Church Lures Gujarat Tribals to Christ
Sunil K Poolani November 15, 2005
#147 Posted by SN on November 17, 2005 1:53:06 pm
Dost, Urstruly
Interesting discussion. Keep it going....
I am not sure if SameerJB is around. I would love his take on this.
Dostji,
[Thus anyone claiming that sharia is not an essential part of Islam or that Casteism is not a part of Hinduism is laying the foundation of a dishonest dialogue. ]
They may very well not be a part of the religion at all. But for a majority of followers it is an integral part, in the way they perceive and practice their religion. So, any talk of understanding/reforming a religion without correcting these is just not gonna work.
SN
Interesting discussion. Keep it going....
I am not sure if SameerJB is around. I would love his take on this.
Dostji,
[Thus anyone claiming that sharia is not an essential part of Islam or that Casteism is not a part of Hinduism is laying the foundation of a dishonest dialogue. ]
They may very well not be a part of the religion at all. But for a majority of followers it is an integral part, in the way they perceive and practice their religion. So, any talk of understanding/reforming a religion without correcting these is just not gonna work.
SN
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#145 Posted by dullabhatti on November 17, 2005 1:30:41 pm
#141 Dost ji you wrote ``The exception is Krishna who, in Bhagvad Gita, does claim to be God himself. But that too is one brief moment in the life of Krishna. And there are many who claim that Bhagvad Gita is really not part of Mahabharat but a stand-alone document which was inserted in the story of Mahabharat later on.``
Did Krishna write Bhagwat Gita or Mahabharat? My understanding was these scriptures were written later. Since Krishna was not the author himself, how can he claim in Bhagwat Gita that he is God? Please iss te thoRha chaan`ana pao te meharbani.
Did Krishna write Bhagwat Gita or Mahabharat? My understanding was these scriptures were written later. Since Krishna was not the author himself, how can he claim in Bhagwat Gita that he is God? Please iss te thoRha chaan`ana pao te meharbani.
#148 Posted by samosa on November 17, 2005 1:57:33 pm
Re: # 145
Bhagvad Gita is a conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjun when Arjun becomes filled with doubt on the battlefield. Realising who his enemies are; relatives, beloved friends, and revered teachers.
To demonstrate the infinity of the unknowable Brahman, Krishna gives Arjun a glimpse of cosmic sight and allows the prince to see Him in all his divine glory. He reveals that He is fundamentally both the ultimate essence of being in the universe and also its material body.
Bhagvad Gita is a conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjun when Arjun becomes filled with doubt on the battlefield. Realising who his enemies are; relatives, beloved friends, and revered teachers.
To demonstrate the infinity of the unknowable Brahman, Krishna gives Arjun a glimpse of cosmic sight and allows the prince to see Him in all his divine glory. He reveals that He is fundamentally both the ultimate essence of being in the universe and also its material body.
#144 Posted by Urstruly on November 17, 2005 1:25:38 pm
Dost
I think in olden times when human mind was still evolving and societies were primitive God sent his messengers who taught human beings about their Creator. The message was readily acceptable to those people because Cause-and-effect is so hardwired into our genes. However, later as the time passed, in each and every society man started thinking how could God who is so benevolent and who sustains me, how could He take my beloved child away from me. How could a God who is so merciful kill so many people in flood or earthquake. How does he allow bad things happen to me. Attributing all the bad things to that benevolent God was considered ultimate sin and blasphemy; so in order to be safe from blasphemy man created the concept of a good god and a bad god. Where there was a Mazda, there became an Aharman too. Man became a toy between these two dieties. This concept further developed and man started thinking, hey how could a God who sustains me and grows my crops can also bring flood that destroys my crops. So he argued that there must be a god of crops and harvest and another god for flood and disaster.
So then man thought it sounds so illogical and gods seem so petty who fight over my crop and my harvest of fish, so he assigned them a second tier as dieties. Whereas the concept of a Supreme Being remained intact who would intervene only in case those dieties became out of control and the misery of man became uncontrolled. That is the reason that there are identical attributes of gods and godesses in Hindu, Greek, Norsk, and Roman mythologies and almost all pagan religions.
Ironically, the core argument of Atheism is also that how can a benevolent God be Cruel at the same time. Why would he let small children die. How can he allow women to get raped and men go blind and die in misery?
