I think there are various interpretations to it.
Politically or constitutionally you can say India is secular, but culturally it is Hindu or in better words, Dharmic.
It is how it was, it is how it is, and hopefully it will be that in the future.
Osmania University beef festival sparks violence
- Thread starter Manas
- Start date
I think there are various interpretations to it.
Politically or constitutionally you can say India is secular, but culturally it is Hindu or in better words, Dharmic.
It is how it was, it is how it is, and hopefully it will be that in the future.
You have still not answered the question of "what happened to the freedom on those who wanted to read Satanic verses in Paistan" or "what happened to the freedom of Jyllands Posten to draw whomsoever they wished to draw".
I'm sorry, your clever lawyer-like words in turning the topic on its head doesn't hide the fact you are hypocrite who wants his own religious sentiments to be left halal but others are free to be toyed with with "basic freedom".
Vinod2070
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,552
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Arey bhai...mein Hindi achi taraf janthi hoon...aur ok-ok bolthi bhi hoon.
Please stop generalizing.
Several Tamilians speak better and purer Hindi than most North Indians.
Mani Shankar Aiyar is one but there are many others as well.
On an average, I think South Indians are better at learning new languages. Finding people in Karnataka/AP who speak 4-5 languages is very easy. The more dexterous speak 8 or more languages with ease.
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Well, that someone who knows history is of the opinion that you backed up a troll-in-the-making, who made wild statements, with a single short passage from a narrative account of the temple priests. And that is supposed to be a balanced objective account?
As far as 'doing' a Pakistani is concerned, it is immaterial to me whether it is an Indian taking liberties with the truth, or with interpretations, or a Pakistani, or a Chinese, or an Iranian. I admit I have weaknesses, and stay away from threads where people from that particular country happen to be participating.
About its not working here, I am not sure what you mean. There is the usual rag-tag-and-bobtail crowd of Hindutva types, whom you lead. If you think I am dreaming of converting you lot, calm down. I have no hope that you will ever see both sides of the picture. You will continue on your bigoted ways, and your hateful views of the world and everyone who doesn't belong to your sub-culture, to the end of your days. The reason why I engage with you precious bunch is in order to correct your distortions, as otherwise they might gain currency as being the views of Indians at large, and to present a well-rounded picture to those who matter - liberals on both sides of the border, indeed, liberals the world over.
There are quite enough takers, more than enough to justify what I am doing. Many of them would be susceptible to your poisonous little messages, and it is a pleasure to have provided them with alternative views.
What outside events you are looking to so hopefully baffles me. It is not evident, considering the dismal state of the political arm of the Sangh Parivar, but perhaps like Nazis, you like to believe until the final moments that there will be a miraculous intervention. Keep hoping.
What that guy said was false; it was precisely three locations he mentioned, and there was no historical record of assaults on two of them. So what broader sense can you twist that to mean? That in saying Tirupati and Rameswaram, he was using short-hand for quite a different set of temples? Can you even convince yourself about such a silly argument, when you are by yourself, when you are not in your greasepaint, saying things for public consumption?
You have the right to express it, but you do not have the right to express disgust if people find it offensive.
It comes down to extreme cases.. you may express your freedom ..but you should then grant other people the right to express their freedom of showing disgust.
So a pig being thrown in a mosque or a cow slaughtered in front of a temple is liable to invite an equally acrimonious response.
Both violate and offend key elements of these religions.. and when there is intention to offend involved.. are a no brainer for those seeking reprisals.
A flipside of this being that even innocuous and innocent intentions regarding such deities, figures may be inadvertently(or wilfully with sinister intentions) interpreted as crossing the lines and offending a religion.. for eg the Blasphemy laws of Pakistan..which are flawed in their implementation of the basic tenet...and hence used for personal gain under the guise of serving the religion.
Hence.. why be such a troublemaker, an arsonist and express such opinions in public knowing very well that they will offend.
I see no "freedom of expression" there.. Just plain old ego appeasement.
Vinod2070
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,552
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
I don't think a restriction on pork in a Muslim majority country or beef in a Hindu majority country is a restriction of basic rights.
That would be things like minorities or even non dominant sects not having religious freedom to worship (Saudi and many other countries), blasphemy laws being used against people for all sorts of reasons, people being killed for their sects or ethnicities in cities....
This is just like following the cultural mores of a place. Nothing more nothing less.
People who think this is the biggest issue need to align their moral compass.
That would be things like minorities or even non dominant sects not having religious freedom to worship (Saudi and many other countries), blasphemy laws being used against people for all sorts of reasons, people being killed for their sects or ethnicities in cities....
This is just like following the cultural mores of a place. Nothing more nothing less.
People who think this is the biggest issue need to align their moral compass.
anonymus
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,870
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
I should have never written that post.The reason being that i have made my views clear in earlier post and in order to not repeat the same words i chose the words which made the whole argument weaker.
