manages (if temporarily) to scuttle the free flowing debate and manages to influence a section of people to take it on the streets with violence.

>> >> >> While the hindutva folks and islamists etc have a free hand to do whatever they please?

>> Is that what you got from the post?

No, but you ended up identifying the proponents of free flowing academic debates as the culprits which we need to get rid of. For example, to the hindutva folks, nothing else works except to paint that certain standing mosques are demolitions, and then justify a forceful reclaim/demolition etc (which it doesn’t anyway, but helps to add some meat to the rhetoric/incitement etc). They can’t tolerate any further debate on the point. The Academic historians on the other hand hold varying positions, present varying hypothesis, debate, discuss etc (they may condemn the above phenomenon though).
Kumar
Bangalore, India
27/D-113
Oct 16, 2010
01:17 PM
there were three judges giving a judgement on the same facts and how come sudhir agarwals bashing of historians becomes an gospel of truth.
judge khan dissents that the mosque was built after destructing a temple.is he also part of eminent historians.on the side of pseudosecularists there r habibs,sharmas,mondals,jhas cutting across the caste and religious lines while on the other side which the internet hindus consider as gospel of truth there is only one denomination.
if the supremecourt castigates these three judges and quashes this judgement will the internet hindus accept eminent historians as eminent or what they say as gospel of truth.
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
28/D-179
Oct 16, 2010
08:47 PM
>>>> If one's theories do not coincide with the theories of the ASI or of one of the justices, they immediately become "imaginative history"!
>> It is impossible to argue with someone who can’t differentiate between right and wrong.

>>That's why it is so difficult to argue with sanghi revisionists of history.

What is the credibility of an Islamist calling ASI report as sanghi revisionist history?
RSM
Delhi, India
29/D-2
Oct 17, 2010
12:04 AM
>> The academic process cannot be held responsible for "innocent people burning to death"

Duh, again?

Who is holding the process responsible? I am calling out the scoundrels who were expressing their glee when innocents burnt to death. Why is it so difficult for you to understand?

Once again, it's not the process we are discussing. It's the people. Get it?

And of course, you are trying to sly away from discussing the slimeball who was brazenly lying, but recanted the testimony under oath. Do you want to excuse this too to some process?

>> No, but you ended up identifying the proponents of free flowing academic debates as the culprits which we need to get rid of.

Duh, yet again. I was responding to Sundeep's post, who was talking about the politicians. I said I also hold these slimeballs responsible. You can differ on this, which is fine. But how does this extend to the stupidities that you strut around as arguments?
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
30/D-4
Oct 17, 2010
12:16 AM
RSM,
None whatsoever. Just because the ASI provided some research to the courts, they need to be knocked down so that one more Indian institution bites the dust. All in the name of secularism.
The folks who tried to undermine the ASI did so, knowing that this could have a severe impact on the most important Indian archeological institute which has been at the forefront of protecting and researching India's rich pre-Islamic heritage.
ASI can expect that any exploration of our non-Islamic heritage will be accused of religious bias.
Abhishek Agrawal
Mumbai, India
31/D-9
Oct 17, 2010
12:28 AM
Whatsinaname,
No need to get annoyed. You are fighting a shifting ground tactic.
Remember that the logical fallacies committed by the secular brigade is their undoing. They think that if they can hoodwink the public, they can hoodwink the courts too.
Abhishek Agrawal
Mumbai, India
32/D-12
Oct 17, 2010
12:53 AM
Here we go. And I thought that the Hindutva slur on archeology was still some time away! The movement to deny the non-Islamic heritage of India has begun. Expect the ASI to die a slow suffocating death. Unless of course, they start discovering the Islamic origins of India.

