[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re:RFD on Reorgn of SRH (response to V K Rao)
[This is in response to the post by V Rao. Since that post mostly dealt
with the term Hindu rather than RFD on s.r.h. reorganization -- imo,
and my dwelling in my prv posts was mostly on the RFD, i choose to
to address the post separately. This post deals with RFD debate while
my other posts will be to srh and/or srv depending on the content,
reg the term hindu]
My interest in the ng -- news.groups -- basically arises from sci.j-k and
srh.reorganization RFDs. I do not anticipate dwelling on technical debates
of the srh or srv as much as regular readers of those groups. My arguments
of my prv post were that:
(1) When S Rao, the two V Pai's and Mani (all or some of them) argued
against the definition of the term Hindu as given in V Rao's post
that should not be construed as disowning hinduism by them. Even if
they disowned it, my understanding from posts on news.groups is that
they did it w.r.t. the particular definition in question.
(2) Even if one has proved that they are wrong (i am not acceding yet,
but hypothetically), that does not mean that they are not hindus, just
that they are wrong in their analysis of the given definiton.
(3) Their argument that 'not all vaishnavites are hindus' can not
result in their losing locus-standi for proposing or defending the RFD.
(4) While discussing RFD, imho, one shoud consider the following:
(a) argue the contents of RFD rather than 'personalities' especially
when the issues like definition of the term hindu, or relationship
between the terms 'vaishnava and hindu' have not been explicitely
contained in RFD, and hence their view is in no way thrust on
the proposed reorganization.
(b) In my opinion even a christian or muslim can legitimately propose
a ng on hinduism if they have interest in learning, discussing or
debating aspects of hinduism. Reorganization proposal is similar
to creating a ng, since there is nothing in it that involves the
proposers or defenders with the "moderation" of the groups and
hence will have no "control" over it. (imo, even if it involves
moderation by non-hindus, it would still be ligitimate. Just
as we quote christian pundits for the definition of the term
Hindu ==i guess ).
(5) To the best of my understanding the s.r.h. as it exists today
has not been formally tied to the said definition of the term hindu
when it (ng) was created. Hence someone not agreeing with the definition
can not be 'tanhiya' (sp?) or outcast for proposing or defending the RFD.
reorganising this group.
In contrast, i found most criticism of RFD on the basis that:
(1) it is proposed by non-hindus, or by those who 'claimed to be
non-hindus' in a certain context
(2) the proposers or defenders are "conspiring" to oust Ajay Shah
(3) the proposers or defenders are out to take "control" of the news group
(4) the proposers should, as a pre-condition, declare that they
are hindus according to the definition proposed by V Rao
(5) the proposers or defenders have to accept that all vaishnavites are
hindus.
V Rao's current post has not helped me to understand the objections
to the current RFD.
------------------------------------------------------
V Rao wrote probably obliquely referring to my post:
* A certain nettor (name withheld to protect the guilty) argued that the
definition proposed in this thread excluded some vaishnavas from hindus.
------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the "fatwa" of guilt, outperforming AK's decree against
Salman Rushdie. I am just curious to know: what the charges were, what
the due-process was, what the judgement was, what the punishment is,
and where the speaking order is.
ofcourse, like you cant question the term as defined by V.Rao, you
cant question the fatwa either...
