Osmania University beef festival sparks violence

[Awesome]

That story was true !!!

That Hindu was me !!

And my intention was to have beef ..

Which Pizza place was it?

 

[vsdoc]

I think Pizza is a useless waste of good money for tons of bread and very little meat.

My kids do not agree ....

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think Pizza is a useless waste of good money for tons of bread and very little meat.

My kids do not agree ....

Buddy, for vegetarians travelling abroad, it's a LIFESAVER. Believe it.

 

[vsdoc]

Buddy, for vegetarians travelling abroad, it's a LIFESAVER. Believe it.

Vegetarians have it tough abroad. Agreed.

But my kids are carvivore, vegetarian (eggs and fish only), and omnivore (eggs, fish, and chicken but no red meat) in order of seniority.

They just like pizza.

So on Pizza days, I pick up my bike, and head to the nearest Kolhapuri katta for pandra rassa and tambra rassa and thecha till my scalp prickles and water flows from my nose.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Grossly wrong . The state also has to look after the law and order situation . It can't allow social disharmony in the name of unbridled religious freedom. Thats why Satanic verses was banned in India to pacify anger of the Muslim community.

Similarly eating Beef is a contentious issue and religious sentiments of Hindus are attached to the issue to which every elected govt must give due consideration in order to remain alive in politics. We are a democracy where sentiment of people counts.

The state certainly has to look after the law and order situation, but not by equating parties in a dispute, surely? If somebody resents the actions of another, he or she has the option of going to the police. Not going to the police, gathering a crowd of like-minded people and resorting to verbal or physical violence is a breach of the law, and should be treated as a breach of the law by the state, not as a reason to enlist the law-breakers in negotiations.

Satanic Verses banning was a disaster. It should never have happened. If the Muslim community did not like it (I hope everybody reading this knows what the contention was about, and how absurd it is), they had the option of not buying it. They did not have the option of taking to violence, or of threatening the author, and the cowardly act of the state, in banning the book, was just part of the Congress' policy since 1916 of appeasing conservative Muslim opinion, in the cynical hope of getting unquestioning support from the conservative clergy. Every action that the Congress takes with regard to the Muslim community - well, almost every action - is an act of appeasement of the conservative clergy. They bear just as much responsibility as the political right-wing and the Hindu fundamentalists in distorting the state's idea of secularism.

In exactly the same fashion, the state should not take sides in a dietary dispute, provided that the laws it lays down for animal slaughter, in the interests of hygiene and the public health, are met.

I agree that in a democracy, the sentiments of people count, but does the political set have no duty to educate the people when their sentiments are retrogressive, and when country customs are elevated to the level of religious dogma?

 

[CorporateAffairs]

Mere D grade politics by christian groups backed organizations.

Eating beef is welcome in India. No issues. But trying to make an issue out of it is not welcome

These dumb a*** should remember that still 80% of dalits are Hindus

Best example, Chinnajeeyar swamy (lakhs of people follow him) spiritual guru is a dalit

 

[shelly]

Because that is extremely ridiculous thing to suggest, and is not part of the prophets teaching.
The prophet also never drove a car, ate ice cream, or used the internet.
Does that mean we are not allowed to do that as well?
Islam is a very logical and thought out religion.
It has bans on things that make sense to be banned, like Pork and poisonous plants and animals.
Cows are perfectly fine to eat, even if the prophet himself might not have eaten them.
And just like with everything, you need moderation.
Eating too much daal is bad for your health as well, does that mean everyone should stop eating daal?
of course not.
We respect your right to not eat beef, so kindly respect ours and stop proselytizing to us.

Beef was avaliable at time of prophet, internet, ice cream were not. Maybe there is a reason why he did not eat beef. please try to find that out.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

It is forbidden for some sections of Hindu opinion; I would go further to particularise that section, but that opens a different can of worms.

Nobody asks Hindus who abhor eating beef to eat beef; that is not, and never was, what this discussion is about. Hindu sentiment, in not eating beef themselves, has been in the past, and presumably will be in future as well fully respected. There is no debate on legality or freedom about that at all.

The debate was whether or not others who have no such restriction should be restricted by the views of conservative Hindus. I believe they should not. I do not believe that they should pick a fight on the issue, but if they wish to adhere to their own laws and nobody else's, there is not much that the law can do about it, and nothing at all that the organs of the state should do about it.