I have made it clear that i have no problem in people eating beef.The only issues i had with was public slaughtering of cattle as if this liberty is provided to people,it would lead to some nutjob abusing it to create riots.
Luckily there is a way out as highlighted by Cap.Popeye in response to one of my post which i had overlooked initially.
I am of the opinion that people who act like a$$holes in real life and instigates riots in after having full knowledge of what their actions would result into should not be provided any immunity from prosecution under the pretence of freedom of speech or action.I have little tolerance for a$$holes in real life and would not advocate for that tolerance on national level.
Only USA today has laws which guarrentees absolute freedom.It is one of the peculiarity of US constitution along with their gun laws and laws on nationality,each having a long history and any application of theirs disregarding ground realities is bound to be harmful.
jbond197
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,300
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
So why are you bothered if some hindus booed away some who's act they didn't like.. Is that not their freedom?
As I said, I am against beef or pork and any damn $hit but I am against hypocrites..
Manas
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 2,059
- Reaction score
- -5
@Joe Shearer
I'm not a liberal of your mold .And certainly don't want to be one.
I'm a Hindu and an indian . These two labels alone stands for impeccable history of tolerance and liberalism . No need to be afraid me or my type unless you want to hurt us. Good night.
I'm not a liberal of your mold .And certainly don't want to be one.
I'm a Hindu and an indian . These two labels alone stands for impeccable history of tolerance and liberalism . No need to be afraid me or my type unless you want to hurt us. Good night.
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
If you read the post, it went rather further than booing! Picket lines, booing, these are democratic means of protest. The people protesting wouldn't be able to identify democracy if it kicked them in the arse.
It is fear of your wholly offensive ideas, not your person, which is safe. An Indian and a Hindu are indeed icons of tolerance and liberalism, in general. I except the distorted, perverted Hindutva followers. Good night.
I don't want to prolong this debate. But the reality is beef (from cow) is a taboo for most Hindus and our sentiments need to be respected. We can continue this debate on legality, or freedom till the cows come home (pun intended) but that is how it rolls in India.
Similarly I respect the sentiments of the Muslims who felt offended by Satanic verses and demanded its ban.
You guys have no idea how the real world is keep talking about these idealistic scenarios which will never happen on ground.
Tomorrow if a law is passed allowing cow-slaughter legally, even then if someone decides to slaughter cow publicly in MP or Haryana or UP or even in most parts of TN it is going to create large scale riots in which many innocents will get hurt. That is ground reality in India and acknowledging it or not doesn't change it.
You speak from the classic perspective of a minority ever fearful, mostly unwarranted, of the hindu majority .And I speak from that of a Hindu who revered Gau mata as an incarnation of Lakshmi ,who is offended by the thought of killing it and who is wary of his way of life coming under attack in one country they can call their spiritual home.
You spoke of how Hindus should be sensitive to the identity aspiration of the minorities (considering a population of about 170 million is minority is ridiculous..but that's another debate). But saying that eating beef is a necessary expression for affirming their identity is a BS statement to the core. There are 1001 ways to express that, in peaceful means, without affecting any one's sentiments and they DO express it, but clinging onto one thing that affects the sentiments of hundredss of millions of Hindus is just like cutting your nose to spite one's face.
And let me tell you which will cause India to disintegrate faster, it's not when the minorities get fed up -- but when the majority gets fed up. And they do get fed up when they see such antics being played out which directly offends them.
India is, as you rightly pointed out, a secular nation, constitutionally -- but the way of life here is overwhelmingly influenced by the Dharmic way of life. The culture of this land is dharmic and a 65 year old constitution cannot and does not change that fact.
Respecting religious sentiments is always a two way street. It's never one way and Hindus are notready to be giving all the time.
Regarding the arrogant and dominant Hindu forcing his opinions on others, I can say the same about the arrogant Mullah depriving me of my right to read Satanic Verses or the arrogant pastor depriving me of my right to see Da Vinci code. But as I said, that is how it rolls in India.
If desensitization needs to occur it needs to occur to all religions. Not to Hinduism alone.
Since it was in a thread about Beef eating and since the post itself was given in reply to a member's query as to why the need to de-sensitize Hindus about beef, I naturally assumed your replies were in a way related to that.
but that they were just irrelevant things out of context, I did not know.
Many things goes against the spirit of Indian constitution, so why bother about this one ?
Reservation, for example is supposed to be given only based on castes,,but arent Muslims and Christians enjoying it too, especially even after claiming theirs is an egalitarian religion wherein no castes exist ?
Regarding Sati, I dont see how equating a practise of killing a widow along with her husband equals asking a cow not to be slaughtered. Former is a murder,premeditated and cold, pure and simple while the latter is not. Infact it can come under Prevention of cruelty to animals.
I also dont know why those who harp on the supremacy of the constitution conveniently forget that there are laws constitutionally which forbid killing cows. You cant regard and disregard the constitution for your own choices.
That is how it will work in India. The French model, even though highly recommended, will not work here.
