Riot for Votes, the politicization of bloodshed.

[kurup]

Oh BJP really was missing in your list despite your general statement- in any case the KEY question is can I send you my address?

The list was of the parties which started the communal politics which started the riots .

For what ???

 

[Guynextdoor2]

The list was of the parties which started the communal politics which started the riots .

For what ???

So BJP wasn;t there buddy?
Obviously for the pot....such high quality stuff is rare man. I'm sure I'll find 'true', 'untrue' seculars, BJP seculars etc. once I roll it up

The list was of the parties which started the communal politics which started the riots .

For what ???

So BJP wasn;t there buddy?
Obviously for the pot....such high quality stuff is rare man. I'm sure I'll find 'true', 'untrue' seculars, BJP seculars etc. once I roll it up

 

[Indianpatriot1]

I asked you what are the benefits, not excuses..

Religion is a way of life. No religion separates private ethos from public, so how can secularists claim a man should leave his religion at the doorstep when he leaves his house? Your question is itself irrelevant because it presumes a schizophrenic personality - religious in private matters and irreligious in political. On what basis should democracy then function? Only on basis of economic interests? Why should religious issues not be a valid group issue for democracy? So a strike by industrial workers is valid democratic protest, while agitation by Hindus for a temple is not?

 

[Iggy]

Religion is a way of life. No religion separates private ethos from public, so how can secularists claim a man should leave his religion at the doorstep when he leaves his house? Your question is itself irrelevant because it presumes a schizophrenic personality - religious in private matters and irreligious in political. On what basis should democracy then function? Only on basis of economic interests? Why should religious issues not be a valid group issue for democracy? So a strike by industrial workers is valid democratic protest, while agitation by Hindus for a temple is not?

Mate, am asking you what are the benefits of a common man by bringing religion into politics.. Lets just say, India become a Hindu nation.. What are the benefits of it to common people? What kind of changes can we expect? What are the reforms it will implement?

 

[Indianpatriot1]

Mate, am asking you what are the benefits of a common man by bringing religion into politics.. Lets just say, India become a Hindu nation.. What are the benefits of it to common people? What kind of changes can we expect? What are the reforms it will implement?

Irrelevant question because you are in effect asking me to expound on the direct economic benefits of religion. In this you are again making an implicit assumption that the common man only has tangible economic needs (Roti, Kapda aur Makan) and nothing else - a Marxist framework so to say. It has been proved time and again that man is far from being an economic animal which is why separation of religion from politics is an unnatural artificial construct. In fact, religion, being the most dominant component of culture, is far more essential to nationalism than any economic factor can be.

 

[Dillinger]

Mate, am asking you what are the benefits of a common man by bringing religion into politics.. Lets just say, India become a Hindu nation.. What are the benefits of it to common people? What kind of changes can we expect? What are the reforms it will implement?

None whatsoever. Viewing the issue in the macrocosm is a trait absent in our genes along with a pi$$ poor ability to compartmentalize- as me and @Hyperion often lament. Need not worry though, once our sub-continent wide empire is up and running we shall remedy the situation. Then you can sing our song too- "one fundoo swings from a lamppost in Delhi, another fundoo joins him in Lahore. Many fundoos swing, their agonized faces lit by the sinking sun."

 

[Iggy]

Irrelevant question because you are in effect asking me to expound on the direct economic benefits of religion. In this you are again making an implicit assumption that the common man only has tangible economic needs (Roti, Kapda aur Makan) and nothing else - a Marxist framework so to say. It has been proved time and again that man is far from being an economic animal which is why separation of religion from politics is an unnatural artificial construct. In fact, religion, being the most dominant component of culture, is far more essential to nationalism than any economic factor can be.

Irrelevant question? In short there is no benefit as such with bringing religion into politics, isnt it much better to be remain secular? Or should we also scrap democracy also because it is also an artificial construct? May be should bring back Sati and other practices also since these are natural..

Should start a thread about what are the benefits of turning India into a Hindu nation!! Might get some good ideas from those who favor it!! What say @Dillinger @Bang Galore??

 

[Indianpatriot1]

Irrelevant question? In short there is no benefit as such with bringing religion into politics, isnt it much better to be remain secular? Or should we also scrap democracy also because it is also an artificial construct? May be should bring back Sati and other practices also since these are natural..

What is meant by benefits?? Are you asking me to reply in the Marxist framework of economics alone?? Because then, as I told you, the question is irrelevant. Take it as no benefit if you really want a simplistic, dumbed down answer. But hardly any one, apart from theoretical, city dwellers with zero feel for India's ethos, believes that economics is all there is to life.

 

[Bang Galore]

Religion is a way of life. No religion separates private ethos from public, so how can secularists claim a man should leave his religion at the doorstep when he leaves his house? Your question is itself irrelevant because it presumes a schizophrenic personality - religious in private matters and irreligious in political. On what basis should democracy then function? Only on basis of economic interests? Why should religious issues not be a valid group issue for democracy? So a strike by industrial workers is valid democratic protest, while agitation by Hindus for a temple is not?

Secularism is a state attribute, not an individual one (regardless of common usage). Individuals cannot ever really be secular, not even atheists. The state can be however, regardless of the religious attributes of people occupying posts of power. As long as the state remains secular, no one really cares about individual opinions.

Am agitation for a temple is a perfectly valid one, as long as it remains non-violent. Intereference by politicians in such agitations, while not desirable, is tolerable. Breaking the law isn't. The constitutional rights of the minority are not dependent on the whims of the majority. That is quite simply the difference between a secular & a non-secular state.

 

[Dillinger]

Irrelevant question? In short there is no benefit as such with bringing religion into politics, isnt it much better to be remain secular? Or should we also scrap democracy also because it is also an artificial construct? May be should bring back Sati and other practices also since these are natural..