Once again, to the point of nausea, I repeat, appeasing the Mullahs and banning Satanic Verses was a barely constitutional step; it was absolved only on account of article 295, and has no merit, indeed, it did a lot of harm. One way in which it harmed us was to open the way for every irrational demand by every group wishful of establishing its identity. An example is the ludicrous ban on the film The Da Vinci Code disliked by some Christian clergymen.

One point that I have sought to make is that the state should stay neutral in these matters.

Unfortunately, there is another sub-text, and perhaps I have not articulated this in so many words and brought it to the attention of everyone that there is a contradiction between the sub-text and the main mesage. I am referring to the continuing effort by minorities to assert their identity. Sadly, this takes the form of flashy displays in public, or of barely illegal protest. Often it becomes illegal protest by the time the day is done.

I have earlier pointed out that appeasing conservative Muslim sentiment is a hall-mark of Congress administration and always has been. Please note that borderline legal, or downright illegal protest is a legacy of our independent struggle, when anything that could remove the British was considered acceptable. This included then acts of terrorism, acts of war, acts of treason, acts of collective violence outside the scope of terrorism, acts of individual violence, and, in general, quite rightly so in that context, the disobedience of the authority of the state.

Guess what happened.

Independent India now faces those exact same methods from protesters. We have

acts of terrorism, acts of war, acts of treason, acts of collective violence outside the scope of terrorism, acts of individual violence, and, in general, quite rightly so in that context, the disobedience of the authority of the state

And we have nobody to hold responsible for these but ourselves; every agitator raises the slogan that he and nobody else holds a moral right to agitate for his rights: what he believes to be his rights.

In Indian political discourse, there is no gap between loyal obedience of the state and the constitution, and acts such as these.

So my second point was that India has to evolve and put in place a method whereby the efforts of minorities to regain their identity are channeled in a constitutional way. As of today, the only way they get heard is through agitations.

So, combining points 1 and 2, the state should stay neutral, but there should be some mechanism for addressing the urges and the sentiments of the minorities as well.

Thirdly, sadly, because of what seemed to be a salient need to urge the rights of every minority, including the minority consisting of 'Joe Shearer', to seek to establish his or her own identity, it came across as if only the Hindu community should make adjustments and settle for compromises. I have personally agitated, and have supported agitations against an arrogant minority demanding concessions. Not physically; I have no death-wish; but in every other way.

The third point is that Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs - all of these communities, as well as the Tamil, the central Indian tribal and the north eastern tribal, the Dalit - need to be loyal to the constitution. No more banning of books, or of people writing those books, or of people selling those books. No more riots because some third-rate scoundrel threw a pig into a mosque, or because some padre somewhere felt that the flock would be irretrievably polluted to see the Dan Brown movie.

Finally, enforcing the law is not a political process. It has to be upheld, not negotiated, not made the subject of a conference on who should accept how much and when and how.

The exact same law had been executed and maintained in good order before we took over its administration. Why is it so difficult to maintain law and order now? Is it not precisely because we have made one compromise after another, and got to a stage where we can taken action against nobody, because that group has in the past been the victim of some breach of the law.

 

[shelly]

ayyoo.. ye ghoda chatur , ghoda chatur kya hai. jisko kaana hai kaao, jisko nahain... aadha khao , aadha phenko.

 

[Joe Shearer]

To continue with your observations:

You are confusing the problem with the cure.

It is necessary to be sensitive to the identity aspirations of minorities, otherwise the entire compact behind which India was formed will fall apart. India was formed not as a Hindu majority nation, which would ram down the desires and wishes of the Hindu majority, represented by the dominant castes within the body of those professing Hinduism; India was formed as a secular nation, respecting the religious rights of all, and denying none the right to practice their religion.

We can preserve this ideal and this objective by respecting the rights of all, not just the rights of Hindus.

That is where making beef available comes in. Not making it available, when sizeable minorities, Dalits, North-eastern Tribals, Muslims, Christians and Buddhists, have it in their diets, displays the arrogance and insensitive misuse of brute majority by the dominant Hindu.

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.

This precisely sums up the situation.

You chose to put a qualifier before the fears of the minorities - not the minority - deeming it mostly unwarranted. In the next sentence, you talk of the 'way of life' coming under attack in one country they can call their spiritual home.

How, under these circumstances, when one section of the population tells other, smaller sections that they are living in its spiritual home, that they are placing under attack the way of life of this section, can the minorities be anything but fearful? This again underlines the point that the two sections favouring the Two Nation Theory were the religious right among the Muslims, and the religious right among the Hindus.