Qura`n refers to first phenomenon as ``Shirk`` i.e. creating false gods along with Supreme Being. and second phenomenon as ``Kufr`` i.e. ouright denial that God even exists. A good portion of Qura`n is dedicated to these two phenomenon.
Islam stipulates that both good and bad are from God. And both good and bad are a test to the human being. God tests us when He blesses us with good, whether we spread his bounty around or not. And when bad things happen to us He tests us whether we remain loyal to Him or not. The pupose of life is to pass His tests with flying colors. Now that the human mind is primitive no more and his faculties of reasoning and understanding have developed to this degree this concept of test must be understandable for him.
#143 Posted by dullabhatti on November 17, 2005 1:24:47 pm
tahmed sahib, fine I am Robertson and you are mother Teresa but before you wrote #104, you did write #54. If one is deliberately lied, duped, cheated into making a decision, I don`t call it free will.
#141 Posted by dost_mittar on November 17, 2005 12:13:32 pm
Urstruly#118:
Before I write this post, may I say that while I miss the ``old`` urstruly`s wit and barbs, I like your new avatar more. It`s more earnest and persuasive style than the old. Now, to your post.
I think that if there is going to be a dialogue and understanding among religions, especially between Hindus and Muslims, it should be on the basis of honesty and truth and not on the basis of distortions of reality. Thus anyone claiming that sharia is not an essential part of Islam or that Casteism is not a part of Hinduism is laying the foundation of a dishonest dialogue.
Secondly, I am a bit uncomfortable talking about Hinduism as my knowledge of that religion is less than my knowledge of Islam and Sikhism. But I will share whatever imperfect knowledge I have and let others correct me when I falter.
Brahma, Vishnu and Shiv are not three deities but, according to the Hindu mythology, are the three manifestations of the same Supreme Being, Allah or Parmatma. In these manifestations, they perform separate roles, Brahma that of creator of the universe, Vishnu that of its preserver and Shiv that of the destroyer. Brahma and Shiv do not incarnate, all nine avtars of Hindus are incarnations of Vishnu, whose job it is to protect and preserve the balance in the universe.
As far as I know, Hindu avtars generally did not claim to be avtars, but the avtardom was attributed to them by later authors/poets/sages. The exception is Krishna who, in Bhagvad Gita, does claim to be God himself. But that too is one brief moment in the life of Krishna. And there are many who claim that Bhagvad Gita is really not part of Mahabharat but a stand-alone document which was inserted in the story of Mahabharat later on. As you can see, Hinduism lacks the definiteness and certainty that is characterisitc of the Abrahamic religion.
Most religions have two aspects - a moral code and a metaphysical explanation of the world. I think that most religions do more or less agree on the moral code, which can be encapsulated in a single commandment, ``Dont do unto others what you dont want them to do unto you!``. But there is no unanimity on the second part. Here, the eastern religions, in particular, show a tremendous diversity, with the underlying theme of karma and rebirth, two elements that seem to be missing in the Abrahamic faiths.
I also agree that division of socieities into some kind of a hierarchy was probably common to all societies, Hindus just seemed to have perfected it and more successful at retaining it for a longer period of time than other religions.
``As his horizon broadened one day he went into that grand temple and broke all the idols of the temple except one which was the idol of the highest diety. He put his hammer on the shoulder of that diety. Soon the priests and king found out that someone had broken all the idols. Every one suspected Abraham of the crime but when he was enquired he pointed to the idol of the chief diety and said don`t you see that he has the hammer on his shoulder. The king argued that it was just an idol how could he broke other idols.``
This is quite similar to what we read in our school books about the founder of the Arya Samaj sect of Hindus, Daya Nand. He saw that mice were eating the sweets donated to Lord Shiva on the night of Shivratri. He argued that how could an idol who could not protect himself from a mice protect other humans. He turned strictly against idol worship, which is what distinguishes Arya Samajis from Sanatanist Hindus.
Before I write this post, may I say that while I miss the ``old`` urstruly`s wit and barbs, I like your new avatar more. It`s more earnest and persuasive style than the old. Now, to your post.
I think that if there is going to be a dialogue and understanding among religions, especially between Hindus and Muslims, it should be on the basis of honesty and truth and not on the basis of distortions of reality. Thus anyone claiming that sharia is not an essential part of Islam or that Casteism is not a part of Hinduism is laying the foundation of a dishonest dialogue.
