Sacred bull Shambo to be slaughtered Thursday

[blitz]

Eh most of you guys are expats, you should know better by now. Its a universal phenomenon. Expats living in foreign land tend to be more nationalistic than even the ones living in home country. NRIs act more Indian than Indians in India. Pakistanis in UK act more Pakistani than Pakistanis in Pakistan. Irish in the US act more Irish than Irish in Ireland. Its kinda funny but true.
All this hoopla over the cow is by expat Hindus being more Hindu than Indian Hindus. Ignore it.

 

[roadrunner]

Why are you lot living in a world of denial is what I'm wondering? The only reason this bull hasnt made headline news all round Bharat is because it is not considered a sacred bull by the other sects of Hinduism if you like. It is sacred to this particular sect who have hand picked this bull in particular for glory. This is not to say that people in Bharat proper do not worship bulls or cows, it just means that this particular bull is of no consequence to them. There was huge uproar in Bharat a couple of years ago when a professor dared mention that the people of Ancient Bharat ate cows, provoking death threats and violence.

Beef book sparks Hindu protest


Cows are revered by Hindus

By Jyotsna Singh in Delhi
Hardline Hindu groups in India have strongly protested against the publication of a book which says that ancient Indians ate beef.

A spokesman for the right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council) alleged that the motive behind the book was to insult Hindus, who revere cows as part of their religion.



Revivalist forces [are] raking up mindless disputes

Academic Pushpesh Pant
But experts say the book only adds to existing evidence that beef was widely eaten in India hundreds of years ago.

The author of the book, Holy Cow: Beef in Indian Dietary Traditions, told the BBC that he was seeking legal advice to ensure that it could be published soon.

Professor DN Jha says he has been warned of a court case in Hyderabad which seeks to prevent the book from being published.

Two religious groups, the All Jain Sewak Sangh and the All Gowd Sangh, are said to have sought the ban because they argue that the book damages their faith.

Historical evidence

According to the author, the controversy was sparked off by a preview of the book published on an Indian website last month.



Hindus generally do not eat beef (are you going to deny this to show your flexibility to the forum now??)

Professor Jha stumbled upon the facts relating to the presence of beef in pre-Islamic Vedic India two years ago, while researching Indian dietary habits.

He says there is plenty of historical evidence to support the theory.

An ancient Hindu text, the Manusmriti (200BC to 200AD), lists the cow as one of several animals whose meat can be eaten.

A mention is also made, he says, in one of the two great Indian epics - the Mahabharata - which speaks of beef being a delicacy served to esteemed guests.

'Mindless dispute'

A spokesman for the VHP alleged that the book was aimed at insulting Hindus. But experts argue that there is no basis for any controversy, as the book states something that is already a well known fact among historians.

A leading academic, Pushpesh Pant, said that the issue had been put to rest by scholars many years ago and that there were a number of historical and mythological texts which support this argument.

Mr Pant accused "revivalist forces of raking up mindless disputes".

Modern Indians, he said, were concerned about more pressing needs such as health and the economy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1482614.stm

 

[Adux]

I am going to post a pic of myself eating a cow, soon.

 

[roadrunner]

and here you are earlier


we await the pics

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Roadrunner,

Well I can't argue with you since you know India and what Indian Hindus are doing so well!

What is the Hindu Council? Have you seen the Caucasians out there? Never heard of any Hindu Council in India.

Well the fortunate part is that they are not going about bombing anyone or shoving a bomb laden car into crowded area.

No kidnapping or beheading either!

Some consolation, what?

 

[roadrunner]

Roadrunner,

Well I can't argue with you since you know India and what Indian Hindus are doing so well!

What is the Hindu Council? Have you seen the Caucasians out there? Never heard of any Hindu Council in India.

It's the Hindu Council of Britain actually.

Well the fortunate part is that they are not going about bombing anyone or shoving a bomb laden car into crowded area.

No kidnapping or beheading either!