How many of the laws against cow slaughter existed prior to 1947? I ask this not to plead that all legislation since 1947 was futile, but to point to the gradual erosion of the freedom of the minorities - not one minority - to do with themselves as they pleased. That freedom is now necessarily phrased as the freedom to do as they please subject to the veto of the majority.Is this inequitable order what you believe the country should represent? Is it the will of the people at large, or is it the will of sections of the people, expressed at different times according to political expedience in different places, and still not recognised throughout India?

Finally, I need to point out that again and again, you have made the Muslim community the focus of your attention, in spite of the article and the circumstances making it clear that it was the Dalits who sought to free their diet from moral restrictions imposed by the majority sections of the majority community.

Is this unguarded lapse not clearly indicative that there is an agenda? This is not the protection of the cow; it is the protection of the cow against the Muslim. It is not the preservation of the Hindu way of life; it is the protection of the caste-Hindu way of life, AND it is protection of that against the Muslim.

Clearly, those who subscribe to this point of view believe that, by itself, it would have had its way, but it is only the fact of an uncomfortable Muslim presence that inhibits its full exercise of its powers.

That too in the teeth of the evidence that the Dalit is increasingly disenchanted with the old order, and that these demonstrations were due to the number of Dalit students in the University rising from 1,200 to 2,000. The message is clear; as Dalits are elevated, and as they are given full exercise of their democratic rights, it is they whom the caste-Hindu fear, and not any other section. It is only due to the rigid and constrained thinking that has been drilled into them that caste-Hindus continue to think that they represent Hindu opinion, or that this Hindu opinion is pitted against Muslim opinion alone, rather than against all the minorities in some manner or the other.

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.

Again, you cannot help lapsing into your kneejerk hatred of the Muslim. Even after it was pointed out earlier that Muslims were not involved in this, you cannot see beyond your script and cannot see beyond the Muslim community.

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.

On the contrary, the majority, as you call it, have had ample opportunity to bring things around its own way, and has exercised its privileges of domination of the ballot box to bring about changes purely on account of its life-style and religious priorities.

On the contrary, you should consider the possibility that the more that the majority gets, the more it seeks.

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.

Which is precisely the grounds on which the BJP and its front organisations brushed aside law and order, which at one point in your comment you said the state was to uphold, on the grounds that irrespective of the law and the constitution, the feelings and emotions of the majority were enough to dictate what was legal and what was not.

In that case, why have a constitution?

Respecting religious sentiments is always a two way street. It's never one way and Hindus are notready to be giving all the time.

First, two wrongs do not make a right. The Muslim, or the Christian, or the Sikh, or the Dravidian, or the Dalit, or the central Indian tribal, or the north-east Indian tribal, may or may not have committed grave errors. For the sake of argument, let us accept that they each have committed such errors.

Please explain how this becomes a license of the Hindu community to commit errors. Is the law a transaction, with debit and credit entries, or is it to be strictly and severely upheld?

Second, from the example of the cow-slaughter laws themselves, Hindus have not exactly been backward or shy of imposing their view on others.

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.

You can; you should. Who said that the arrogant Mullah should not be disciplined in a secular state? France is as intensely secular a state as one can find; do you find them appeasing Mullahs? Who said, for that matter, that arrogant pastors should dictate terms to the Censor Board? Did you protest then as vehemently as you are protesting here, now?

Allowing a gradual degradation of the way of life for Indians, under the excuse that this is how it rolls in India is not a solution. It is an invitation to further degradation.

By not doing that, and instead choosing to commit your own crime against the constitution and the laws, you become a transgressor.

If desensitization needs to occur it needs to occur to all religions. Not to Hinduism alone.

First, this is about 'sensitisation', not about de-sensitisation. Please go back and read my original post, and see how everybody has assumed a radically different thing and proceeded to ride their hobby horses. It means 'more' sensitivity - to others. That is what I was asking for; that is not what you, and others commenting, have been supposing. De-sensitisation implies the opposite of sensitisation; I presume that much is clear. I can understand the hullabaloo since everyone has taken for granted that the Hindu is being asked to deaden his cultural personality, and to amputate aspects of this personality, that those acts of the others which hurt this personality should be condoned on the false grounds that they do not in fact hurt the personality.

How silly.

It was never about allowing others to ride rough-shod over one's feelings. It was to allow others to do in the public sphere what they wished to do, and what the laws permitted, and to understand that they wanted to make a statement about their emerging identity, that they wanted to underline their distinctive character, distinct from the majority.