Just look at the opposition to the Uniform Civil Code where your religion doesn't not affect your standing before law - a supposedly egalitarian concept. But it is the minorites who oppose it.
If the minorities want their identity to be preserved, and they are welcome to it, then it is absolutely idiotic and preposterous of expecting the majority NOT to try to maintain their way of life.
Yes of course,as of now, but keep pushing the luck and one fine day it will just explode.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Universal law of nature and nothing is exempted from that.
Similarly I respect the sentiments of the Muslims who felt offended by Satanic verses and demanded its ban.
You guys have no idea how the real world is keep talking about these idealistic scenarios which will never happen on ground.
Tomorrow if a law is passed allowing cow-slaughter legally, even then if someone decides to slaughter cow publicly in MP or Haryana or UP or even in most parts of TN it is going to create large scale riots in which many innocents will get hurt. That is ground reality in India and acknowledging it or not doesn't change it.
You speak from the classic perspective of a minority ever fearful, mostly unwarranted, of the hindu majority .And I speak from that of a Hindu who revered Gau mata as an incarnation of Lakshmi ,who is offended by the thought of killing it and who is wary of his way of life coming under attack in one country they can call their spiritual home.
You spoke of how Hindus should be sensitive to the identity aspiration of the minorities (considering a population of about 170 million is minority is ridiculous..but that's another debate). But saying that eating beef is a necessary expression for affirming their identity is a BS statement to the core. There are 1001 ways to express that, in peaceful means, without affecting any one's sentiments and they DO express it, but clinging onto one thing that affects the sentiments of hundredss of millions of Hindus is just like cutting your nose to spite one's face.
And let me tell you which will cause India to disintegrate faster, it's not when the minorities get fed up -- but when the majority gets fed up. And they do get fed up when they see such antics being played out which directly offends them.
India is, as you rightly pointed out, a secular nation, constitutionally -- but the way of life here is overwhelmingly influenced by the Dharmic way of life. The culture of this land is dharmic and a 65 year old constitution cannot and does not change that fact.
Respecting religious sentiments is always a two way street. It's never one way and Hindus are notready to be giving all the time.
Regarding the arrogant and dominant Hindu forcing his opinions on others, I can say the same about the arrogant Mullah depriving me of my right to read Satanic Verses or the arrogant pastor depriving me of my right to see Da Vinci code. But as I said, that is how it rolls in India.
If desensitization needs to occur it needs to occur to all religions. Not to Hinduism alone.
Since it was in a thread about Beef eating and since the post itself was given in reply to a member's query as to why the need to de-sensitize Hindus about beef, I naturally assumed your replies were in a way related to that.
but that they were just irrelevant things out of context, I did not know.
Many things goes against the spirit of Indian constitution, so why bother about this one ?
Reservation, for example is supposed to be given only based on castes,,but arent Muslims and Christians enjoying it too, especially even after claiming theirs is an egalitarian religion wherein no castes exist ?
Regarding Sati, I dont see how equating a practise of killing a widow along with her husband equals asking a cow not to be slaughtered. Former is a murder,premeditated and cold, pure and simple while the latter is not. Infact it can come under Prevention of cruelty to animals.
I also dont know why those who harp on the supremacy of the constitution conveniently forget that there are laws constitutionally which forbid killing cows. You cant regard and disregard the constitution for your own choices.
That is how it will work in India. The French model, even though highly recommended, will not work here.
Just look at the opposition to the Uniform Civil Code where your religion doesn't not affect your standing before law - a supposedly egalitarian concept. But it is the minorites who oppose it.
If the minorities want their identity to be preserved, and they are welcome to it, then it is absolutely idiotic and preposterous of expecting the majority NOT to try to maintain their way of life.
Yes of course,as of now, but keep pushing the luck and one fine day it will just explode.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Universal law of nature and nothing is exempted from that.
I think you said somewhere your better half hails from TN.
Ask her if she can get beef commonly in all places in TN except in some border places in TN in the Nagercoil-Kanyakumari belt or in certain Muslim majority areas.
Mani is an emotional idiot from pre-partition Pakistan who probably loves his ancestral land more than he loves Tamil Nadu.
Wrong example...
jbond197
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,300
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
Joe, let's be honest, like it happens any where else in case of any other religion- people get offended due to certain actions so is it not common sense to try avoid those actions?? Of all the place, do you think they chose Osmania University for beef festival just to call for their freedom to eat? Are you kidding me??
Let me ask you one thing, let's assume you live in ultra-sensitive place would you do an act to antagonize everyone around you. They knew if the organize such festival at that particular place they are gonna get hit back but still they went ahead rubbing the salt on the wrong side.. And you only see their rights and not their ulterior political motives?
I don't care if some one cut a cow and eat it but I care the least for the people who will try to carry out such an act in sensitive areas. I will also ask here, How many beef eaters here are ready to join the party in Osmania?
My arguments stems in the fact that we should do all to maintain religious harmony!! That's it!! A simple give and take..
Similar threads