"Archaeology and tourism have become handmaidens of Hindutva

BY OMAR KHALIDI"
http://www.tehelka.c...81010Archaeology.asp
Abhishek Agrawal
Mumbai, India
33/D-20
Oct 17, 2010
01:28 AM
“I don’t like your trying to restore Somnath. It is Hindu revivalism.” -Nehru
Yes. Hinduism should stay buried. We are all following Panditjis excellent example. Well done India.
Abhishek Agrawal
Mumbai, India
34/D-44
Oct 17, 2010
09:24 AM
>> Remember that the logical fallacies committed by the secular brigade is their undoing. They think that if they can hoodwink the public ...

You just decide if you want your country to be a respectful, strong, civilized, secular democracy. If yes, just stand for it and strive for it. That is all that should matter.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
35/D-46
Oct 17, 2010
09:51 AM
The point that the likes of Swapan/Shourie should understand is this: The academic process and academic people are harmless (as long as they are just presenting various positions, hypothesis, debating, discussing etc) - even if some of those positions may need further development of the case, subsequent changes etc – which is anyway a natural process. If one does not trust the expertise of an academic historian, one can always cross verify and one is free to accept or reject the hypothesis put forward by that historian. It is as simple as that and harmless.

The harmful people are the ones for whom only one extreme/rigid position of a reading of “history” will work, which they want to use for lawlessness/illegitimate incitements, demolitions, vandalism etc. The Nazis’ use “history” to build up a case against Jews, is harmful and it is this kind of “historians” who cannot tolerate a legitimate academic debate on the points which they want to use in their hate propaganda (and hence to resort to Ad Hominem attacks on all academicians that do not toe their line). The same applies to hindutva “historians”. Genuine historians (of any persuasion) just participate in the academic debate and process in a harmless/lawful manner.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
36/D-50
Oct 17, 2010
10:30 AM
Dalit seeks non-Brahmin judge for fair trial in HC http://viigo.im/58lV
hope this becomes a movement to get justice. the ayodhya judgement is a classic example of playing by their caste/religion rules and can be used to get neutral judges in all cases of dispute but the mainstream media which is predominantly from this denomination discusses all other points but misses the trees for the woods
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
37/D-51
Oct 17, 2010
10:41 AM
"Not everyone is an expert in everything. " - Kumar

For example, your parents are no experts in ensuring good education and values for you. Your parents are no experts in breeding their duffer kid well.
Brilliant Babloo
BablooLand, India
38/D-53
Oct 17, 2010
10:53 AM
>> The point that the likes of Swapan/Shourie should understand is this: The academic process and academic people are harmless

The point you should try and understand is that academic people can also be evil.

>> (as long as they are just presenting various positions, hypothesis, debating, discussing etc)

But not when they are lying, plagiarizing, faking erudition they don't possess. Such deceit can be exposed, even if people like you rush to defend it.

>> even if some of those positions may need further development of the case, subsequent changes etc – which is anyway a natural process. If one does not trust the expertise of an academic historian, one can always cross verify and one is free to accept or reject the hypothesis put forward by that historian. It is as simple as that and harmless.

One can do better. One can present their own research, theories, evidence. This is exactly what Goel, Shourie, Ram Swarup etc. did. And what was the reaction of the "eminent historians". Well, it has been documented often enough, but it was much worse than what you accuse Shourie or Swapan of doing.

But admitting so would require a bit of honesty, of which, you have not shown any trace so far.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
39/D-60
Oct 17, 2010
12:58 PM
Munusami,
>>Dalit seeks non-Brahmin judge for fair trial in HC >>http://viigo.im/58lV
>>hope this becomes a movement to get justice.

