Osmania University beef festival sparks violence

[tvsram1992]

lol virtually nothing serious had happened and the thread went to 38 pages

 

[Joe Shearer]

Good points, but the question is will all these points be solved, or were solved by selling beef ?

I still dont understand how beef and its availability has got to do with the above mentioned issues.

You are confusing the problem with the cure.

It is necessary to be sensitive to the identity aspirations of minorities, otherwise the entire compact behind which India was formed will fall apart. India was formed not as a Hindu majority nation, which would ram down the desires and wishes of the Hindu majority, represented by the dominant castes within the body of those professing Hinduism; India was formed as a secular nation, respecting the religious rights of all, and denying none the right to practice their religion.

We can preserve this ideal and this objective by respecting the rights of all, not just the rights of Hindus.

That is where making beef available comes in. Not making it available, when sizeable minorities, Dalits, North-eastern Tribals, Muslims, Christians and Buddhists, have it in their diets, displays the arrogance and insensitive misuse of brute majority by the dominant Hindu.

Also since you quoted the Sikh identity issue and the Tamil issue - both having to do with not respecting their sentiments - how does trying to antaganize the religious sentiments of largest religion in India help in any of the issues ? If not doesn't it drive a wedge between them and the communities that "assume" eating beef is an integral part of their religious expression ?

Where and when was it stated that one measure would meet the aspirations of all? Where was it stated, hinted, or implied that a removal of the ban on cow-slaughter, and the resultant easing of the availability of beef, would address the Sikh identity issue or the Tamil issue?

There were other measures to address those - the wearing of kirpans by the Sikhs, even if fused to the scabbard to prevent any security hazard, the recognition of Tamil as a classical language, even though the concept of a classical language is ridiculous both for Sanskrit and for Tamil - and the beef issue has nothing to do with them.

Please note that for desensitization to happen this is not some lota issue practised by few people, but a cherished sentiment of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people practised over the centuries. Some things are better left untouched and maintaining the status-quo rather than stirring the nest and getting stung.

Live and let live should be the motto. If that sounds too idealistic then, "you scratch my back, I will,yours" should be the motto atleast regarding each group respecting other's sentiments.

Not idealistic; grossly illegal and against the spirit of the Indian state is more accurate.

I have already pointed out, and do so again; the arguments you have advanced are precisely those that were using in protesting against the British decision to ban sati. Even today, there is a backward section of Hindu opinion that seeks to legitimise this ghastly practice. The cover of age-old convention and practice through the centuries is merely mawkish sentiment, not grounds for legislative action.

Becoming a non religious society won't work in our case, specially when its just the Hindus who are expected to become non religious with such "desensitization".

You hit the nail on the head.

When did we ever try to be a non-religious society after 1947 for you to come to these convenient conclusions? Ever since we got independence, we have depended on mutual accommodation to get along, rather than a strict exclusion of the religious principle. As a result, for each concession given to one religion - seemingly - there is a concession given to the other. We witnessed a retrograde supersession of a decision of court regarding the maintenance to be paid to Shah Bano under law; soon, down the road, there came the clandestine and surreptitious breaking of the locks on a section of the Babri Masjid and the carnage that followed.

You hit your toes on the head with that thoroughly wrong logic.

And for every one such antic by these attention seekers, one "secular" hindu moves into the right wing fold. True story.

Fortunately, the Indian is not the idiot that he or she is assumed to be by heroes on these fora.

In Punjab, where Sikh identity is being expressed, the BJP exists only as a tolerated but not respected junior partner; in Tamil Nadu, where Tamil identity is being expressed, the BJP is hopeful of avoiding losses of its deposits at some date soon, in the future. In the north-east, it does not exist, except in the form of two posters from the north-east (counting Sikkim as a part of the north-east); in the areas of the central Indian tribes, the BJP is strong and robust; and so equally strong and robust is the armed opposition to the hegemony of the majority. Finally, in the state where Dalit identity was first brought to political power, it was thrashed, and has come limping in third overall, millimetres in front of the other set of criminals, the Congress.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Facts historical or otherwise helps those who are open minded, balanced and don't suffer from preconieved notions running on sigular track.

Talking of historical facts,I don't have to go any further than my own state of Odhisha where our most precious temples , Puri Jagannath temples,Korank temple , Lingaraj Temple and numerous other temples suffered unrelenting assult from muslim invaders bend on destroying hindu temples and the Jagannath culture of Odisha. Our Jagannath culture still survives and flourishes because of the sacrifies and great courage shown our people in the face of grave threat and torture.

