[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Is this the real reason for the re-org? Re: SRH: There is a need to
In article <4e3rd4$ggj@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, shskambh@reading.ac.uk (C. Kambhampati) writes:
|> If that, HSC business, is the grouse then the whole matter could have
|> been settled more amicably. But I am afraid you have finally given the
|> real reason (it appears to be the case) for the active participation in
|> the srh-reorg.
I would like to point out that this discussion started out with
the definition of Hindu used by the proponents. You pointed out
that it paralleled the BJP definition, as though that implied
something. I merely pointed out that the definition used by the
proponents very closely resembles the definition used by the HSC.
It's at this point that the question about who is the HSC arose, and
I pointed out that since the HSC claims to be involved with SRH,
it makes sense to see what the HSC's definition of Hinduism is.
I merely wanted to point out that the proponents view of Hinduism
is very much in line with the _current operational definition_ of
Hinduism for SRH.
|> If you have some disagreement with the HSC then YOU SHOULD AND COULD DO
|> IT OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SRH.
Actually, quite the contrary - I'm on friendly terms with several
HSC members, I was invited to a local conference recently, and
I have been offered support by some of the local and regional
HSC people in my attempt to start an HSC at Rice this semester.
-Vivek
