India is Paying the Price For VD Savarkar’s Advocacy of Rape

[TheGreatMaratha]

Your logic is quite bad. People who follow different sects of Islam do so, because they believe in that sect of Islam as the route for salvation, not because that sect offers greater social and economic opportunities.

In your particular case, people don't choose a caste system as a method of salvation, but are forced into it, owing to their chance of birth. Those upper castes that say they oppose the caste system, simply say that with little meaning, because in reality it does not affect their personal social status or economic opportunity. The point of the dalit drive was that upper castes, that oppose the caste system, still are unwilling to be identified as a lower castes, as it is "beneath" them.

You are making less sense. Why not just abolish the caste system? Everyone will just identify themselves as Hindus. Why to go to another caste? Dalits don't need to believe that they belong to the lowest caste. It's not like it's being imposed on them. There are so many cases where people of lower castes have gone ahead.

 

[Joe Shearer]

They have to be convinced about where they are going wrong. If points are valid, we should take steps and reform our religion.

Again, this is haleem; not a single piece of solid meat. What are you talking about, when you talk about their going wrong?

I'm not talking about silly cartoons. I'm talking about open abuses that some people use. Again, like my previous point, if there is something which is valid, we should definitely take that into consideration.

And is your religion, and your faith, so flimsy that the abuse of the fool can shake it? Then it isn't much after all, either the religion or the believer.

There are many examples of this. India being too defensive with respect to Kashmir initially and Pakistan taking advantage of that and sending in militants. The 1990s expulsion as well.

What has this got to do with religion?

Take Japanese invasion of China.

Where do you want me to take it? Before you cite that example, let me suggest that you go to your apparent source of knowledge, Wikipedia (any other suggestion will be futile, in all probability), and look up the origin of the word 'kamikaze'.

There are so many examples.

It is surprising that you have not managed to give us anything concrete yet.

Do you think ideas spread peacefully? Islam wouldn't have spread to India if Islamic invasions didn't happen. Christianity wouldn't have spread to Europe if the Christians weren't aggressive.

You are illiterate.

Look up the Bearys of the Konkan. They had, and continue to have, not the slightest connection with arms or military affairs of any kind. Yet they are among the oldest communities in India, and may date back to the seventh or eighth century.

Look at the Muslims of Kerala. They were there, peacefully, with no strife whatsoever until the twentieth century, for 1300 years.

Look at the Muslims of Bengal, the fourth largest concentration of Muslims in the world. Not one was converted by force until the late nineteenth or the twentieth centuries.

So far you have shown only that you are carrying around baggage as old-fashioned and ill-suited to reality as some of our Pakistani fan-boys. You are really no better.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

At this point, your grasp on understanding of events is very poor and all over the place. Perhaps read a few good books and talk to some experts in their fields, before coming here and showing us your ignorance.

Please tell me then why mosques are being bombed in some Middle Eastern states if my knowledge is lacking. It's visibly odd for me as I don't see Hindus bombing each other mandirs for petty purposes.

 

[Joe Shearer]

His take on this is absolutely correct.

In any case, should Muslims now do the type of jihad sanctioned by Indian secularists?

I cannot pretend to understand this.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

You are illiterate.

Look up the Bearys of the Konkan. They had, and continue to have, not the slightest connection with arms or military affairs of any kind. Yet they are among the oldest communities in India, and may date back to the seventh or eighth century.

Look at the Muslims of Kerala. They were there, peacefully, with no strife whatsoever until the twentieth century, for 1300 years.

Look at the Muslims of Bengal, the fourth largest concentration of Muslims in the world. Not one was converted by force until the late nineteenth or the twentieth centuries.

So far you have shown only that you are carrying around baggage as old-fashioned and ill-suited to reality as some of our Pakistani fan-boys. You are really no better.

I'm not saying that the spread of religion was only done violently. But violence was definitely one of the tools that was used. Continuously mocking the other faith too played a role. I can't do anything if keep denying this. Muslim authors themselves have written about that. It's not like Hindu authors have written to spread propaganda.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Apologies for stirring you up. My comment was simply that most of India has not advanced beyond the binary thought process. They think that just because someone is against the BJP govt, they must be supportive of an alternate party or ideology, usually attributed to their religious or regional background.

I was not speaking on your behalf, or trying to intrude on your political views.

LOL. Stirring me up? No such thing and my personal apologies if my robust forms of expression seemed unduly aggressive. English is not my first language, as you might already have noticed, and sometimes, slips in my hand and does odd things.

I take your point now that you have explained it more fully and agree that it is a fair summation of my position. It is now clear tome that you were not speaking on my behalf, or trying to intrude.

I hope I have managed to convince you of my goodwill and good intentions in discussion.

I'm not saying that the spread of religion was only done violently. But violence was definitely one of the tools that was used. Continuously mocking the other faith too played a role. I can't do anything if keep denying this. Muslim authors themselves have written about that. It's not like Hindu authors have written to spread propaganda.

