[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: No political articles on SRH? Really?
In article <31EBFEB1.3A17@ecn.purdue.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>Shrisha Rao wrote:
>
>This is another post which I did not post to any group other than srh. Please,
>please, post your replies to srh also and with some indication that you
>crossposted your replies to other ngs so that I can forward my replies to
>those groups.
Apologies for any confusion. My standard practice is to post to
news.groups and soc.culture.indian, and the separately send to
soc.religion.hindu -- you saw the posting before it could be approved
by the moderator of SRH, that's all. As a general rule, all postings
from me that appear on SRH also appear on news.groups, and vice
versa. That's why there often are two copies of my articles on
news.groups -- one that I post directly, and one that is crossposted
from soc.religion.hindu.
>> In article <ghenDuKtr2.7HJ@netcom.com>,
>> Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> >Vivek Sadananda Pai wrote:
>> >
>> >Reservations based on religion is certainly of interest. While you may not
>> >have had problems with reservation etc, let me assure you that I personally
>> >know tons who were. A new reservation for muslims is certainly of interest
>>
>> That's fine; we can both accept that the political aspects of being a
>> Hindu are of interest to both of us. But let us at least agree to
>> call a spade a spade -- accept that such postings *are* political
>> rather than religious (vide your statement about "mundane affairs of
>> life," etc.) That is the point Vivek was trying to make, I think.
>> Any claim that SRH does not carry political articles is flat-out
>> wrong.
>
>As far as I remember Ajay told that purely political articles would not be
>allowed. If I may hazard a guess:
>
>1. What the BJP is supposedly doing.
>2. What the RSS is supposedly doing etc.
>
>won't be allowed.
>
>I don't see why only "purely" religious articles should be carried. I remember
>Ajay Shah saying only "purely political" articles would not be carried. I
>think that's fine.
I think that's fine too. My only point is that we need to define what
"purely political" means in this context.
>> Even that news item about the reservation issue is purely political.
>> Tell me, where and what exactly is the spiritual content in it? What
>> scripture is used? Who is the saint whose teachings are applied or
>> explained? What is the higher moral or spiritual truth conveyed?
>
>Please don't go on and on about "moral and spiritual truths". The article
>conveyed the direct consequences of being a hindu, viz you would have to face
>reservations for other religions also. A Hindu ng, IMO, can talk about these
>also. If you feel everyone should be as spiritual as you are, then I can't say
>anything.
You of all people should know how "spiritual" I am, being a Dvaitin
and all :-)
Anyway, my point is not that I am too spiritual and hence look down
upon politics, but that the posting referred to has nothing by way of
spiritual content, and abounds in politics. I take it you accept
this.
>The post was not hatred inciting or anything like that in any case. The point
>is that Vivek Pai catches some trivial point and goes on and on about it to
>prove the moderator's "incompetence". This is not the first time, I might add.
>Why can't we all agree that not all topics in Hinduism are of the same
>interest to everyone and agree to get along?
I do think we get along -- don't we? But I also think that Vivek's
questioning has its value, even if you disagree with his motives or
method. Because in trying to resolve what the exact policies about
moderation are, he's helping us to focus upon and better define the
ways and means in which the newsgroup can be improved, and that is
surely laudable. For example, this very act of his, where he "catches
a trivial point," has led to this discussion where we have had a
useful exchange about each other's perceptions about the role and
relationship of religion and politics, especially in the context of a
soc.religion.* newsgroup. And that, I submit, is surely something
gained, even if poor Vivek is the loser in the process, for having
caught flak yet again for his personal role in the matter.
>> >ayodhya - Ram temple - not hindu?
>> >
>> > ''All I have said is that anyone who was responsible for
>> >> |> the unfortunate happenings at Ayodhya and has not been
>> >> |> prosecuted would be brought to justice,'' he said.
>> >
>> >current action on ayodhya incident - not hindu related?
>>
>> Yes, but again, accept that those things are *not* spiritual; they
>> relate to the "mundane affairs of life." There may be a very few>
>> people, such as my guru's guru Sri Pejavar Swamiji (sometime
>> vice-president of the VHP), who believe that by getting involved in
>> this issue they are serving the Lord, but they are exceptions. The
>> vast majority, including people like L.K. Advani, etc., treat it as a
>> purely political exercise, a "symbolic redressal of past grievances,"
>> "an exercise in national character-building," etc. They are not
>> Ram-devotees in the main.
>
>Look, I don't care whether Mr Advani indulges in hatred or whatever. I am
>against the policies of the BJP etc anyway. However, my point is that there
>are happenings which are not spiritual and also of interest to a Hindu ng,
>since they are direct consequences of belonging to Hinduism. What happens to
>the Ram temple is certainly, very much, Hindu related. It's a temple for
>heaven's sake. If interest about what happens to a temple is not spiritual, I
>can't see what is.
>
>There is no need to blanket out news on this, or sweep it under the carpet in
>the name of spirituality.
You misunderstand me. For one thing, the temple issue was brought up
in an incidental reference -- it wasn't the primary issue covered by
the posting. (If it had been, I'd have not questioned its being
posted at all.) But as a person who does not like the BJP, you do
accept, don't you, that some people, perhaps including some elements
in the BJP, are interested in using the Ram temple issue for purely
political gain? And that reportage about such elements, or their
views, purposes, and actions, can and may qualify as purely political,
even though the issue is based in religion? Mind you, this is not
what I'm saying happened here -- I'm just trying to lay down some
markers so that we both agree on some common boundaries before getting
to specifics.
>> As such, while we may agree that these kinds of things are of interest
>> to Hindus, we *must* accept that they are of interest in a political
>> sense, and have nothing to do with spirituality per se. The claim
>> Vivek was trying to refute was that political postings were not/would
>> not be allowed on SRH.
>
>The claim I am trying to refute is that it was purely political. It was about
>the political and socio-economic consequences of being a hindu and certainly
>is on-topic in a moderated hindu forum.
Again, I don't dispute that it's of interest to us. What I'd like to
know is how one would distinguish between something that is purely
political, and something that is about the political and
socio-economic consequences of being Hindu. After all, much purely
political verbiage, including but not limited to that of the Sangh
Parivar, is at least seemingly about the political and socio-economic
consequences of being Hindu, or of whatever other group.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Ramakrishnan.
>--
>Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
>said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
>told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate
