Well it was a figure of speech I used JNU to. Other universities around the world don't go to destroy their country's culture like the jholawalas do here.
Shows how little you know,about universities and about the world. Whether it was the Sorbonne, or Columbia, or UCLA, or UC Berkeley, or Harvard, universities have traditionally been at the forefront of dissent against the establishment, the entity that you wrongly identify with the country's culture.
These JNU people are over-rated bums, but not for the reasons you have mentioned.
Which part of Indian culture have the JNU radicals threatened? do you have a clue what they stand for, the worst of them? Or was it just that it is an easy institution to refer to?
See this is the thing; your ignorance of Indian ancient philosophy makes you paranoid about it. There's more to it than what that idiot Advani speaks. You need to understand that there's an entire way of life something that communists, anti-Hindus and other idiots cannot even dream of.
Unfortunately, ancient Indian philosophical systems were part of the curriculum that I studied for my undergraduate degree. I am far from ignorant about it, nor am I hostile to its tenets, of any of the six main schools.
It is the corrupted religion, not the original philosophy, which I oppose?
Since you are significantly ignorant, perhaps it is timely to remind you that Gautama Buddha followed the same line; he discarded the religion and retained certain philosophical aspects of it. Buddhism was based on rejection of the then prevalent Hindu religion, but retained certain philosophical elements, and refined them significantly.
Even we Buddhists have philosophies that come from mainstream Hinduism. it is just that most people don't remember or don't follow that these days. Otherwise you'd be seeing a very positive side of Dharmic faiths. Unlike organized religions from middle east, they don't ask unquestioned obedience.
I don't understand your statement that most people don't remember or don't follow that these days. Follow what? The teachings of the Buddha are fairly faithfully followed, even in the current schools that, for instance, Buddhists in Sikkim follow. What is not being followed, according to you? Do you know, or are you just stringing words together to form a plausible argument?
Saying that Dharmic faiths have the common feature of not demanding unquestioned obedience is a platitude. Everyone knows that; what about it makes the repulsive aspects of Hinduism palatable? Merely being better in some respects than Abrahamic religions is not a sufficient criterion to swallow them unquestioningly. It just makes those Abrahamic religions even less palatable. I dislike them more than I dislike corrupted Hinduism; how does that affect the original statement I made?
Well your kind will have to ultimately face a judgement call to solve this difference some day. Whether it is in a parliamentary discussion or on the battlefield I can't say. But trust me, those whom you defend so vehemently are becoming a threat to non-Hindus as well.You are running out of excuses now seriously.
What exactly am I defending? Mind spelling it out? What difference are you talking about? And where is the need for the dramatic on the battlefield guff? Do you seriously believe it yourself, and do you fail to hear how theatrical and phony it sounds?
From this side it sounds like you are running out of arguments.
Your defensive attitude towards Jihad don't really reflect that. In fact, the only aggressive statements I see from you is against the Hindus or if sometimes people like me ask you something.
If you are indeed against "bigots", then do consider looking at organized religion before you insult either Hindus or sister faiths like us.
Sometimes you simply don't make sense, largely because your posts are larded with opinions and prejudices, not with facts.
I have never defended the lesser Jihad, here or anywhere else. I avoid discussions on the Ghazwa-e-Hind because the idea is so utterly bizarre and mediaeval, and I don't want to keep losing my temper with nincompoops who want to shove it down my throat. The only religions I can (barely) tolerate are Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism, largely because they do not refer to God.
So stop assigning what you think I should be thinking to me, rather than what I do think.
It always ends like this; when secularists and anti-Dharmic people run out of arguments, personal attacks start.
Would you like me to cite the number of times you have turned out to be ill-informed in just this one comment? And would you agree that after having facts which undermine your arguments repeatedly brought to your attention, you continue with the same arguments? If that is not stubborn and obstinate, what is it?
And I am not anti-Dharmic; stop playing to the gallery and trying to gain sympathy. I am against religion.
If you compare JUD to RSS, then clearly your hate for Hindu culture and its sister faiths, reflects.
I have already said, at the outset, that I am against religion. I would be interested to know, however, how you re-discovered this fact from the statement you have commented upon. What is the connection?
Rational works both ways; not just when attacking the Hindu community that is the majority in our country and is tolerant of non-Indian religions.
So either live upto your claims or don't just spew fire against the community that forms the significant historical identity of this nation.
On the contrary, I find the illiterates who claim to stand for Dharmic religions on this forum to be far more bigoted than normal people. Such attitudes of intolrance are not to be tolerated themselves. I have explained why in another post.