Sure, violence was used by Muslim kings in north India (please note that I am proceeding with care and caution). Now tell me: were not Hindu kings guilty of the same? There is on PDF a telling commentary by an intelligent young Tamilian who is opposed to me, and that will give you some insight into the grievous violence exercised by one Indic religion on another.

My wife's people were refugees from the Kaveri Basin who settled in Mysore around the eleventh century as refugees, fleeing from the violence unleashed on them and their great teacher by Kulothunga Chola. They found refuge in the neighbouring kingdom, ruled by a Buddhist king with a Jain consort.

As for continuously mocking the other faith, I think all Indians need to stop looking for quarrels, and learn to take stupidity with indifference. What difference does it make to you if someone says something clearly meaningless about your religion?

 

[xeuss]

Please tell me then why mosques are being bombed in some Middle Eastern states if my knowledge is lacking. It's visibly odd for me as I don't see Hindus bombing each other mandirs for petty purposes.

There are different reasons, but not because they are positions of power. Most of the time, it is just terrorism, that is, to instill fear among the general population. This is generally in countries undergoing civil strife.

You supposed analogy to Hindus/temples is stupid. India is not witnessing civil strife amongst the Hindus. Neither are Muslims bombing mosques in Malaysia.

You are making less sense. Why not just abolish the caste system? Everyone will just identify themselves as Hindus. Why to go to another caste? Dalits don't need to believe that they belong to the lowest caste. It's not like it's being imposed on them. There are so many cases where people of lower castes have gone ahead.

Obviously we are on different wavelengths here. I am afraid I cannot make my point any better than I have.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

There are different reasons, but not because they are positions of power. Most of the time, it is just terrorism, that is, to instill fear among the general population. This is generally in countries undergoing civil strife.

If they weren't positions of power, why do people bomb them? Then there's absolutely no sense in bombing them. Since they are positions of power, bombing them spreads a message.

 

[xeuss]

If they weren't positions of power, why do people bomb them? Then there's absolutely no sense in bombing them. Since they are positions of power, bombing them spreads a message.

Why did the Khalistani separatists bombs bus station and railway stations? Were they positions of power?

I am afraid I cannot convince the Great Maratha anymore. Best of luck in your understanding of events.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Obviously we are on different wavelengths here. I am afraid I cannot make my point any better than I have.

I don't understand how caste system will be abolished if upper castes turn into lower castes. Of course you can't explain it any better.

It's like saying that Whites should just marry Blacks to support anti-racism as marrying Blacks will eventually stop racism.

Why did the Khalistani separatists bombs bus station and railway stations? Were they positions of power?

I am afraid I cannot convince the Great Maratha anymore. Best of luck in your understanding of events.

Sunnis bombed Shia mosques and vice versa. Some Sufi shrines were targeted. It's clearly sectarian strife. Bombing religious places of opposing sects is because those religious places hold an important place for those sects.

Mullahs used mosques to incite people. That is well known.

 

[Suriya]

Also can I post shiva dik pics ... Hindu women wash it with milk and sit on it as part of worship.
Very non misoginistic religion.

Again sounding at cost of being repetitive but knowledge of Hinduism here is at kindergarten level.

FYI, Lingim is always fixed on top of Yoni or female genitalia shape. This symbol of creation. We are all product of these, aren't we?
Lord Shiva worshiped as the creation and destroyer.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Also can I post shiva dik pics ... Hindu women wash it with milk and sit on it as part of worship.
Very non misoginistic religion.

SIT ON IT?

Umm, that seems to have made a major impression on you. Is there a hint somewhere of P***s envy? Some vague feeling of inadequacy?

Of course, I am officially outraged at the insult offered to my religion, and shall feel obliged to declare a dharam yuddh and come after you. But if it is all the same to you, seeing as how its rather late, can we do that tomorrow instead?

 

[Safriz]

SIT ON IT?

Umm, that seems to have made a major impression on you. Is there a hint somewhere of P***s envy? Some vague feeling of inadequacy?

Of course, I am officially outraged at the insult offered to my religion, and shall feel obliged to declare a dharam yuddh and come after you. But if it is all the same to you, seeing as how its rather late, can we do that tomorrow instead?

Good one...

 

[Suriya]

SIT ON IT?

@Safriz added his own fetish to make it sound more vile and insulting. Old tactics.

 

[Safriz]

Again sounding at cost of being repetitive but knowledge of Hinduism here is at kindergarten level.

FYI, Lingim is always fixed on top of Yoni or female genitalia shape. This symbol of creation. We are all product of these, aren't we?
Lord Shiva worshiped as the creation and destroyer.

Yes and his tool is also worshipped and washed with milk.
Feed the milk to the poor instead of spilling it on a stone penis.