Some consolation, what?

Oh really? I'm sure some Gujeratis would disagree with you. As would some Kashimiri civilians.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

It's the Hindu Council of Britain actually.



Oh really? I'm sure some Gujeratis would disagree with you. As would some Kashimiri civilians.

Great,

There is no Hindu Coucil of India, but there is a Hindu Council of Britain! Pray who has given them the right to talk on behalf of Hindus or for that matter Shambo?

Tomorrow, if I open up a Council and have the money for publicity, does it make me the mouthpiece?

Gujeratis and Kashmiris and car bombs and beheading and kidnapping and ransom?

Good one that!

 

[roadrunner]

Great,

There is no Hindu Coucil of India, but there is a Hindu Council of Britain! Pray who has given them the right to talk on behalf of Hindus or for that matter Shambo?

Well they are the mouthpiece for the Hindus in Britain. But it's not why they were brought up. They're just an example of Hindus of Vharti origin who protested for the bull. It's much the same as the odd Muslim protesting a decision for example to wear a Jilbab tp school or something.

Tomorrow, if I open up a Council and have the money for publicity, does it make me the mouthpiece?

Gujeratis and Kashmiris and car bombs and beheading and kidnapping and ransom?

Good one that!

Well, Gujeratis were burned alive, Kashmiris have been shot by the Bharati army, tortured etc for no reason. Either way the end result is the same as a beheading etc, perhaps worse some people would say.

 

[joey]

Cow is reverred by some sects of Hindus as much as Darghas are reverred by Muslims and Hindus and as much as many such animals are reverred by many sects of Hindus like monkey, elephant, owl, saras, lion, fish et al.

If one is questioning the authority of the religion for reverring the same I can answer the same through thousands of other points in all religions as well, because it calls in question mark of cultural traits without which human evolution is completely incomplete. There are treatise and they are written while in some kingdom in hithero times where bull were eaten, in some they were a matter of trade and was given to guest as gift (refer to paninis treatise), There were treatise written afterwards which calls for not resorting to any sort of animal slaughter while such treatise differs from treatise written elsewhere in the same period. As a matter of being a religion that evolves constantly, Its not something heaven/hell concept that is circumwinned with eating/non-eating of cow. The dharma is independent of food habbits. I can say safely beef eating isnt much of healthy for tropical country like us as as well and Many of my Muslim friends even dont eat for the same, the reason I'm now a days vegeterian. So it bogs down to ones personal belief of the same nothing more nothing less.

As Salim puts it Dharmic faith Hinduism is not a hiercharlal religion, Regarding the shamboo case, I think it belong to a specific sect of Hinduism as Asim said some sort of Jai shamboo thing. Now Salim Whether We Hindus hold the viewpoint to that of the authority that hindu council of Britain holds the right for speaking for all Hindus or not, answer is definitely not but they do hold the right to protect one sects interest incase they asks the same for. And I dont see a single problem in them filling the lawsuit, You/they have a problem lets clear it intellectually without making much hoopla.

I'm now a days a vegeterian (ocassional chicken taker but a avid fish taker) just like Kalam is (though hes purely veggie), but even tiger eats grass if the need arises. Food habbit depends entirely on your personal choice of the same, Eastern people consumes fish while norther peoples calls fish smelly et al. There was once when I used to take lots of meat, now I dont much for good reasons.

The picture posted above is from shaivite sect of Hinduism, very peaceful and nice peoples, they are totally vegeterian, they have very melodious kirtans and bhajans, afterall 'ap ruchi khana, par ruchi parna'.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Well they are the mouthpiece for the Hindus in Britain. But it's not why they were brought up. They're just an example of Hindus of Vharti origin who protested for the bull. It's much the same as the odd Muslim protesting a decision for example to wear a Jilbab tp school or something.

How do you deduce that?

May be you could be kind enough to give some facts, rather than your inferences and conjectures. It would add to the weight of the debate.

Fortunately. it is not the same as Abu Hamza inciting people. And providentially, the blokes of this so called Hindu Council are not blasting the Tube and the buses.

And more fortunately, none cares as to what this so called Council has to say. It is so evident because there has been no protest following the slaughter of the bull.

The same placid calm is not the signature for other perceived injustices done to other religions in the UK, if I may say so.

The reason for this is rationality must override archaic religious bigotry!

Well, Gujeratis were burned alive, Kashmiris have been shot by the Bharati army, tortured etc for no reason. Either way the end result is the same as a beheading etc, perhaps worse some people would say.[

If you say so, then torture is worse that beheading. You have some practical experience on both? Your argument belies reality however. I am not aware if Gujeratis were burnt and if they were, then it is disgusting. I am sure you are aware that the Gujerat incident has been roundly condemned and many are in jail and are moving into them shortly including many of those who are condemned for dereliction of duty and were in high posts. In a democracy, the court and the law is paramount and so obviously those who condemn the Gujerat incident cannot just lynch them at the nearest tree like the Wild West or the KKK or behead them in a public square with cheering audiences like in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. I assure you that if the KKK takes over or the Salafis take over India, we will have these interesting forms of justice. Maybe it will satisfy the blood lust that some feel is the natural course of justice! Personally, it is as barbaric as burning someone alive or beheading some one. Law ia an ***, but then that is the only instrument one has in a democracy and in a civilised society; at least for those who claim to be civilised!

As far as terrorists are concerned, India is doing exactly what Pakistan has done at the Lal Mazjid. If you feel that those at the Lal Mazjid who held Pakistan to ransom are innocent goats at the slaughter and Pakistan Army and Musharraf has done them injustice, then your contention that those who are killed in Kashmir and who are terrorists, should not be killed but allow others to be killed and be martyrs to the cause of secularism would be highly justified!

 

[ARSENAL6]

I thought we are taling about scared Bull Shambo

 

[roadrunner]

How do you deduce that?

May be you could be kind enough to give some facts, rather than your inferences and conjectures. It would add to the weight of the debate.

They are an unelected body that claims to represent the viewpoints of Hindus just as the MCB is the Muslim Council of Britain, another unelected body that claims to represent the viewpoint of Muslims. The Hindu Council of Britain is about as representative of Hindus over the world as is the Muslim Council of Britain, and any other unelected group, but it does represent a mouthpiece for the viewpoint of a group of people.

Fortunately. it is not the same as Abu Hamza inciting people. And providentially, the blokes of this so called Hindu Council are not blasting the Tube and the buses.

Comparing Abu Hamza to the Hindu Council of Britain is not a correct comparison. Like I said above, the correct comparison would be the MCB which are most definitely not blowing up things, just objecting to things like the Hindu Council of Britain. The correct anaology to Abu Hamza, a right wing fanatic, would be Bal Thackerey of Shivy who has threatened to blow up things wherever he is (luckily noone is going to accept the radical into their country so he'll stay put in Bharat I guess).

And more fortunately, none cares as to what this so called Council has to say. It is so evident because there has been no protest following the slaughter of the bull.

The Hindu Council of Britain launched a protest. it's about the same reaction to any Hijab case or Jilbab case, symbols of Islam to some people, has got.

The same placid calm is not the signature for other perceived injustices done to other religions in the UK, if I may say so.

Read above. If you use a correct comparison you'll find human reaction to be not so different. Don't think of yourself as a special case. As Nixon said "Those Bharatis are the most aggresive goddam bastids out there".

The reason for this is rationality must override archaic religious bigotry!

Some people would class protesting a book in which a history professor claims beef eating was commonplace in Bharat as quite irrational. Some people would class worshipping cows and bulls as irrational, if you're claiming it's wrong for them to worship bulls it's you that's being the bigot. I might think worshipping a bull is crazy, or drinking it's p or eating its poo, but the majority of Hindus do feel it quite rational. They would consider you to be the irrational bigot.

If you say so, then torture is worse that beheading. You have some practical experience on both? Your argument belies reality however. I am not aware if Gujeratis were burnt and if they were, then it is disgusting. I am sure you are aware that the Gujerat incident has been roundly condemned and many are in jail and are moving into them shortly including many of those who are condemned for dereliction of duty and were in high posts. In a democracy, the court and the law is paramount and so obviously those who condemn the Gujerat incident cannot just lynch them at the nearest tree like the Wild West or the KKK or behead them in a public square with cheering audiences like in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. I assure you that if the KKK takes over or the Salafis take over India, we will have these interesting forms of justice. Maybe it will satisfy the blood lust that some feel is the natural course of justice!

You're in denial here again Salim. Gujerat not only had deriliction of duty for police officers who joined in the mobbings and ritual burning of Muslims, it had rapes, shootings, stabbings of innocent people all over a fire on a train.....that wasn't even started by Muslims as a court later proved. Only a handful of the perpetrators have been brought to justice, the majority of the ringleaders are still free waiting for the next incident to occur to satisfy their bloodlusts. As a taste of how the world's greatest democracy operates it's democratic police force, here is the hrw report,

"In April 2002 Human Rights Watch reported that in almost all cases documented in Ahmedabad the police led the charge of the mobs, aiming and firing at Muslims who sought to protect their homes and their loved ones."

Personally, it is as barbaric as burning someone alive or beheading some one. Law ia an ***, but then that is the only instrument one has in a democracy and in a civilised society; at least for those who claim to be civilised!

As far as terrorists are concerned, India is doing exactly what Pakistan has done at the Lal Mazjid. If you feel that those at the Lal Mazjid who held Pakistan to ransom are innocent goats at the slaughter and Pakistan Army and Musharraf has done them injustice, then your contention that those who are killed in Kashmir and who are terrorists, should not be killed but allow others to be killed and be martyrs to the cause of secularism would be highly justified!

I believe the people in Lal Masjid were terrorists, Pak Army were doing their job. There are however big differences between the Kashmiri seperatist movement and the Lal Masjid terrorists. They both might be radical in belief but the kashmiri seperatist movement is fighting for their right of self determination that was granted to them under the instrument of Partition and legalized under several binding UN resolutions. Whilst Bharati law would claim them to be terrorists, international law sees their aims as legitimate - UN resolutions do not disappear, the same UN resolutions calling for Kashmir to be given plebiscite decades ago, still stand. International law has no bearing on Lal Masjid because Lal Masjid falls under Pakistani law and not any disputed territory with resolutions yet to be implemented.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

They are an unelected body that claims to represent the viewpoints of Hindus just as the MCB is the Muslim Council of Britain, another unelected body that claims to represent the viewpoint of Muslims. The Hindu Council of Britain is about as representative of Hindus over the world as is the Muslim Council of Britain, and any other unelected group, but it does represent a mouthpiece for the viewpoint of a group of people.

That's ral rich!

A body appointed by the British govt represents the Hindus all over the world!

How? Is India under the British still whereby Britain will dictate its destiny?

You may be in awe of such Councils, but not those in India.

Comparing Abu Hamza to the Hindu Council of Britain is not a correct comparison. Like I said above, the correct comparison would be the MCB which are most definitely not blowing up things, just objecting to things like the Hindu Council of Britain. The correct anaology to Abu Hamza, a right wing fanatic, would be Bal Thackerey of Shivy who has threatened to blow up things wherever he is (luckily noone is going to accept the radical into their country so he'll stay put in Bharat I guess).

You are right that Abu Hamza and the so called Hindu Council cannot be compared. No one cares what the Hindu Council has to say, but many Moslems in Britain cared for what Abu Hamza said! In other words, one has bogus aura of a Council foisted by govt, wqhile the other Abu Hamza had a following without anyone goading the people to follow his dictates!