If this point had been understood, all the lame excuses would not have been put forward about how the Mullahs and the Pastors did grossly incorrect things and therefore the caste Hindus should therefore be judged with leniency about their own set of grossly incorrect things.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Some of the observations made are just plain sad. They display the overwhelming domination of the mind of the poster by mental prejudices which block all the other senses.

the beef issue has nothing to do with them.

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.

Are you aware of what my observation was, and where it occurred, and what mistake you made?

I doubt it. You don't stop to look or to observe, but vent your spleen in one splendid pyrotechnic burst.

My comment was that Muslims were not involved with this protest, that it related to the Dalit students.

I am not surprised that you failed to pick it up, since every post, every thread is an opportunity to bash Muslims. Even your own remarks make no sense, none whatever.

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.

My replies were related to what? And where did I talk about de-sensitisation?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Speaking of the constitution, here is the closest approximation I could get for why it should be wilfully violated: because such violation really doesn't matter. Superb.

Not idealistic; grossly illegal and against the spirit of the Indian state is more accurate.

Many things goes against the spirit of Indian constitution, so why bother about this one ?

Because this is the one under discussion. Does the topic say the Indian constitution, or does it say Osmania University beef festival? Where there is a topic which deals with other transgressions of the constitution, that is the appropriate place to discuss that particular issue. Not this. Is that too difficult to understand?

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 ?

No, there was no provision for reservation to be given only based on castes. Where did you get this?

Regarding Muslims and Christians enjoying it, Muslims and Christians DO NOT enjoy 'it', whatever you mean by 'it'. I understand that in Tamil Nadu, some part of the other backward classes quota was taken away and Christian and Muslim poor students were granted reservations for a total of 3.5% each under this. Nothing extra was taken; an existing quota was sub-divided.

The decision to grant these reservations were not based on caste but on religion. There was no caste-determination, as far as I know, in determining the eligibility of a Muslim or a Christian student for this reserved seat; only a proof of religious affiliation.

There are similar laws in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. The central government has a reservation for 'backward Muslims', based on their occupation-determined community, since there is no caste system among them. There is no corresponding quota for Christians.

As you may observe, the only mention of caste comes in twice: the TN government took away 7% of the OBC seats, and the centre cherry-picked certain communities in order to prevent the 'creamy layer' from cornering these, as had happened in the case of the earlier reservation schemes launched.

For your information, there is no central government legislation protecting Muslim and Christian Dalits.

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.

You really must do yourself a favour. It will also do the rest of the members a favour.

Please read the post you are replying before replying.

The equation was not between sati and cow slaughter; it was between the resistance to banning sati (did I mention it was among conservative Hindus mainly?) and the present resistance to cow slaughter.

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.

There were no constitution laws for banning cow slaughter. Please educate yourself. Please also read why Baba Ambedkar agreed to including a broad direction against cow slaughter in the Directive Principles. For your information, the Directive Principles are not law.

There was no regard or disregard of the constitution. There is still no central law against cow slaughter, only state laws.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Verb. sap.

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.

You might like to consider delivering this message to the RSS to remind it of the consequences of its incremental aggression.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

She is not from TN; as usual, you have your facts wrong.
We are both vegetarians, both from conviction; sorry, we cannot help you. Try the next street.

Mani is an emotional idiot from pre-partition Pakistan who probably loves his ancestral land more than he loves Tamil Nadu.

Wrong example...

He certainly has better manners than you.

What Hindu scriptures says or not say should not be a concern to you? People consider cow sacred for what ever reason and they don't need to explain that you and any one else. Also the respect thing you are talking about you do realize it is not a one way trip.. you have to give it to get it back..

Nobody is stopping you to eat beef or pork. But if you act stupid and call for beef/pork festivals in sensitive areas then you can only wish your god to save your ar$e..

Two points: the Santoshi Ma cult started just about 50 years ago, and was popularised by a Bollywood film. Are we - I say this as a Hindu, not as an agnostic, from my origins, not my current religious belief - supposed to stand for every bit of idiocy, on the grounds that this is considered sacred for some reason or the other and therefore the state ought to back off?

One earns respect, it is not automatically granted.

Secondly, the beef festival was the Dalit warning to caste-Hindus to save their arses. If their numbers stay the same, or exceed 2,000 next year, do you think the act will not be repeated? Try to understand that caste-Hindu violence cannot continue unrestrained in every direction; sooner or later, various sections will unite against it. Try to understand that a bellicose attitude is not a good idea in the circumstances.