What, in fact, your elliptical language conceals is that only Jagannath at Puri was attacked, from all records available to us. Neither Balaji at Tirupati nor Sri Rama at Rameswaram were attacked. That grand rhetorical flourish grouping these three loaded icons together to draw the sympathy of the vulnerable Hindu reader was just that, and nothing more, a rhetorical flourish.

Our history texts, 40 years ago, spared no detail about the destruction of Hindu temples by Muslim raiders. My suspicions were aroused because these texts made no mention of any attack on Tirupati, or on Rameswaram.

Here is story of Kala Pahad , the barbaric invader which is known every kid of Odisha.

A citation of the source of this account would be interesting. Is this from an accepted historical text, or of some other origin?

Orissa came under the Muslim administration in 1568 and there were constant attempts to destroy the Hindu temples. The Pandas of Puri, to save the sanctity of the Puri temple, took away the Lord Jagannath from the Srimandir and kept the image in a secret place. Similarly, it is said that the Pandas of Konark took away the presiding deity of the Sun temple out of the temple and put under sand for some years. Latter on the said image was removed to Puri and kept in the temple of Indra in the compound of the Puri Jagannath temple. According to others, the Puja image of the Konark temple is yet to be discovered. But others hold the view that the Sun image now kept in the National Museum, Delhi was the presiding deity of the Konark Sun temple]

This is a very strange story.

We are to believe that a Muslim administration was unable to destroy a temple under its military rule.

A moment's reflection will show that this is a strange matter. Another moment may be required to conclude that the Muslim rulers really did not want to harm the temple at all.

See your very insidious gibe toward that new member who may not be aware of your strong views was plain vulgar and wrong.

And which new member's unwary statement did I chastise with an insidious gibe?

Was it the hero who proclaimed

Well then sir these states have allowed the sanctity of Tirupati, Sabrimala, Rameshwaram and all other Hindu sacred places to be defiled with spilled blood of the cow. Even Aurangzeb could not not have done any worse.

Why should a newcomer talk rubbish? Are newcomers allowed a sowing of their oats period, during which they can come out with any nonsense whatever, and everybody else waits for them to cross one hundred posts before telling them where to get off? Please don't add sanctimoniousness to your other problems.

While we are on the subject, what did you find insidious about my comment? To refresh your memory, the meaning of insidious:

in·sid·i·ous/inˈsidēəs/
Adjective:
Proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects: "the insidious effects of stress".
Treacherous; crafty: "an insidious alliance".

I thought he was an idiot, and I called him an idiot. What was gradual or subtle about it? Or what was treacherous or crafty about it? If you wanted to use a nice-sounding word, should you not at least look up the meaning before you make a public exhibition of yourself.

Mine was a polite request that considering the level of maturity and seniority you should refrain from it in future. And if don't like politeness next time you may miss it.

None of your posts - not a single, solitary one - in the past have been polite. Do you expect me to faint in astonishment at your unexpected finesse? Not having missed it all these years, I am highly unlikely to miss it in future.

Yes,I'm ususally not swayed the "reason and logic, and knowledge " contained in verbose posts of yours , simply because they i don't agree with them as i feel they lack clarity of thought , are superficial and mere a presentation of show off rude man.

If there is reason, logic and knowledge, they cannot simultaneously lack clarity of thought. Of course, they may be superficial, but you have never managed to show them to be so. They may showing off, but that may be due to your envy from your point of view of a limited range of expressions, rather than due to my showing off. That is the way I write, always, not in order to impress you.

As for being rude, if calling you and your pack of lackeys bigoted and reprehensible is being rude, I take that as a compliment. Thank you very much.

 

[anonymus]

@joeshearer

What you are advocating for is an idealistic culture.

It is a right of every person to eat what he want to eat and nobody should interfere in it but if things like cow slaughter is openly allowed,it would certainly lead to some religious nutjob doing in in front of temples to instigate riots.

If you think that people go on riot just because they have such a deep love for cows,you are wrong in this respect.

If you understand human pysche you will know that people have strong tendency to do what they are told not to do.
The particular act would be equivalent to showing middle finger to hindus and even the non hindutva variety one are going to feel insulted by it.

Either it would result in riots or counter insulting vitalating social atmosphere.

 

[Subramanian]

What, in fact, your elliptical language conceals is that only Jagannath at Puri was attacked, from all records available to us. Neither Balaji at Tirupati nor Sri Rama at Rameswaram were attacked. That grand rhetorical flourish grouping these three loaded icons together to draw the sympathy of the vulnerable Hindu reader was just that, and nothing more, a rhetorical flourish.

Our history texts, 40 years ago, spared no detail about the destruction of Hindu temples by Muslim raiders. My suspicions were aroused because these texts made no mention of any attack on Tirupati, or on Rameswaram.



A citation of the source of this account would be interesting. Is this from an accepted historical text, or of some other origin?



This is a very strange story.

We are to believe that a Muslim administration was unable to destroy a temple under its military rule.

A moment's reflection will show that this is a strange matter. Another moment may be required to conclude that the Muslim rulers really did not want to harm the temple at all.



And which new member's unwary statement did I chastise with an insidious gibe?

Was it the hero who proclaimed



Why should a newcomer talk rubbish? Are newcomers allowed a sowing of their oats period, during which they can come out with any nonsense whatever, and everybody else waits for them to cross one hundred posts before telling them where to get off? Please don't add sanctimoniousness to your other problems.

While we are on the subject, what did you find insidious about my comment? To refresh your memory, the meaning of insidious:



I thought he was an idiot, and I called him an idiot. What was gradual or subtle about it? Or what was treacherous or crafty about it? If you wanted to use a nice-sounding word, should you not at least look up the meaning before you make a public exhibition of yourself.



None of your posts - not a single, solitary one - in the past have been polite. Do you expect me to faint in astonishment at your unexpected finesse? Not having missed it all these years, I am highly unlikely to miss it in future.



If there is reason, logic and knowledge, they cannot simultaneously lack clarity of thought. Of course, they may be superficial, but you have never managed to show them to be so. They may showing off, but that may be due to your envy from your point of view of a limited range of expressions, rather than due to my showing off. That is the way I write, always, not in order to impress you.

As for being rude, if calling you and your pack of lackeys bigoted and reprehensible is being rude, I take that as a compliment. Thank you very much.

Rameshwaram has been attacked by Srilanka and defended by Kulasekara Pandian.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And stop making this thread as a Muslims vs Hindu thread ..

This festival was organized by dalits and not by Muslims

You obviously haven't read the story about the candidate who appeared for a competitive examination, and had prepared only an article on the cow. Regrettably, the examiners chose to overlook this excellent topic and chose to set the topic of Admirals instead. Our resourceful candidate was not to be distracted. He started his essay with a flourish,"Admirals are men and men eat cows. Now, coming to the subject of cows...."

Our friends cannot frame a set of arguments about any topic, about military topics, space research, nano-technology, pornography, the game of Ludo, hockey, cricket, Sachin Tendulkar .... anything at all, without framing it as a Hindu vs. Muslim fight. Not a discussion; real men with hair on their chests don't discuss. They indulge in the kind of nonsense that we have seen so far.

The fact that this festival was organised by Dalits has nothing to do with their reason for existence. They need to find a way to write about the cow, and that is what they did.

Rameshwaram has been attacked by Srilanka and defended by Kulasekara Pandian.

You are the bright light in the harbour, aren't you? The original remark was this:

Well then sir these states have allowed the sanctity of Tirupati, Sabrimala, Rameshwaram and all other Hindu sacred places to be defiled with spilled blood of the cow. Even Aurangzeb could not not have done any worse.

I must now ask you to give us your brilliant essay on the cow.

 

[Manas]

Fortunately, the Indian is not the idiot that he or she is assumed to be by heroes on these fora.

In Punjab, where Sikh identity is being expressed, the BJP exists only as a tolerated but not respected junior partner; in Tamil Nadu, where Tamil identity is being expressed, the BJP is hopeful of avoiding losses of its deposits at some date soon, in the future. In the north-east, it does not exist, except in the form of two posters from the north-east (counting Sikkim as a part of the north-east); in the areas of the central Indian tribes, the BJP is strong and robust; and so equally strong and robust is the armed opposition to the hegemony of the majority. Finally, in the state where Dalit identity was first brought to political power, it was thrashed, and has come limping in third overall, millimetres in front of the other set of criminals, the Congress.

Wow , First you describe whoever falls for an right Hindu identity is an idiot.

Then you go on nonchalantly describing what and how religious, caste, or political identity dominates which state or region of country as if its most normal thing to occur ,better if at the cost of a right wing hindu party like BJP . Well, Carry on with your hypocrisy .

 

[Joe Shearer]

just like eating a cow is not harm for you publishing cartoons is not haram for me.

I'd have preferred you to inform that ignoramus that portraits of the prophet are available over significant sections of the Muslim world. There are uneducated people everywhere.

and you are the king of mindless verbosity,like most of your pals in JNU and Media.

you are good at being verbose dude,i hope you are trying to confuse,otherwise it is just sad.

So when in doubt, and unable to understand how to counter your opponent's argument, say 'Verbose', and you get a Get_out_of_jail_free pass?

What would happen if the forum banned the word 'dude'? Would you drift away to Facebook in frustration at no longer being able to compose mail?

 

[shelly]

Religion is a belief, a belief is in the minds of the people. It can be anything. It's nothing tangible.

You can have a belief in mickey mouse to be God and if I mock it that would hurt your sentiments.

These are the same theocratic arguments we hear in Pakistan in favor of subjugation of Ahmedis. Same.

So you support the freedom to draw cartoon of Mohammad?

 

[SQ8]

I'd have preferred you to inform that ignoramus that portraits of the prophet are available over significant sections of the Muslim world. There are uneducated people everywhere.

A little addition to this.. that such portraits.. are usually made with the face veiled and such.
But to take that those that draw obscene cartoons of the prophet.. or make issues in bovine matters represent anything but bigots is not unsubstantiated.
After all.. one looks at the membership of the KKK in the US..
and gets the idea who and why chose such ideals.

 

[karan.1970]

Is the freedom of Indians not important in Hindu Majority regions?

Hey, smoking hashish is banned all over India.. Infringement of freedom ??

 

[Joe Shearer]

I know an Indian Punjabi Hindu (note not Sikh) exclusively eats Beef when hes with us, since its not made for him at home. He has tried all the expensive steakhouses in Dubai

I seriously doubt that nobody eats beef in India.

I am personally a vegetarian, but last weekend was spent with a friend in the city, where his wife made beef with oyster sauce. I had to make do with a thin-crust pizza, a classic Margharita. It was delicious, however.

It is difficult to understand where these Beef_is_not_available/not_eaten_in_India jokers are coming from.

 

[shelly]

A little addition to this.. that such portraits.. are usually made with the face veiled and such.
But to take that those that draw obscene cartoons of the prophet.. or make issues in bovine matters represent anything but bigots is not unsubstantiated.
After all.. one looks at the membership of the KKK in the US..
and gets the idea who and why chose such ideals.

I need to have the right to express how Mohammad looked according to my artistic impression ? No?

 

[Joe Shearer]

See,

I am not interested in what issues you have with him but i have noticed an anti upper caste edge in a lot of your comments.

It is true that a lot of dalits face discrimination even today but also true is the fact that they also gain a lot from affirmative actions.I have lived my whole life in a city and only discrimination i have seen is a reverse one.One get glimpses of hardship dalits face only if someone ventures into villages or small towns.

It has been 4-5 generations since institutionalised discriminations against dalits have ended and i for myself don't feel guilty of what my forefathers may have done.

It is a good time that people stop blaming upper castes for every evil afflicted upon dalits.They are more than empowered today to make a good life for themselves.

Unfortunately, I do not agree with your very well expressed views.

We are still playing out that upper-caste/lower-caste struggle. It is especially acute between the three dominant Hindu castes, the Brahmins, the Rajputs and the Vaisyas, and the Dalit, but in some way or the other, the rest of us get dragged in.

As far as city discrimination is concerned, our jamadar refuses to touch me under any pretext. Neither Holi nor a warm handshake at bonus time, and certainly no brushing past me in the doorway. Under no circumstances is he willing to let himself off the hook. It is as if it is hard-wired into him.

Truth to tell, things have eased a lot; forty years ago, three of us went to call on a friend of ours, from the same class, at home. She served the three of us, the Brahmin, the sat Shudra and the mixed blood, in three separate glasses, and she was dead serious about this. That would just not be possible or thinkable now. Not in the cities, not in Bengal. HOWEVER.

It still exists in the villages. Very strongly. It still is prominent in neighbouring states - and I will not particularise for fear of being called a supercilious, arrogant Bengali. It is rabid in the south; the prevalence is scary. Juxtaposed to the south's burgeoning prosperity, the contrast is very difficult to understand.

A great many Brahmins have come out of their inherited complexes and prejudices, and they are as open-minded as anybody else. I criticise the general run of the community, not individuals within. And I don't make spot judgements about people based on any of these. I have too many Brahmin and Muslim friends not to know that each of them is unique.

 

[anonymus]

Infact thats not true,

Few India people r strict veggies,most people eat chicken n mutton n very few eat beef n pork.
?

See,it depends upon cognitive biases and schemas that a person have.I am a vegetarian (though eat eggs regularly) so i am inclined to see most non vegetarians as equal.What i have stated was from personal experience.

I think the most important thing that this world require today is that,how a person views something varies and is dependent on values that person have.I am not saying this for this particular post but in general.

Written or spoken words have different meanings for different people.

you are answering a moronical question now,is it?

I replied to him because he is not a habitual troll.