Bal Thackeray is another *** who has no following beyond Bombay and that following is because he incites the locals against what he calls 'outsiders'. Because he gives inflammatory statements, he is the media's darling since that gives sensational footage to sell their product, be it TV or the newspapers!

The Hindu Council of Britain launched a protest. it's about the same reaction to any Hijab case or Jilbab case, symbols of Islam to some people, has got.

What protest? Has it inflamed the Indians in Britain? Could you show some violent protest beyond the one at the site where Sambo was kept? And was there any mayhem when Sambo was taken away?

Please keep to facts and not imagination.

Read above. If you use a correct comparison you'll find human reaction to be not so different. Don't think of yourself as a special case. As Nixon said "Those Bharatis are the most aggresive goddam bastids out there"

.

Nixon is your hero so much so that its warrant a quote from him? A failed President who was indicted and impeached?

Some people would class protesting a book in which a history professor claims beef eating was commonplace in Bharat as quite irrational. Some people would class worshipping cows and bulls as irrational, if you're claiming it's wrong for them to worship bulls it's you that's being the bigot. I might think worshipping a bull is crazy, or drinking it's p or eating its poo, but the majority of Hindus do feel it quite rational. They would consider you to be the irrational bigot.

Let anyone worship whatever one wants. That is what freedom and democracy is all about. Do read Jinnah speech in the Constitutional Assembly. You will get the gist.

I hope you have read Shahi Bukhari and on the issue of drinking camel p.

It is so unfortunate that you don't even read or know about your own religion.

Do keep to decency and let your misconceived opinions not start a religious debate.

I don't think Shahi Bukhari is irrational.

You're in denial here again Salim. Gujerat not only had deriliction of duty for police officers who joined in the mobbings and ritual burning of Muslims, it had rapes, shootings, stabbings of innocent people all over a fire on a train.....that wasn't even started by Muslims as a court later proved. Only a handful of the perpetrators have been brought to justice, the majority of the ringleaders are still free waiting for the next incident to occur to satisfy their bloodlusts. As a taste of how the world's greatest democracy operates it's democratic police force, here is the hrw report,

"In April 2002 Human Rights Watch reported that in almost all cases documented in Ahmedabad the police led the charge of the mobs, aiming and firing at Muslims who sought to protect their homes and their loved ones."

Why stop at that? Given your irrational and fevered imagination, you could get hysterical in your accusation.

Do let me know what could be done for the acts in Gujerat. Because of the HRW and other reports action is being taken. Rome was not built in one day, was it?

Look, I am not interested in starting this silly India vs Pakistan nonsense. So, can we can it? It is not that I do not have enough in my arsenal to go ballistics. I have. It is just that I have come here for an honest exchange of ideas and get into the bonhomie that has been started by ABP and Musharraf.

I believe the people in Lal Masjid were terrorists, Pak Army were doing their job. There are however big differences between the Kashmiri seperatist movement and the Lal Masjid terrorists. They both might be radical in belief but the kashmiri seperatist movement is fighting for their right of self determination that was granted to them under the instrument of Partition and legalized under several binding UN resolutions. Whilst Bharati law would claim them to be terrorists, international law sees their aims as legitimate - UN resolutions do not disappear, the same UN resolutions calling for Kashmir to be given plebiscite decades ago, still stand. International law has no bearing on Lal Masjid because Lal Masjid falls under Pakistani law and not any disputed territory with resolutions yet to be implemented

.

I could have replied, but it is not worth the problem.

Go make peace with your Maker!

Khuda Hafiz to you!

 

[Adux]

And you people wonder why that rambler is in my ignore list.

 

[roadrunner]

Namaste Sri Salim,

That's ral rich!

A body appointed by the British govt represents the Hindus all over the world!

How? Is India under the British still whereby Britain will dictate its destiny?

You may be in awe of such Councils, but not those in India.