Secondly, I am a bit uncomfortable talking about Hinduism as my knowledge of that religion is less than my knowledge of Islam and Sikhism. But I will share whatever imperfect knowledge I have and let others correct me when I falter.
Brahma, Vishnu and Shiv are not three deities but, according to the Hindu mythology, are the three manifestations of the same Supreme Being, Allah or Parmatma. In these manifestations, they perform separate roles, Brahma that of creator of the universe, Vishnu that of its preserver and Shiv that of the destroyer. Brahma and Shiv do not incarnate, all nine avtars of Hindus are incarnations of Vishnu, whose job it is to protect and preserve the balance in the universe.
As far as I know, Hindu avtars generally did not claim to be avtars, but the avtardom was attributed to them by later authors/poets/sages. The exception is Krishna who, in Bhagvad Gita, does claim to be God himself. But that too is one brief moment in the life of Krishna. And there are many who claim that Bhagvad Gita is really not part of Mahabharat but a stand-alone document which was inserted in the story of Mahabharat later on. As you can see, Hinduism lacks the definiteness and certainty that is characterisitc of the Abrahamic religion.
Most religions have two aspects - a moral code and a metaphysical explanation of the world. I think that most religions do more or less agree on the moral code, which can be encapsulated in a single commandment, ``Dont do unto others what you dont want them to do unto you!``. But there is no unanimity on the second part. Here, the eastern religions, in particular, show a tremendous diversity, with the underlying theme of karma and rebirth, two elements that seem to be missing in the Abrahamic faiths.
I also agree that division of socieities into some kind of a hierarchy was probably common to all societies, Hindus just seemed to have perfected it and more successful at retaining it for a longer period of time than other religions.
``As his horizon broadened one day he went into that grand temple and broke all the idols of the temple except one which was the idol of the highest diety. He put his hammer on the shoulder of that diety. Soon the priests and king found out that someone had broken all the idols. Every one suspected Abraham of the crime but when he was enquired he pointed to the idol of the chief diety and said don`t you see that he has the hammer on his shoulder. The king argued that it was just an idol how could he broke other idols.``
This is quite similar to what we read in our school books about the founder of the Arya Samaj sect of Hindus, Daya Nand. He saw that mice were eating the sweets donated to Lord Shiva on the night of Shivratri. He argued that how could an idol who could not protect himself from a mice protect other humans. He turned strictly against idol worship, which is what distinguishes Arya Samajis from Sanatanist Hindus.
#149 Posted by samosa on November 17, 2005 2:02:21 pm
Re: # 141
DM, Caste is a part of Hinduism but nowhere Hinduism tells to discriminate among people of different castes. Since, Hinduism does not have a single book but I dont know if Ramayan, Mahabharat or Gita every talks about it.
Today caste is used to discriminate people but those who are doing it because of ignorance or selfish reason. India needs to get rid of casteism and only way its going to come is through education.
DM, Caste is a part of Hinduism but nowhere Hinduism tells to discriminate among people of different castes. Since, Hinduism does not have a single book but I dont know if Ramayan, Mahabharat or Gita every talks about it.
Today caste is used to discriminate people but those who are doing it because of ignorance or selfish reason. India needs to get rid of casteism and only way its going to come is through education.
#140 Posted by parthaab on November 17, 2005 11:51:50 am
If religion were just a private club for loonies and the misguided and those being taken advantage of, carrying on its practices behind closed doors with its incense and its candles and its dressing up and its peculiar rituals and its collections, that would be okay, more or less.
But it isn`t just a private club. It has taken custody of ``good``. Religion claims the right to determine what is good, and what is bad/evil, and it appropriates unto itself the right to tell the rest of us what to think and how to think on various subjects, and what `being bad` is.
To claim to speak with authority on behalf of a god on various subjects when the reality seems to be that they are just making it up on the back of an old envelope on a whim and they grab any old text and claim that text is the word of a god is fundamentally dishonest.
If religion can`t say, hand on heart, ``this is definitely what a god thinks, he told us so``, then they should shut up and stop making it up.
It is unfortunate that most religous comments to not contain the warning (even in small print): this or that is just a theory and may in the fullness of time be proved to be completely untrue or completely or partially true... we just don`t know at the moment and theologists are working on proofs but for the past 10,000 years have failed to find them. Noneless most monks, priests, churchwardens and choirboys think that for the time being it is seems a plausible theory even though plenty of people think it implausible, but hey their opinions aren`t worth a row of beans because ``generally accepted religious opinion`` overrides scepticism until the weight of evidence causes a theory to be regarded as untenable... eg `an eye for an eye` as defunct compared to flavour of the decade, the `turn the other cheek` ideology, but both are equally admissiblable and merely ideologies, yet the latter appears to be more acceptable, though the former was more acceptable in earler centuries. Priests who changed their minds and who now believe the `eye for an eye`ideology were of course misled and misleading earlier generations of students by wasting their time on something hardly anyone believes in nowadays. The religious community apologises in advance if by the time you read this text, the theory is disproved and replaced by something else... you will be credited for your time studying the history of religion and the daft theory which we now find amusingly naive, of which this may be one, or then again it may not, in which case you heard it first from us.``
It amuses me that the church - not known for its support for homosexuals - has been run by them for centuries.
Being a priest was one of the only ways of hiding your indifference to women in society without getting a red hot poker rammed up your jacksie.
... and let`s not forget nuns.
Why is it that religious people get very excited at finding a line in the holy book prohibiting homosexual acts, but they go all quiet when you point out the bits that talk about blood sacrifice or killing members of your own family to show your love of God? Sanctimonious cherry pickers, the lot of them.
We are put in this club or that (Muslim, Christian, Protestant, Church of the Yellow Rabbit) before we can think for ourselves. There, often, we tend to stay, even once we can think for ourselves. The music may be rather nice. The social gatherings may be rather nice. What being religious (and therefore righteous?) says about us may be rather nice. Too nice to leave, whatever we believe.
One has to distinguish between (a) being in a particular club (a matter of social convenience and status) and (b) believing what the club pretends to believe (an entirely different issue).
At a guess, probably most members of any particular religion don`t actually believe what the religion pretends to believe, but that isn`t a bar to attendance or membership. The more the merrier. So the farce that religion is, continues.
Children are the most influencible and that is why most religious target children to ingrain their blind beliefs, which become hard to erase later in life.
Seeing the direct and indirect religious conflicts around the world, should nt there be a minimum age, say 16, after which children can be exposed to this `opium` of the masses?
The problem with debates on religion is that they turn into an ``us-versus-them`` affair with all secularists branded as unreconstructed atheists and enemies of the faith, and all believers as irrational and fanatical. You cannot compare religion with science, but only with other religions. Political religion is a real danger in the future.
Will the world ever manage to get rid of religion? Probably not. We are stuck with it.
I am always shocked when those who consider themselves to be `intelligent` (I am thinking of Bush and Blair, among others) continue to believe that their lives are controlled by a man who lives in the sky.
If an alien landed from another planet and was told `I have never seen God, I just know he`s there, and he can see what everyone is doing at the same time, and I go into a building and sing songs to Him..` they would faint with incredulity.
Not to mention `when I am dead, I will carry on living, if I behave myself now`...
Unfortunately people who believe this sort of stuff have the ear and maybe heart (if not brain) of the world`s only remaining super-power. Christianity doesn`t have the monopoly on religious bigots. Religion and its obsession with genitalia may be mildly amusing at first glance....but sadly I don`t think it`s harmless and I don`t think it`s going away.
But it isn`t just a private club. It has taken custody of ``good``. Religion claims the right to determine what is good, and what is bad/evil, and it appropriates unto itself the right to tell the rest of us what to think and how to think on various subjects, and what `being bad` is.
To claim to speak with authority on behalf of a god on various subjects when the reality seems to be that they are just making it up on the back of an old envelope on a whim and they grab any old text and claim that text is the word of a god is fundamentally dishonest.
If religion can`t say, hand on heart, ``this is definitely what a god thinks, he told us so``, then they should shut up and stop making it up.
It is unfortunate that most religous comments to not contain the warning (even in small print): this or that is just a theory and may in the fullness of time be proved to be completely untrue or completely or partially true... we just don`t know at the moment and theologists are working on proofs but for the past 10,000 years have failed to find them. Noneless most monks, priests, churchwardens and choirboys think that for the time being it is seems a plausible theory even though plenty of people think it implausible, but hey their opinions aren`t worth a row of beans because ``generally accepted religious opinion`` overrides scepticism until the weight of evidence causes a theory to be regarded as untenable... eg `an eye for an eye` as defunct compared to flavour of the decade, the `turn the other cheek` ideology, but both are equally admissiblable and merely ideologies, yet the latter appears to be more acceptable, though the former was more acceptable in earler centuries. Priests who changed their minds and who now believe the `eye for an eye`ideology were of course misled and misleading earlier generations of students by wasting their time on something hardly anyone believes in nowadays. The religious community apologises in advance if by the time you read this text, the theory is disproved and replaced by something else... you will be credited for your time studying the history of religion and the daft theory which we now find amusingly naive, of which this may be one, or then again it may not, in which case you heard it first from us.``
It amuses me that the church - not known for its support for homosexuals - has been run by them for centuries.
Being a priest was one of the only ways of hiding your indifference to women in society without getting a red hot poker rammed up your jacksie.
... and let`s not forget nuns.
Why is it that religious people get very excited at finding a line in the holy book prohibiting homosexual acts, but they go all quiet when you point out the bits that talk about blood sacrifice or killing members of your own family to show your love of God? Sanctimonious cherry pickers, the lot of them.
We are put in this club or that (Muslim, Christian, Protestant, Church of the Yellow Rabbit) before we can think for ourselves. There, often, we tend to stay, even once we can think for ourselves. The music may be rather nice. The social gatherings may be rather nice. What being religious (and therefore righteous?) says about us may be rather nice. Too nice to leave, whatever we believe.
One has to distinguish between (a) being in a particular club (a matter of social convenience and status) and (b) believing what the club pretends to believe (an entirely different issue).
At a guess, probably most members of any particular religion don`t actually believe what the religion pretends to believe, but that isn`t a bar to attendance or membership. The more the merrier. So the farce that religion is, continues.
Children are the most influencible and that is why most religious target children to ingrain their blind beliefs, which become hard to erase later in life.
Seeing the direct and indirect religious conflicts around the world, should nt there be a minimum age, say 16, after which children can be exposed to this `opium` of the masses?
The problem with debates on religion is that they turn into an ``us-versus-them`` affair with all secularists branded as unreconstructed atheists and enemies of the faith, and all believers as irrational and fanatical. You cannot compare religion with science, but only with other religions. Political religion is a real danger in the future.
Will the world ever manage to get rid of religion? Probably not. We are stuck with it.
I am always shocked when those who consider themselves to be `intelligent` (I am thinking of Bush and Blair, among others) continue to believe that their lives are controlled by a man who lives in the sky.
If an alien landed from another planet and was told `I have never seen God, I just know he`s there, and he can see what everyone is doing at the same time, and I go into a building and sing songs to Him..` they would faint with incredulity.
Not to mention `when I am dead, I will carry on living, if I behave myself now`...
Unfortunately people who believe this sort of stuff have the ear and maybe heart (if not brain) of the world`s only remaining super-power. Christianity doesn`t have the monopoly on religious bigots. Religion and its obsession with genitalia may be mildly amusing at first glance....but sadly I don`t think it`s harmless and I don`t think it`s going away.
#139 Posted by tahmed32 on November 17, 2005 11:49:15 am
jang #130 I expect dullabhatti (based on his earlier posts) to show a higher standard of rational discussion than Pat Robertson (or Jay Thakeray or Urstruly for that matter).
#138 Posted by tahmed32 on November 17, 2005 11:43:08 am
dullabhatti #127: In #104, you started with my correction to Dost Mittar by quoting this from me: ``what i am arguing for is not conversions, but in the right of the individual to convert if he/she wishes. that is all, so please dont read more into it than what i am saying. `` and you contradicted what I wrote by saying ``Tahmed, thats not what you were advocating in previous posts. `` and followed it up with bold lettered statements clearly implying that I this is not what I have been saying all along.
Well sir, this is exactly what I have been arguing for all along as you could easily see from the earlier posts. So please next time instead of simply claiming I said something, take the trouble of cutting and pasting what I wrote and THEN challenging it if you dont agree. Then we might even have a discussion that gets somewhere.
Well sir, this is exactly what I have been arguing for all along as you could easily see from the earlier posts. So please next time instead of simply claiming I said something, take the trouble of cutting and pasting what I wrote and THEN challenging it if you dont agree. Then we might even have a discussion that gets somewhere.
#133 Posted by samosa on November 17, 2005 11:22:34 am
Re: # 132
You said in 126 The second being that a compromise between the VHP and christian missionaries talked about a few months ago were only being given effect.
and again in 131 Can you tell me what the christian organisation compromised with the VHP in its talks following similar conversion related riots?