Are you even remotely serious? Seeking non-Brahmin judge is casteism of the highest order. Imagine if a Brahmin sought a non-dalit judge.
Abhishek Agrawal
Mumbai, India
40/D-64
Oct 17, 2010
01:57 PM
Note to secular extremists:
1. Minoritarianism is as evil as majoritarianism.
2. Political correctness is not a valid argument.
3. Appeal to emotion is not a valid argument.
4. Facts do not always suit you. Get over it and stop trying to deny them.
5. There is a difference between inferring from facts and theorizing in spite of the facts. One in admissible in court, the other will earn you contempt.
6. You cannot seek equality and reservations/special treatment at the same time.
Abhishek Agrawal
Mumbai, India
41/D-86
Oct 17, 2010
06:47 PM
dear agarwal
kindly read about the issue. if a brahmin has a complaint against a dalit and the case is posted before a dalit judge there is no wrong in asking for a neutral one.kindly see the response of the judge and u will understand why impartiality is impossible with caste/religion related issues
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
42/D-101
Oct 17, 2010
08:04 PM
Munusamy,
"
kindly read about the issue. if a brahmin has a complaint against a dalit and the case is posted before a dalit judge there is no wrong in asking for a neutral one."
Again. How do you know that the judge is not neutral? Are you contending that judges always consider caste while making judgements?

I went through the article and I confess that I don't know what the bloody hell you are yakking about.
"A Gujarat high court judge got offended and dismissed a case filed by a dalit when his lawyer requested the judge not to hear the case and shift it to some other bench because the judge himself was a Brahmin and that he would not be able to do justice in the case."

I would be offended too, if I was deemed prejudiced just because of my caste.

"Makwana's lawyer, A M Chauhan, told the court that nearly 60% of selected candidates were Brahmins. The petitioner accused the judicial officer of promoting Brahmins and in doing so, he conducted interviews twice and deprived him of the opportunity. "

If you assume that there was bias(quite possible, but not yet proven), I still do not understand why the judge needs to be called a bigot.


"However, Chauhan's accusations on behalf of his client, Makwana, stunned Justice R R Tripathi. The advocate submitted: "The surname suggests that Your Lordship also belongs to the same community and, therefore, I want that this court may not hear this matter." "
An absolutely bigoted lawyer. The poor judged just suffered reverse-discrimination.

"Justice Tripathi dismissed the case with the observation that the statement was made only with a view to either bring pressure on the court and obtain a favourable order, or get the case out of this court. "The court deems it proper to dismiss the matter so as to discourage such a practice.""

I'm staggered that you find this judgement biased. It is the lawyers tactics that caused the case to be dismissed. Or is it your argument that any judgement against a dalit is by definition biased?
Abhishek Agrawal
Mumbai, India
43/D-29
Oct 18, 2010
04:10 AM
Dear MUNUSAMY GANAPATHY,

Munnu pyaare, What are you doing here without your mundu? Did someone borrow your mundu to extricate jalebis? Do you realize that spewing craps without your mundu on is making you look so vulgar?
Brilliant Babloo
BablooLand, India
44/D-74
Oct 18, 2010
03:57 PM
dear agarwal
its ethics that u dont adjudicate or recuse yourself from a case when ur relatives r involved.when its possible to get neutal judges why cant we try it.kindly see how biased the umpires where in sports before the era of neutral umpires. whether it was australia/pak/india there used to be an outright bias for the home team. there r whispers now that chennai superkings boss and bcci sec plays an active role in distributing umpires in ipl matches.r the judges different from umpires.when there is trouble between kerala and tamilnadu on cauvery water and it goes to court the judges from the two states get themselves excused as there may be an hidden bias.all the judges who r from the backward classes r supporters of reservation and give points for argument/write articles in its support while the opposite is true for the upper castes who try all stunts to prevent/dilute/discredit the reservation policy. r judges direct descendants of god that they r free from bias
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
45/D-98
Oct 18, 2010
09:09 PM
"The constitution strives secular democracy"

The constitution did not indicate 'Secular' when formed. It was inserted during the emergency by the secular Congress' Indira. The founders would have understood that a strict secularism on the western model would not be suitable for India where culture and religion are mixed so tightly.

If protection of minorities is the intention is the intention of this secularism, there are already articles in the constitution supporting this and there is no need to include secularism into it.

The secularism that was introduced later was nothing but another vote bank tactics to politically isolate parties with right wing agenda that has later been hijacked by the commie historians, media and the so called intelligentsia. So many examples like Shah Bano, UCC exposes this. Finally, secularism is used today to politically isolate BJP and related parties and to consolidate minority votes. The marxists in the media and the so called civil society (incl. eminent historians) use the same secularism to deepen their left liberal agenda. Both of them don't have any concern for society or its welfare.

Along with Islamic and Hindu fundamentalists, this country need to fight these Secular fundamentalists to achieve harmony and to move forward. While the former 2 are easily identifiable and targeted, the SFs are more dangerous like parasites, prevail in the society as normal people and continuously cause trouble and raise tensions.
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
46/D-110
Oct 18, 2010
11:49 PM
>> "The constitution did not indicate 'Secular' when formed. It was inserted during the emergency by the secular Congress' Indira".

Even before the 42nd Amendment was passed, the preamble to our constitution clearly implied its secular nature. Here is what it said before the words "secular" and "socilalist" were added:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
47/D-26
Oct 19, 2010
02:09 AM
Anwaar,

Sovereign Democratic republic does not mean the secularism that is now preached.. As I said there were enough protection for minorities already available before the amendement..
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
48/D-27
Oct 19, 2010
02:16 AM
This brand of secularism that is shouted from rooftops nowadays is the one responsible for the Kolkata high court giving a judgement saying a 15 year old girl can be married to a Muslim guy as per Islamic law even though her Hindu parents objected to it saying she was converted to Islam by forgery. A minor kidnapping case ends in a marriage in this secularism.
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
49/D-48
Oct 19, 2010
07:10 AM
Rajesh,

>> Sovereign Democratic republic does not mean the secularism that is now preached.

Read the whole preamble. "Secularism that is now preached" is the fault of humans, not of the Constitution. The practice of secularism, as well as democracy, is a process requiring constant monitoring and refinement.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
50/D-105
Oct 19, 2010
08:35 PM
"Secularism that is now preached" is the fault of humans, not of the Constitution.

Noone is saying that Constitution is at fault. It is those who use constitution as a tool for their hypocrisy and justifying secular fundamentalism who needs to be condemned.

Multiculturalism is failing in Europe.. Same goes to this brand of secularism. It is a vote catching strategy for political parties and a leg for the hypocrites in the civil society to stand on.. Society and communities will be far better without discussing about it every time..
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
51/D-23
Oct 20, 2010
02:16 AM
Rajesh,

>> Noone is saying that Constitution is at fault. It is those who use constitution as a tool for their hypocrisy...

They have to be resisted. The opposition should speak up for true secularism. Instead the opposition tries to mock secularism, using words like pseudo-secular!

>> Multiculturalism is failing in Europe.

Multiculturalism goes with globalism, but India was multicultural even before anybody used the word 'globalism'. Ladakhis, Bengalis and Tamils have pretty much their own cultures, leaving India no choice but to be multicultural.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
52/D-24
Oct 20, 2010
02:31 AM
> The opposition should speak up for true secularism. Instead the opposition tries to mock secularism, using words like pseudo-secular!

Whenever the opposition speaks for true secularism, it is attacked and mocked for being communal. If it was all secular for one party to open the locks to Babri masjid, perform Shilanayas and then kick off an election campaign from there, why was it communal for another party to take up the campaign? True secularism would mean one party neither reversing Shah Bano nor banning Satanic Verses nor opening the locks nor performing Shilanayas. The agreements would have been reached between the locals but our so-called secular historians meddled with their false, made-up histories. If we want secularism, we should just judge issues on merit and not on which religion, caste, linguistic group wants done. The so-called communal political parties would automatically lose all their base if the so-called secular parties behave in a fair and unbiased manner.
Kajal Shah
New York, United States
53/D-26
Oct 20, 2010
02:47 AM
>> Whenever the opposition speaks for true secularism, it is attacked and mocked for being communal.