Perhaps it's a language communication thing. This is in fact what I said

"The Hindu Council of Britain is about as representative of Hindus over the world as is the Muslim Council of Britain, and any other unelected group, but it does represent a mouthpiece for the viewpoint of a group of people."

This means when translated, that the Hindu Council of Britain quite possibly does not represent the Hindu feeling, just as the MCB does not represent the Muslim feeling. The sentence to anyone with a cursory understanding of English was trying to say to the reader that whether it does or does not represent the Hindu face is not important, but what IS important is that they do represent a mouthpiece for Hindus in Britain because they are the people who are in the media.

You are right that Abu Hamza and the so called Hindu Council cannot be compared. No one cares what the Hindu Council has to say, but many Moslems in Britain cared for what Abu Hamza said! In other words, one has bogus aura of a Council foisted by govt, wqhile the other Abu Hamza had a following without anyone goading the people to follow his dictates!

Abu Hamza has very little following from what I can see. He used to run one Mosque, Ball Thackerey ran his own political party - I would say Bal had easily the bigger following of the two. These are just two examples of like people. I could name hundreds more Hindus outside of the radical Hindu parties like Shiv Sena that are just as radical as Abu Hamza.

Bal Thackeray is another *** who has no following beyond Bombay and that following is because he incites the locals against what he calls 'outsiders'. Because he gives inflammatory statements, he is the media's darling since that gives sensational footage to sell their product, be it TV or the newspapers!

Quit your denial for once. He gets in the media because he is sensationalist just like any other radical. If Abu Hamza was representative of Muslims he wouldnt be anything the media would be interested in, just like Bal Thackerey *watches as the point sinks in s-l-o-w-l-y*

What protest? Has it inflamed the Indians in Britain? Could you show some violent protest beyond the one at the site where Sambo was kept? And was there any mayhem when Sambo was taken away?

Please keep to facts and not imagination.

Again, reading problems. I didnt say they were violent protests, just like the MCB protests arent violent. You cannot compare an Abu Hamza protest to an MCB protest just like you cannot compare a Hindu Council of Britain protest to a Bal Thackerey protest. You're examples are poor and generally aimed at being as dishonest as possible.

Nixon is your hero so much so that its warrant a quote from him? A failed President who was indicted and impeached?

Though he never was impeached..only faced impeachment, they were his opinions.

Let anyone worship whatever one wants. That is what freedom and democracy is all about. Do read Jinnah speech in the Constitutional Assembly. You will get the gist.

I hope you have read Shahi Bukhari and on the issue of drinking camel p.

It is so unfortunate that you don't even read or know about your own religion.

Do keep to decency and let your misconceived opinions not start a religious debate.

I don't think Shahi Bukhari is irrational.

I would say that again you read things out of context. Drinking of camel pee is an option in arid conditions but it hasn't become ritualistic in the Muslim community as it has done for Hindus when they have other options available. It's become mainstream in Hinduism to drink it because it has become part of the religion to rever the cow and bull, not a survival option as in Islam. An important difference - again you read things to suit your own views.

Why stop at that? Given your irrational and fevered imagination, you could get hysterical in your accusation.

Do let me know what could be done for the acts in Gujerat. Because of the HRW and other reports action is being taken. Rome was not built in one day, was it?

Look, I am not interested in starting this silly India vs Pakistan nonsense. So, can we can it? It is not that I do not have enough in my arsenal to go ballistics. I have. It is just that I have come here for an honest exchange of ideas and get into the bonhomie that has been started by ABP and Musharraf.

It's just one example. I could quote hundreds more of these incidences in Gujerat and Kashmir. The point was that the main ringleaders of the massacres go free and the majority act with impunity. I couldn't imagine any other country's police force acting with such impunity as to LEAD the charges of mobs to kill their own citizens.

I could have replied, but it is not worth the problem.

Go make peace with your Maker!

Khuda Hafiz to you!

I doubt you can reply. I accept the white flag as in '65. Namaste Sri to you.