That is what I am asking as I have not heard of any compromise or even any meeting to discuss compromise between VHP and others.
Neither I have heard about conversion riots in ahmedabad or other cities of Gujarat.
You do agree that there is not relation in being atheist and prosperous.
You said in 126 The second being that a compromise between the VHP and christian missionaries talked about a few months ago were only being given effect.
and again in 131 Can you tell me what the christian organisation compromised with the VHP in its talks following similar conversion related riots?
That is what I am asking as I have not heard of any compromise or even any meeting to discuss compromise between VHP and others.
Neither I have heard about conversion riots in ahmedabad or other cities of Gujarat.
You do agree that there is not relation in being atheist and prosperous.
#137 Posted by wahi_to on November 17, 2005 11:39:44 am
this would be a good strategy:
hindu organizations get involved and provide benefits to the tribals and they revert back to hinduism. then christian missionaries up the stake and provide better benefits to the tribals and they convert back to christianity. This loop goes on till the tribals become wealthy and then they forsake religion for Marx.
hindu organizations get involved and provide benefits to the tribals and they revert back to hinduism. then christian missionaries up the stake and provide better benefits to the tribals and they convert back to christianity. This loop goes on till the tribals become wealthy and then they forsake religion for Marx.
#136 Posted by parthaab on November 17, 2005 11:39:07 am
Re: # 133
Riots took place in Kerala following the activities of some foreign missionaries. They resulted in the loss of limb of the missionary, and a court order to leave.
In Orissa too, a missionary was burnt alive and peace talks were held between the extremist groups.
Riots took place in Kerala following the activities of some foreign missionaries. They resulted in the loss of limb of the missionary, and a court order to leave.
In Orissa too, a missionary was burnt alive and peace talks were held between the extremist groups.
#146 Posted by samosa on November 17, 2005 1:51:12 pm
Re: # 136
About kerala episode:
Loss of limb is a complete lie. That particular missionary was on a tourist visa. He was violating his visa as a tourist is not suppose to participate in missionary activities. And the reason for him to run away was that he would be arrested by police for violation of visa.
Riot usually involves lot more people than in that incident.
Graham staines murder if that is what you are talking about then it was a murder. Even the court said that VHP is not involved in it. Again it was a murder more than a riot.
About kerala episode:
Loss of limb is a complete lie. That particular missionary was on a tourist visa. He was violating his visa as a tourist is not suppose to participate in missionary activities. And the reason for him to run away was that he would be arrested by police for violation of visa.
Riot usually involves lot more people than in that incident.
Graham staines murder if that is what you are talking about then it was a murder. Even the court said that VHP is not involved in it. Again it was a murder more than a riot.
#135 Posted by parthaab on November 17, 2005 11:38:52 am
Re: # 133
Riots took place in Kerala following the activities of some foreign missionaries. They resulted in the loss of limb of the missionary, and a court order to leave.
In Orissa too, a missionary was burnt alive and peace talks were held between the extremist groups.
Riots took place in Kerala following the activities of some foreign missionaries. They resulted in the loss of limb of the missionary, and a court order to leave.
In Orissa too, a missionary was burnt alive and peace talks were held between the extremist groups.
#134 Posted by parthaab on November 17, 2005 11:32:53 am
Re: # 133
India will have a lot more time for development if it stopped being religious.
Only the VHP and the christian missionaries know what they decided upon. I am only infering that the VHP knows this is happening and is willing to let it go, particularly with a BJP in government, which can be blown away if the VHP so want it.
The ground reality is that people are being converted. And Modi is doing nothing to stop it.
India will have a lot more time for development if it stopped being religious.
Only the VHP and the christian missionaries know what they decided upon. I am only infering that the VHP knows this is happening and is willing to let it go, particularly with a BJP in government, which can be blown away if the VHP so want it.
The ground reality is that people are being converted. And Modi is doing nothing to stop it.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: #40 majumdar bhai: rest... US Commando Strike in
- hamidm2: Re: # 44 naeem mian, ........ US Commando Strike in
- tahmed32: A dose of reality... US Commando Strike in
- shabha: can anybody please find... Why Zardari Should Be
- naeemchaudry: We the Pakistanis would... US Commando Strike in
- mohar11: see - the "good"... US Commando Strike in
- mohar11: Re: # 41 [...This does... US Commando Strike in
- Faruk: hamdim2 #various If and there... Why Zardari Should Be
