[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: SRH: There is a need to be careful here Re: Religious unity


In article <4dnr32$rqc@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, "C. Kambhampati" <shskambh@reading.ac.uk> writes:
[...]
|> srh-reorg debate is a sham - just as your folowwup  here. There really
|> is nothing worthwhile in what you and others are proposing and from

>From this line, it seems that you don't see the point of a reorg.

|> where I stand (and I have been following this debate and the ones which
|> occurred during the srv debate) I am being forced to agree with A. Shah
|> that there appears to a political motive here. 
|> 
|> And if you are asking me for analysis - it is better to look at yourself
|> and see that harm you and your ilk are doing to the reorg discussion. Do
|> not get me wrong reorg is a must 

and from this line, it seems that you _want_ a reorg. Which is it?

|> but you and your co-proposers are
|> doing a down right poor job of this reorg business and are turning of
|> people who would have been carried forward with the re-org porposals.
|> I am coming to the conclusion, seeing the hamfisted manner in which the

"Hamfisted"? Let's see - we've been accused of everything from being
non-Hindus, having ulterior motives, wanting Ajay's job, and Nagaraj 
Patil, in his (in)famous post, even went so far as to say:

"Some times I feel that there is no difference between muslims and SRVs. 
 They want to build their babri masjid on SRH janmabhoomi."

Now, after all of that, all we've done is respond, usually politely,
but sometimes a little less so, but overall, I think that we've
been pretty nice in our responses, especially given the number of
charges and insults hurled at us.

|> proponents of thsi re-org debate have been carrying on, that there is an
|> ulterior motive. So please do ask for analysis from me, when you
|> yourself are providing very little.

You apparently missed some of the discussion, because it would've
answered some of your statements below.

|> Am not rejecting anything in the BJP notion nor am I supporting it. (of
|> hindu ness that is). I am merely pointing out the paralleles between the
|> arguments on this thread and the arguments put forward by the BJP
|> people. 

May I remind you of what seems to be the operational definition of
"Who is a Hindu" that is _CURRENTLY_ being used on SRH:

  "Who is a Hindu? The word Hindu embraces
  * all the people who believe in, practice and respect or follow the eternal
  values of life, ethical and spiritual, that originated in the historical
  land of the Hindus (Indian subcontinent).
  * all those who live outside of Bharat, but follow Hindu dharma
    => Hindu Dharma includes Buddha, Jain, Sikh, Vaishnav, etc. al. Dharmas.

  This system is compromised of many philosophies, religions, and values.
  It is a cultural ethos"

This definition comes from an HSC pamphlet I received, and if you
look at the GHEN site (where SRH is archived, etc.), you will find
that Jains, Sihks, and Buddhists are most definitely listed as
Hindus ON the GLOBAL HINDU ELECTRONIC NETWORK.

So, in your process of drawing parallels (as you've mentioned
above), I am surprised that you didn't notice that the definition
that I've been using (and that some of the other proponents are
using) is _exactly_ the same as the definition CURRENTLY BEING USED.

|> If you find that inconvinient - please feel free to feel
|> inconvinient. And also please fell free to say why you feel so
|> inconvinienced.

I believe it's now up to you to explain why you missed this one.

|> The supreme-court ruling has come thru after some 40 odd years to rtying
|> to get the country to say Hinduness is Indianness. If this is the case
|> then I am sure many muslims, christains etc would be aggreable to call
|> themselves Hindus. Next before we proceed any further care to define
|> what in your books is Indianness.
|> 
|> If you can answer this question, then I am sure you would realise the 
|> contradictory nature of the stance taken by some of the proponents in 
|> this debate.

The stance is not at all contradictory. See above.

|> See from where I stand what I see is this. Baring a few like Mani 
|> Varadarajan and others - for whom I have immense respect, most people 
|> seem to be equating Hindu with ethnicity. The supreme courst judges said 
|> HINDUTVA WAS INDIANESS NOT HINDU=INDIA(n). THAT IS THE FUNDEMENTAL FLAW IN 
|> YOUR ARGUMENT. 

