BJP is not pro-Hindu, it it is pro- Hind-ian Hindu and anti-southern Hindus

[kvpak]

I do not divide Tamils by religion.

But some BJP supporters he re project BJP as pro-Hindu party. It is not. It divides Hindus into Hindi-Hindus and other Hindus. It is for Hindi-Hindus and anti-South-Hindus. It wants non-Hindi-Hindus to be subservient to Hindi-Hindus.


During Eelam War 3 in Sri Lanka, at the peak of that war in 2000,liberated all of Jaffna peninsula except an army base. Base Tamil war boats could prevent evacuation by sea. So army should surrender or destroyed.

What did BJP government of India (2000) do? Sent a Naval Armada and told LTTES that if it takes the base, India would interfere militarily. So LTTE backed off. Tamiuls would ave won the war in 2000.

So BJP was responsible for the defeat Hindu Tamils and victory of non-Hindi Sinhala.

BJP never criticized destruction of Hindu temples in Eelam

 

[PurpleStone]

I do not divide Tamils by religion.

But some BJP supporters he re project BJP as pro-Hindu party. It is not. It divides Hindus into Hindi-Hindus and other Hindus. It is for Hindi-Hindus and anti-South-Hindus. It wants non-Hindi-Hindus to be subservient to Hindi-Hindus.


During Eelam War 3 in Sri Lanka, at the peak of that war in 2000,liberated all of Jaffna peninsula except an army base. Base Tamil war boats could prevent evacuation by sea. So army should surrender or destroyed.

What did BJP government of India (2000) do? Sent a Naval Armada and told LTTES that if it takes the base, India would interfere militarily. So LTTE backed off. Tamiuls would ave won the war in 2000.

So BJP was responsible for the defeat Hindu Tamils and victory of non-Hindi Sinhala.

BJP never criticized destruction of Hindu temples in Eelam

Can you clarify what you are trying to say?

Are you a Tamil? Are you a Hindu? Are you an Indian?

The statements that you are making are incoherent and contradictory.

@manlion

 

[kvpak]

Are you a Tamil? Are you a Hindu? Are you an Indian?

Can you clarify what you are trying to say?

I am Tamil. I am Hindu (but not a religious fanatic). I am not Indian. I am from India-occupied Tamil Nadu.

This is what I am trying to say.

BJP tells Tamil Nadu it is pro-Hindu. I am saying BJP divides Hindus into Hindi Hindus and non-Hindi (or south) Hindus. BJP treats Hindi Hindus superior over south Hindus. Don't be fooled and vote for BJP. South should vote against BJP.

It was evident in 2000 when BJP India government sided with non-Hindu Sinhala army over Tamils who are mostly Hindus.

I want to make it clear that I am not religious fanatic. If my neighbour calls his god by whatever name, I dont give a damn as long as he does not interfere in my life.

 

[PurpleStone]

I am Tamil. I am Hindu (but not a religious fanatic).

As per @manlion , Tamil cannot be Hindus. Could you clarify what is your definition of Hindu

I am not Indian. I am from India-occupied Tamil Nadu.

This is really sad.

This is what I am trying to say.

BJP tells Tamil Nadu it is pro-Hindu. I am saying BJP divides Hindus into Hindi Hindus and non-Hindi (or south) Hindus. BJP treats Hindi Hindus superior over south Hindus. Don't be fooled and vote for BJP. South should vote against BJP.

Agree.

It was evident in 2000 when BJP India government sided with non-Hindu Sinhala army over Tamils who are mostly Hindus.

Why did they side with Sinhalas?

I want to make it clear that I am not religious fanatic. If my neighbour calls his god by whatever name, I dont give a damn as long as he interferes in my life.

You are a good man.

 

[Hamza913]

I am Tamil. I am Hindu (but not a religious fanatic). I am not Indian. I am from India-occupied Tamil Nadu.

This is what I am trying to say.

BJP tells Tamil Nadu it is pro-Hindu. I am saying BJP divides Hindus into Hindi Hindus and non-Hindi (or south) Hindus. BJP treats Hindi Hindus superior over south Hindus. Don't be fooled and vote for BJP. South should vote against BJP.

It was evident in 2000 when BJP India government sided with non-Hindu Sinhala army over Tamils who are mostly Hindus.

I want to make it clear that I am not religious fanatic. If my neighbour calls his god by whatever name, I dont give a damn as long as he does not interfere in my life.

Well, as per early Hinduism (don't know about how it works now), the Indo-Aryans were considered above everyone else in the region.

Why else do you think Brahmins and Kshatriyas have more European blood in them and physically resemble Europeans far more than lower castes?

 

[punit]

Don't commit suicide in pain.

 

[kvpak]

As per @manlion , Tamil cannot be Hindus.

I do not know what manlion wrote here. I think he might have said Vedic Hinduism is not part of Tamil heritage. I do not want to put words in his mouth. He will explain it to you.

I have my own views about religion. Tamil is language and national and ethnic identity. A Tamil can be of any religion. I am a Saivaite Hindu (Sivan worship). There are Tamils of all types of religion including Vaisnava Hindus (Thirumal (Vishnu)worship). I have no conflict with them. Live and let live.

Why did they side with Sinhalas?

India does not want an independent Tamil country anywhere in the world. THere is no other reason for opposing independent Tamil Eelam. It is actually in the national security interest of India. It would be a buffer between Sri Lanka. In fact LTTE told India in 1987 it can have a permandent naval base in Eelzam. It would be a counter to Chinese bases in Sri Lanka.