It is no secret that the BJP/RSS parivar are committed to the attenuation of secularism in India.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
54/D-27
Oct 20, 2010
03:52 AM
>>It is no secret that the BJP/RSS parivar are committed to the attenuation of secularism in India.

and congress is not? for all the lip service it pays to secularism, the real reason why bjp/rss parivar survive is congress party's naked communalism and pseudo-secularism. if it genuinely practiced secularism, there would be no parivar and no bjp.
Kajal Shah
New York, United States
55/D-30
Oct 20, 2010
04:51 AM
>> if it (Congress) genuinely practiced secularism, there would be no parivar and no bjp.

If the BJP and the Parivar were not using the Hindutva card to build their vote-bank, the Congress would not need to go out of its way to cultivate minorities.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
56/D-54
Oct 20, 2010
09:20 AM
>> and congress is not? for all the lip service it pays to secularism, the real reason why bjp/rss parivar survive is congress party's naked communalism and pseudo-secularism. if it genuinely practiced secularism, there would be no parivar and no bjp.

Well, there is a simple lesson which every child should be taught - never blame others to justify for ones own wrong doings. If someone else is supposedly not practicing 'genuine secularism', how is that a valid excuse for one to turn communal? One has to take care of oneself and to always do and support what is right/just/fair (regardless of what some party or someone else is supposedly doing or not doing).
Kumar
Bangalore, India
57/D-66
Oct 20, 2010
10:49 AM
"If the BJP and the Parivar were not using the Hindutva card to build their vote-bank, the Congress would not need to go out of its way to cultivate minorities." -
Anwaar aka Faruki aka Cata Maran

If there was something even remotely like "Hindu vote-bank", the mumbling mullahs and their rabid supporters will be wiped off from India.
Brilliant Babloo
BablooLand, India
58/D-97
Oct 20, 2010
03:55 PM
"If someone else is supposedly not practicing 'genuine secularism', how is that a valid excuse for one to turn communal?"

This is the same brand of secular fundamentalists who keep their mouth shut when the congress goes out of its way to please the mullahs. These are the same fundamentalists who as someone said piss in their pants when it comes to Islam and the Prophet. They keep mum when DaVinci code is banned by Karunanidhi and when the same moron goes on to say Hindu means a thief and ask questions about Ram.

When it comes to the BJPs and the Senas, they want everybody to be honest and truth sayers. As long as there is minority politics, not just in India but anywhere, there will always be a chance for some groups to talk for majority. Whether they succeed or not is a different issue.
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
59/D-108
Oct 20, 2010
06:05 PM
dear babloo
i nevr knew that the votebank of mayawathi/mulayam/ka...tish,paswan,ramadoss r all nonhindus.what do u mean by hindu vote bank.r mulayam,karuna,mayaw...awathi,paswan,nitish non hindus since they r not from a specific caste.
its not just the intellectuals but a significant number of lower castes(kindly read the articles written by them in net and print.)who r artists,politicians,...icians,professionals who r aghast at this verdict which was given without any shame by the judges who stood for what their caste/religion stands.maya,mulayam,...cthuthanandan,paswan represent a major group of hindus than thackeray or advani.
munusamy ganapathy
chennai, India
60/D-114
Oct 20, 2010
07:23 PM
The votebank of Mayawatis, Paswans etc are castes and subcastes and not a collective Hindu votebank which the BJP tried to consolidate..

When one says a Muslim votebank, it means they fetch votes claiming muslim causes and not just from Muslims.. same way the above Mayawatis and Paswans claim support for dalit or particular caste causes and not generally for Hindus..
Rajesh
Bangalore, India
Order by
Order by
Order by
Short Takes
recent tags
Desis
Dinanath Batra
Diplomacy & Foreign Policy
Education
Gujarat
Indian-Americans
Indies
Indo-US
Levity
Maps
Movies
Narendra Modi
Parody
School Text Books
Schools