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

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

C. Kambhampati <shskambh@reading.ac.uk> wrote:


>My intention was not to provide any analysis to the srh reorg debate.
>That is already being provided in copious amounts by a number of people
>- at the same time the arguments are repeated so often that the
>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
>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 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
>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.


i think you are a bit too hard on Shrisha Rao. He did not participate
in the RFD debate for a *long* time due to his ill health. 

Of the proponents, you have already expressed great respect to Mani V
like most of us do. You have also expressed to some others, and i am
guessing it could be at least one of V Pai's. And relatively Vijay
Pai contribution is much less compared to Vivek. (my estimation only,
that too, interms of volume of writing). 

I have not seen a single  point left  unanswered by Vivek Pai (at 
least, i can say he makes sincere attempt). every question, even if
it is raised umpteenth time, he tried to answer it. very rarely one
finds, (if one actually does) losing temper, or beating around the 
bush.

On the other hand, many posts from the opponents to RFD have been on
the personalities. even if the questions are answered on statistical
data , for example, no-one takes pain to analyse the statistics and
question. instead, always refer to the statistics as skewed without
explaining how they are so. all apprehensions raised by ajay shah in
the early phase about these statistics have been answered then. did
they stop clamining the data is skewed? 

Can  I say about the opponents (that they too answered all questions)? 
There were several questions  left unanswered.  either snip all the 
questions, and write about srv debates, or collectively for a dozen 
questions, give a line of answer, (like "the entire article confuses 
me" or " i say there is no need for reorg" or  "it is good politics" 
or " you five star  vaishnavas leave srh for us" or "these vishnavas 
are out there to construct their babri maszid on srh janmasthan" 
The only sin they committed is to argue against a particular definiton
of the term hindu, saying that "some" vaishnavas from the western
world might   not follow sanatana dharma, can still be vaishnavas,
and that *particular* definition is inadequate. But did the  people
who are hurling the accusations against them for this, raise even
their eyebrows when person who proposed that definition said the
lingayaths are not hindus since some author said so? The point is
not whether the definition is correct  or wrong, or whether lingayaths
or vaishnavas  are hindus or not. The point is that the  criticism 
against the proponents has been unduly biased
(all just paraphrased).

you want me to list some questions that remain unanswered by oppoents
to the RFD? 
some example:
(1) Is there  anything inherently wrong for the RFD proponents to
propose moderators within RFD? is it not done routinly?
(2) is ajay shah *against* the concept of separation of political
crap out of srh?
(3) is ajay shah against the concept of multiple moderators?
(4) does he have any speific objections against any of the proposed
moderators?
(5) if he has, has he any recommendations?
(6) is he against laying out a clearly spelt out charter for 
acceptance or rejection of articles?
(7) does he believe that taking the four proposed moderators
amounts taking control of srh by the proponents?
(8) is he prepared to accept  moderatorship

the much advertised "revenge against insistence of naming of srv",
it seems, is merely "an outcry against email spams and campaigns
after RFD debate is finished" and against the usenet conventions.
*email* spams took place, inspite of *advance objection* to the 
same.

The proponents made some sincere attempt to arrive at a 'compromise'
at east they indicated several possibilities: (1) Ajay shah can 
continue as a moderator (which they have always been saying, but is
a compromise w.r.t. RFD proposal), (2) i think they have expressed
willingness to discuss as to  how moderators are to be selected,
for instance to discuss if ajay shah wants to pick some (3) they
have expressed willingness to drop info group.

What attempt has been made by the other side?

Some one asked why we give importance to Ajay Shah, and not to readers.
well he might have made a point, but my answer is (1) He is a respected
(2) He was the force behind creation of  srh (3) None from proponents
side have any kind of objection to his moderatorship (4) he has experience

The confidence reposed in him is unequivocal, otherwise the proponents 
would *not* have said the offer of moderatorship to him is still open.

But he needs to shed his suspicions and inhibitions, and take the people
into confidence, spell out what he has in mind.

It is clear from several posts: from yours, Ken S,  Dhruba C and many
others  a complete status quo will *not* sell.
 

>God wish this was handled in a better manner, SRH needs to be reorganised, 

if only you added a few suggestions, it would have been ideal.
please comment on either Mani V's compromise or one i suggested. 
(please note that Mani V's proposal has support of the prompontents,
and also has approval for certain segments from the opponnents to RFD.
while mine has none, at least as yet)
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.