You are a good man.

Thank you

Well, as per early Hinduism (don't know about how it works now), the Indo-Aryans were considered above everyone else in the region.

That is BJP view too. They consider north J=Hindus as superior Aryan Hindus, and south Hindus as inferior Dravidian Hindus. The Dravidian Hindus should obey Aryan Hindus. That is why south should vote against BJP.

 

[PurpleStone]

Well, as per early Hinduism (don't know about how it works now), the Indo-Aryans were considered above everyone else in the region.

Why else do you think Brahmins and Kshatriyas have more European blood in them and physically resemble Europeans far more than lower castes?

Your understanding is incorrect.

-- Both Hindu gods Rama & Krishna were dark in complexion and they were Dravidians. Krishna literally means the black one.

-- Asuras were Aryans and they were brothers of the Devas

-- Ravanasura and Narakasura were Asuras and Aryans. The other name of Ravana was Ravana Brahma as he was the direct decedent of lord Brahma himself who is the first father of all Brahmans.

Hindusim is the religion of the Dravidians. Dravidian Kings like Rama and Krishna have defeated the Aryan kings like Ravanasura and Narakasura. This is the reason why there is no temple for Brahma even today who is the first father of the Aryans - the Asuras and the Devas.

Today, Aryans (descendants of Asuras and Devas) practice Zoroastrianism, Islam, Christianity and Atheism while Dravidians practice Hinduism.

 

[Hamza913]

Your understanding is incorrect.

-- Both Hindu gods Rama & Krishna were dark in complexion and they were Dravidians. Krishna literally means the black one.

-- Asuras were Aryans and they were brothers of the Devas

-- Ravanasura and Narakasura were Asuras and Aryans. The other name of Ravana was Ravana Brahma as he was the direct decedent of lord Brahma himself who is the first father of all Brahmans.

Hindusim is the religion of the Dravidians. Dravidian Kings like Rama and Krishna have defeated the Aryan kings like Ravanasura and Narakasura. This is the reason why there is no temple for Brahma even today who is the first father of the Aryans - the Asuras and the Devas.

Today, Aryans (descendants of Asuras and Devas) practice Zoroastrianism, Islam, Christianity and Atheism while Dravidians practice Hinduism.

The Indo-Aryans weren't all white, this is a common misconception. The original migrants would have been mixed, with mostly white/light brown people among them (they would have basically mostly looked like Kashmiris/north Punjabis), however, there were likely some dark people among them, as Proto-Indo-Europeans have been proven to have had some dark skinned people among their ranks (not exactly black, but closer to medium/dark brown). There's also the fact that many of them did mix with the darker Dravidians, so Rama and Krishna having a dark complexion can just be explained by them being mixed race (many Indo-Aryans accepted race mixing with allied local tribes, but obviously not all of them).

Also, one could easily argue these reports to be fabricated, so they simply cannot be used to argue about historical facts.

What we know for a fact is that the more pure Indo-Aryans (higher castes and Punjabis/Kashmiris) have more in common ancestrally with Pashtuns, Persians, Baluchis and Europeans than they do Dravidians.

That is BJP view too. They consider north J=Hindus as superior Aryan Hindus, and south Hindus as inferior Dravidian Hindus. The Dravidian Hindus should obey Aryan Hindus. That is why south should vote against BJP.

BJP isn't necessarily incorrect per say, but it's very hypocritical of them since many of its members/supporters are quite dark and don't really have that much Aryan ancestry anymore.

Only Punjabis/Kashmiris and high caste Hindus can really be counted as real Indo-Aryans.

 

[manlion]

As per @manlion , Tamil cannot be Hindus. Could you clarify what is your definition of Hindu
.

One remark of Professor Sundaram Pillai — that, as a Dravidian, he considered himself entirely outside the Hindu polity — put him somewhat out of court with the Swami, who, later on, remarked of him that eminent as he was as a scholar, he had thoughtlessly given himself away to the sway of race prejudice, which already during his travels the Swami had noted as an unpleasant characteristic of certain South Indian minds of the unbalanced or mediocre type.

http://pazhayathu.blogspot.sg/2013/09/swami-vivekananda-at-trivandrum-in.html

furthermore theres no mention of a religion called Hinduism in Tamil scriptures

Hinduism was coined by foreigners and it serves the interest of the Hindutva empire (Hindi- Hindu-Hindustan)

 

[PurpleStone]

One remark of Professor Sundaram Pillai — that, as a Dravidian, he considered himself entirely outside the Hindu polity — put him somewhat out of court with the Swami, who, later on, remarked of him that eminent as he was as a scholar, he had thoughtlessly given himself away to the sway of race prejudice, which already during his travels the Swami had noted as an unpleasant characteristic of certain South Indian minds of the unbalanced or mediocre type.

http://pazhayathu.blogspot.sg/2013/09/swami-vivekananda-at-trivandrum-in.html

furthermore theres no mention of a religion called Hinduism in Tamil scriptures

Hinduism was coined by foreigners and it serves the interest of the Hindutva empire (Hindi- Hindu-Hindustan)

Everyone knows that the word Hinduism was coined only with the advent of Christianity and Islam in India but that does not mean Hinduism did not exists. Aryans of this region (Suras and Asuras) both followed the dharma as per the Vedas until Dravidian kings like Rama and Krishna killed all the Aryan kings and changed the Vedic history to include themselves above the pantheon of the Vedic gods.