Given that "our argument" is no different from the existing SRH's
definition, then would you care to enlighten me about why you feel
as you do?

|> SInce we are all conducting this debate in ENGLISH and in 
|> ENGLISH WE ARE ALL CALLED HINDUS (the main stream people atleast - those 
|> subscribing to cults like ISKCON are just that - cultists - for whom when 

Cute - you even manage to get in a gratuitous insult here and there.

|> it suits them (like the Bhaktivedanta manor dispute) we are ALL HINDUS 
|> (YES READ THEIR STATEMENTS IN THE PRESS AND THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM SUNRISE 
|> RADIO in LONDON WHEN THEY WERE ON A TALK SHOW SOMETIME BACK)else they 
|> are seperate from this gigantic black mass calling themselves hindus - 
|> see we are vaisnavaites.). 

At this point, I think I see your confusion - one can be a Hindu and
a Vaishnavite, or a Hindu and a Saivite, etc., and you seem to believe
that the proponents have indicated otherwise.

We have not.

I have stated that I am a Hindu, Mani has stated that he is a Hindu,
and so on. There has been nothing saying that a Vaishnavite is not
a Hindu. On the contrary - it has been said repeatedly that one can
be both.

|> Hindu and hinduism cannot be equated to 
|> ethnicity, may be HINDUTVA CAN BE EQUATED TO ETHNICITY (which ofcourse 
|> one of the proponents (Shrisha Rao) agrees with).

Read the HSC definition again, and you'll see it has nothing to
do with ethnicity, and everything to do with culture.

|> What I can say is this, SRH is fine as it is. 

Compare this statement to the statement above, where you say 
"Do not get me wrong reorg is a must" and your statement below, where
you say "SRH needs to be reorganised".

Which is it?

|> The proponents of the reorg 
|> move if they so DEISRE CAN CREATE THEIR OWN GROUPS with THE NAMES THEY 
|> CHOOSE. SRH is fine and HINDUS of ALL HEWS (I count myself as one amongst 
|> the many) would find the current position of SRH fine. 

Interesting - you seem to indicate that anyone who has spoken out
in favor of this is not a Hindu. Is that your contention, and if so,
why?

|> If PEOPLE WANT to 
|> creat groups without the 'h' part let them create their own groups, and 
|> quit this business of reorganising SRH under the pretext of improving 
|> SRH. For it appears that is not the agenda nor the intent here.

Could we keep this at the verifiable and rational level, please?

|> This SRH reorg business started off with the SRV debate and I have read
|> many articles which did allude to the prospect of reorging SRH in order to
|> have sweet revenge. This is what I as a bystander feelon this issue. 

Given that even others who had originally opposed this reorg referred
to them as "bad cut-and-paste jobs", I am surprised that you believe
those claims have some sort of validity.

|> If people following differents schools of thought consider themselves not to be
|> HINDUs let them create a seperate group. 

I'm a Hindu. How many times would you like me to say it, and why are
you so seemingly insistent on branding us as non-Hindus?

|> They need not suffer the
|> INDIGNITY of trying to reorganise a group which has been functioning
|> well so far(and people who consider themselves to be hindus are happy
|> with the name). 

You make the mistake of assuming that the entire world agrees with
you, and I can assure you that it does not. Other people have spoken
up about how this group's response time was not sufficient in the
past, and how it has improved now. 

As for "happy with the name", could you please tell me where anyone
has even remotely suggested removing the word Hindu from this
group?

|> There is only one newgroup which is missing - I would 
|> suggest that a newsgroup called 
|> SRH.REORG.PROPONENTS.TRANSPARENTLY.POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED be formed.

Once again, let's keep this a little nicer, please.

|> God wish this was handled in a better manner, SRH needs to be reorganised, 
|> but you lot have really killed it and wasted your efforts for you are all so
|> transparent.

And a good day to you, too.

-Vivek
Fri Jan 19 14:01:37 CST 1996
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.