Dance of the wolves

#136 jang you missed out on an interesting conversation between Kaalchakra and - - -...- - -

Perhaps Kaalchakra (or wheel of time as they call him) can fill you on tis ...I found tose discussions very enligtening....tey covered te presence of ateists, teists, animists etc in te grand indic traditions. Peraps Kaal could give a reprise of tat now....

what say kaal!

jang,

Chandragupta Maurya is an interesting case, however I thought his low-caste background was speculation...wasn`t he the son of royalty?

...time for a Google...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Narendra Modi, who has still not compensated the jawaans at Akshardham, has announced Rs. 10 lakh for the brave soldiers who protected the makeshift temple. There is another Rs. 25 lakh coming, and as I already predicted, L. K. Advani is now being resurrected as the tough-talking Hindutva messiah (the Allahabad High Court judgment also makes him a martyr…).

Comments such as, “fear? just the other day hindvi was telling us how bombay muslims live fearlessly knowing that dawood bhai is looking after them” and those asking me to go to Pakistan (this is so interesting, because a Pakistani has written on the same subject…I, as an Indian, am not allowed to…go figure) only serve to highlight prejudices other than the one I am accused of.

I have said what I have had to say and the beginning and the end of the article make my intentions absolutely clear. If someone wishes to see sympathy for the jihadis in this, then, as I already stated so astutely, their minds have already been made up.

Just a couple of general questions that have been raised…

1.It could have been more balanced had I spoken against those who attack such places.

But Modi, Togadia, Mayawati, Advani, Thackeray, even Chhota Rajan have spoken about “crushing” terrorism….I do not think they are particularly balanced.

I admit that this is not an objective piece. It has made no such claims. I started with the first person account and I ended by saying that I mourn for only the innocent bystander. Others are free to mourn for whoever/whatever they wish.

2. Why don’t I speak about the wrongs in the Quran? (I don`t know of many Muslims who have been able to say that there was no big deal about the desecration…I did.) Why don’t I discuss lack of freedom in Saudi Arabia? Why don’t I write abut Imrana? Why do I only talk about the Muslims?

Let me answer the last bit first. Before asking me to look into the mirror, just look at the responses. Most do not in any way convey that they have read the piece. They are willing to accept or look the other way when leaders make it into a Hindu-Muslim issue. And, let us face it, Ayodhya has come to represent it.

I have said it earlier: Re. the Babri Masjid, it wasn’t the demolition that bothered me as the aftermath and the fear psychosis did…and the fissures that were created.

So I do speak about Muslims as a minority group, not Muslims who have their ‘roots’ in Saudi Arabia. Not the Muslims who think of the crescent and star as a religious symbol…and I think I have every right to speak in that capacity. And when I do so, I speak as an individual. I urge those who have problems with various aspects of the Muslim community to write about it, talk about Hindu fears…why don’t I see that happening? What is stopping someone who feels so passionately about the prophet and his nine-year-old wife from penning an article?

Someone wants to know, “Why do the Muslims consider themselves to be SUPERIOR/BETTER than the hindus?” Whoever said that? Would a group of ‘whiners’ feel superior? Could you trace one statement in this article to indicate that? Or in any of my pieces? There’s most certainly anger and bitterness about the Hindutva ideology and those sympathising with it, I have strong reservations about the ‘mainstreaming’ business because of the bells and whistles that come with it…but superior/better? I have never suggested this about IMs or Muslims anywhere, but if you insist…aapki nawaazish hai.

About Pakistanis and how they treated Bangladeshis, I would like to see articles on the subject. But I am not a Pakistani. I am not going to write about honour killings and the Hudood Ordinance because there are people who are qualified to write about these and have done so.

Now Imrana…I am glad there is so much concern about her. Why have I not written about the case? they ask. (These are the same people who wanted to know why I was making an issue about Gudiya and Zaheera!) I already had an article about female exploitation of a kind on my earlier board…I did what I could there by posting a letter to the editor I had written (and which was published). My views rubbishing the mullahs were clearly spelled out there…I kept updating the news and views. But this was difficult to digest for some. So, it was, “why are you not really talking about Imrana?” I did. And it was real.

Re. general Muslim whining and how other people’s refugee families never did, I too can claim that no one in my family, immediate or extended, has ever done so – they went though several phases of life, there were times of privation that I did not have to go through, there were successes, there were failures like anyone else. But I cannot speak only about my family. They are not the prototype. I have never denied my ‘elitist’ lifestyle. But I am most certainly not sitting in an ivory tower.

I could do much more than I am doing, but it isn’t that I am doing nothing. And if I wish to speak up, or out, I will. The Muslims I speak about are Indians. It cannot be quid pro quo…when you speak about women’s rights also discuss men’s rights, when you speak about sex also discuss celibacy, when you write about food also mention bulimia…I have written on several subjects. That is all I can say.