Should start a thread about what are the benefits of turning India into a Hindu nation!! Might get some good ideas from those who favor it!! What say @Dillinger @Bang Galore??

There would be no point. Its ironic that they would want to label the nation with a term first brought into popular use by one Ibn Battuta.

Cessation of minority appeasement, invalidating identity politics based on caste and creed, efficient governance are what the common man needs. Efficient and stream lined governance, NOT MORE GOVERNANCE, which creates an economically beneficial atmosphere and becomes an enabler is what the common man needs. The day a certain someone declared "to be rich is to be glorious" our Cheeni bradran rose up and grabbed the power that was to be rightfully theirs in the scheme of things, the day that happens in India shall be the day we rise. Baaki sab khacharon ke aankhon me dhool dalne ke liye banaya gaya hai. Ladte raho for a Hindu rashtra, Muslim Khalifa- khoon choostein rahenge tumhara babu log aur haseingi "peheli duniya".

 

[Iggy]

What is meant by benefits?? Are you asking me to reply in the Marxist framework of economics alone?? Because then, as I told you, the question is irrelevant. Take it as no benefit if you really want a simplistic, dumbed down answer. But hardly any one, apart from theoretical, city dwellers with zero feel for India's ethos, believes that economics is all there is to life.

What ethos are we talking about here?. As we look in the past, our ethos are filled with lots of wrongs also which we considered sacred..

 

[Indianpatriot1]

Secularism is a state attribute, not an individual one (regardless of common usage). Individuals cannot ever really be secular, not even atheists. The state can be however, regardless of the religious attributes of people occupying posts of power. As long as the state remains secular, no one really cares about individual opinions.

Am agitation for a temple is a perfectly valid one, as long as it remains non-violent. Intereference by politicians in such agitations, while not desirable, is tolerable. Breaking the law isn't. The constitutional rights of the minority are not dependent on the whims of the majority. That is quite simply the difference between a secular & a non-secular state.

The state is simple an aggregate of individuals, not an organism in its own right. Regardless of laws and constitution, its actions will always be contaminated by the beliefs and practices of the citizens. By way of example, if BJP comes to power, encounters of suspected terrorists will be more kosher than what is now. You may not be aware, but very large sections of bureaucracy, the police and the forces are strongly pro-Hindu and this places a practical limit on state's flexibility of action. Can any government dare to give reservations to Minorities?? Or to openly declare beef selling legal in any north Indian state?

The point I am making again is that the secular shell will remain as there is no advantage in shedding it. But the body politic, in reality, will become more pro-Hindu as time goes by.

What ethos are we talking about here?. As we look in the past, our ethos are filled with lots of wrongs also which we considered sacred..

You have to take the good with the bad. Other religions are even worse.

 

[Bang Galore]

Should start a thread about what are the benefits of turning India into a Hindu nation!! Might get some good ideas from those who favor it!! What say @Dillinger @Bang Galore??

There will never be a Hindu nation. Who can agree on what a Hindu is? Who will agree on what is a Hindu value v/s a non-Hindu one? Hindus cannot be mobilised except on the basis of the "other". Take that away & Hindus have little in common with the others who share the same name for their religion. If it didn't work in Pakistan with Islam, a much more unified religion, it certainly won't work with Hindus. The Pakistanis realised that if you take away the Hindu bugbear, you simply replace it with another, that is human nature Hence the internal conflict. Hindus have multiple identities of caste & language to go with their religious identity. While the other identities can be temporarily subsumed during an emotional outbreak, it will out the moment that the emotion has passed. It is why while the BJP was able to so successfully mobilise the people of U.P. leafding to 1992, the period after the demolition simply caused that front to collapse as caste identities took over. The situation on language is just as volatile. Most S.Indians will be well aware of that. Commonality of religion won't help one bit.

 

[Indianpatriot1]

There will never be a Hindu nation. Who can agree on what a Hindu is? Who will agree on what is a Hindu value v/s a non-Hindu one? Hindus cannot be mobilised except on the basis of the "other". Take that away & Hindus have little in common with the others who share the same name for their religion. If it didn't work in Pakistan with Islam, a much more unified religion, it certainly won't work with Hindus. The Pakistanis realised that if take away the Hindu bugbear, you simply replace it with another, that is human nature Hence the internal conflict. Hindus have multiple identities of caste & language to go with their religious identity. While the other identities can be temporarily subsumed during an emotional outbreak, it will out the moment that the emotion has passed. It is why while the BJP was able to so successfully mobilise the people of U.P. leafding to 1992, the period after the demolition simply caused that front to collapse as caste identities took over. The situation on language is just as volatile. Most S.Indians will be well aware of that. Commonality of religion won't help one bit.

Hindus know who a Hindu is...though you may not.

 

[Dillinger]

The state is simple an aggregate of individuals, not an organism in its own right. Regardless of laws and constitution, its actions will always be contaminated by the beliefs and practices of the citizens. By way of example, if BJP comes to power, encounters of suspected terrorists will be more kosher than what is now. You may not be aware, but very large sections of bureaucracy, the police and the forces are strongly pro-Hindu and this places a practical limit on state's flexibility of action. Can any government dare to give reservations to Minorities?? Or to openly declare beef selling legal in any north Indian state?

The point I am making again is that the secular shell will remain as there is no advantage in shedding it. But the body politic, in reality, will become more pro-Hindu as time goes by.



You have to take the good with the bad. Other religions are even worse.

Ennh....no, you reform and remove the bad and keep the good. Unless obviously we are to now draw edicts from some unalterable book that can never be wrong nor ever amended lest some god hurl down thunder and lightening.