Same reason wy we also bend to other's desires. Do you think it was out of our own will that we could not read Satanic Verses or could not see Da Vinci code in theaters ?

It's called respecting each other's religious sentiments in a process of give and take.

Anway no one is asking you to bend to anyone's desires illegally. It is a constitutional rule mandated by the Parliament to ban cow slaughter in most states in India including Tamil Nadu. So as an Indian, who is duty bound to follow the laws, just follow it.

As for Hindu scriptures, go read the posts some pages back. I have given plenty of references from Vedas as to how cow should not be killed. Anyway, with all due respect, we need not justify our religious sentiments to anyone. It is as it is. If other's expect Hindus to respect their religious sentiments, then better respect ours too.

As for the bolded part, I can only LOL and say its a bit rich.

Again, respect for each other's religious sentiments belongs in our private lives. The state has no business interfering in public life on one side or the other. Both the banning of the Satanic Verses and of the film The Da Vinci Code were acts of appeasement.

There is NO constitutional rule mandated by Parliament to ban cow slaughter. Please do not bring the Indian constitution to serve your prejudices.

For the rest of your post, your LOL sums it up rather well.

True that. The Indians are always bragging about secularism, but their version of it seems pretty whishy-washy.

In Bengali, we have a saying, "Nei mama-r cheye kana mama bhalo."

Yeah right, Indian secularism is better, if we start following the western form of secularism, and say start banning burkha, and start serving pork in government universities and colleges, you lots will be the first one to moan and whine about it, and then you ll say thank god we made Pakistan in 1947

Why should only the Hindus be expected to follow this so called "true" secualrism? If Hindus start protesting against Muslims doing their jumma prayer on the road and blocking the traffic, as lets face it it causes public nuisance, would you still demand this "true" secularism? Stop being so biased all the time.

In fact, it is not true secularism as long as Hindus are forced to make all the compromises. Hindus should make no compromises - in private life. And the state should not ask them to make compromises in public life. I question the practice of offering prayers on the road. That transgression does not justify other transgressions.

True we should follow true secularism. As a start we will serve both pork and beef from the same hostel kitchen prepared in the same utensils. Those who wants to eat can eat, others can take a hike.

I would privatise hostels and allow each to offer its own diet. Take the state out as much as possible, and we are better off.

I'm sure people will be willing to bring their own utensils.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about such commonly available artefacts, if I were you. Especially if I were you.

There's always a dhakkan to be found everywhere.

Dude all that rambling for nothing. If some Indians eat pork at a public place, how many Muslims pick up hockey sticks and lead pipes to go bash them?

I wouldn't be able to count, but Hyderabad, near the Char Minar, Kolkata, near the Tippu Sultan Mosque, to name just two. Readers can add to the list.

i think the same applies to HINDUS too, do you guys think that we are only making the MUSLIMS to pay in the hostel and HINDUS don't have to, The veg food is more costlier than Non Veg in INDIAN hostels, so take a hike my friend.
For the sake of communal hormoney both Beef and Pork should be banned in Hostels, if any of the individual wants to have these two items, they can take it some fast food chain or restaurants.

For the sake of common sense, there should be no regulation of the diet served in hostels. That will sort things out soon enough.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Tell that too the pastors who made a hue and cry and thatha MK who banned it.

Why do you find his statement objectionable?

It is always the backward, ignorant and repressive sections of a religion, typically the priesthood, that blocks progress. The Christians are subject to this, as much as Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh. The pastors are bound to make a hue and cry; what prevented thatha from ignoring them? The DMK is supposed to be anti-religion; why did they slip in this instance?

If you want to eat beef eat in your home or go to a hotel which serves it..But organizing such 'fests" and bragging it is stretching the patience of Hindus and is taking it a bit too far.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. It will be interesting to see if next year the festival is repeated, for the third year in succession. I am looking forward to see yet another futile demonstration by the ABVP and its fellow travellers.

Aryan invasion theory is BS and has been scientifically disproved. Dont listen to these Dravidian nationalists too much.

You give yourself away every time you open your mouth. This is a centre-piece of RSS/Sangh Parivar propaganda.

Regarding Tamil literature, Tamil lang itself is supposed to gave been given by Lord Shiva through Agattiyar to us Tamils...

If that were so, you are wasting your time here, aren't you? Instead of discussing defence-related matters, we might as well count on prayers to Siva to ward off the Pakistanis and the Chinese. If you had acted earlier, it might have warded off others as well.