I thank those who made me think more about these issues…and those who did say a few words that made me feel I was in good company. (I am more likely to be a distressing, rather than a distressed damsel, so no question of knights…)

I am making an exception here to mention one post (#105). This person has ‘historically’ been against most of what I write, thinks I have jihadi sympathies, but he has pointed out one of the most important statements I have made: “The Hindutva parties will once again talk about no peace talks with Pakistan. Don’t. We the people did not ask you to. That was not in your manifesto when you were voted to power. It was not in anyone’s manifesto. We know that all treacle is sticky.”
- - -
[PS. She is NOT making a beeline to the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi for a green card. She knows what happens to Shias and would happen to Ismailis in Pakistan. Or even just to women.]

It has nothing to do with what happens to Shias or Ismailis (a part of my family was there) or what happens to women. One, I don’t make a beeline for anything. Two, I have a country, I have a nationality – only because I am not obsequious it does not mean I do not owe allegiance to either. It is because I do that I feel the need to voice my thoughts. I know it would be easier to look the other way and enjoy an ayurvedic massage. And talk about how it is still raining…

Re: # 137

just a correction Kaalchakra,

Lord Krishna was not Yadav,he was raised by a Yadav,Nand.
He was son of Vasudev(Kunti`s brother) and was Kshatriya.

Brahmins were not kings but king makers and the patrons.

Only maurya dynasty was from lower caste...even that is debated by some.

#130>Jang,

Rishi Valmik was not from lower caste.Only rishi of lower caste at that time was Shambhook,who was killed by Lord Ram on complaint from the Brahmins.
According to them,he being fro lower caste was doing deeds which were of higher castes and because of this they expected some misfortune to happen to them and Lord Ram ``upheld the dharma`` by executing him for his crime as he did by sending Sita to exile.

jang

Even on a personal note, I wish I could `surrender` all my critical thinking, and gain complete faith in something rational or irrational. I can see how faith in even complete nonsense can be a source of huge strength.

How I long to have the faith that the moon was made of cheese. But I can`t. It seems so childish, and strength combined with childish mindset seems so dangerous....

A basic understanding of Hinduism beyond caste and cow will be very helpful to some friends here.

In India there were more low-caste Hindu kings than Brahmin kings.

Even Lord Krishna was a Yadava, not very Brahminish.

kaal, the main thing is that of true belief in god and the finality of divinity of a revealed religion. hindus (or indics if you prefer) are in a questioning doubt. semitics religions consider this a major weakness. you will often see references to hinduism is a hotchpotch of beliefs and superstition lacking an axiomatic clarity. some religions have takes good care of any doubts from the get-go.

i must say, i always admired ability of relinquishing doubt thru surrender or submission..lets you free to conduct worldly bussiness knowing a clean-cut way to spiritual salavation (whatever that means..to me it means mostly resolving guilt accumulated from resolving moral dillemas). going forward, ability to remain in doubt seems more acceptable to humans.

``I think that you could have been more balanced if you had directed some of your outrage at those who sponsor such attacks and their support infrastructure.``

Just wiser. Such acts are instances of extreme stupidity. They do not even conform to the doctrine of maintaining truce until the time one is assured of conquest.

``The indic tradition sees divinity in human beings`` should be ``The indic tradition sees in human beings divinity covered partially by the ignorance of this divinity.``

re: jang # 132

I have a similar (related?) hunch, although I haven`t thought long and hard enough on this to care to defend this view.

The semitic tradition focuses on evil in human beings. Each tribe considers its own religious ideology as a reflection of nothing but pure divinity (which is considered to be separate from the evil in human beings), hence regards it as perfect.

The indic tradition sees divinity in human beings. Each tribe considers its own religious ideology as an understanding of pure divinity (which is considered to be the same as the divinity in human beings), hence regards it as changeable.

That is why it is so hard to take something like Islam and make it look like Hinduism, or to make large populations of Hindus behave like populations of Muslims.

one thing of interest is hindus acknowledge caste as part of parcel of being human AND as codified by the religious practice. islamists consider intolerance and subjugation of other humans as purely a human folly. also, hindus think islam bright as it were, was able to get a large number of adherents to its fold, these adherents remained human bigots, practicing castes, even the gulf arabs think low of philipinos. islamist think the original humans were so mired in bigotary, that even bright knowledge of islam was not able to remove the blight.

bottomline, i see two views, no clear pudding based conclusion.

#130

Shivaji`s army was predominantly lower-caste, so were lot of his generals.

#126 vertex

yes some famous folks were low-caste..chandragupta maurya, poet valmiki are two who come to mind.

Re:Kashmakash

Please send the suicide bombers. It is time we have a final showdown with Pakistan. The fourth and final battle of Panipat between muslims and non-muslims. Except this one will be with nukes. India will be hurt, but, by God, we will turn entire Pakistan into Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war started by Mohd bin Qasim needs a closure. We have tried everything but it is just not possible to live along side with you.

An oddity - no group has claimed responsibility. Is it because the mission was a failure?