[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: No political articles on SRH? Really?
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: No political articles on SRH? Really?
-
From: shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao)
-
Date: 23 Jul 1996 03:10:19 -0600
-
Expires: 31 August 1996 23:59:59 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, news.groups, soc.culture.indian
-
Organization: \.o_.r-g*-n*-'za_--sh*n\ n. The act or process of organizing or of being organized; also, the condition or manner of being organized.
-
References: <ghenDuKtr2.7HJ@netcom.com> <31EBFEB1.3A17@ecn.purdue.edu> <4sim1u$8gn@nyx10.cs.du.edu> <4t1r8m$h9v@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Sender: shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu
In article <4t1r8m$h9v@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Rajiv Varma <rvarma@stallion.jsums.edu> wrote:
>In article <4sim1u$8gn@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, Shrisha Rao <shrao@nyx.net> wrote:
>>In article <31EBFEB1.3A17@ecn.purdue.edu>,
>
>>
>>I think that's fine too. My only point is that we need to define what
>>"purely political" means in this context.
>>
>
>As I said earlier, if any one amongst the netters thinks that they can
>demarcate this "Lakshmana Rekha" between, is indeed indulging in wishful
>thinking.
>
>Gandhiji started his satyagrahas with Rama Dhun, what was it political or
>religious?
Let me put it this way: there exists black, there exists white, and
there exist various shades of gray in between. It is not right to say
that everything is gray, and there is no black (or white).
So also, there is such a thing as purely political, and such as purely
religious, and there are things in between.
The specific example you gave is a mixture, in my view; the religious
aspect was placed in a political context, and used as a tool of
political revival. It would not qualify either as purely political,
or as purely religious either.
>While fighting against the muslim mlechaas, the battle cry used to be "Har
>Har Mahadeva" ... how would you classify this? religious or political?
Martial. :-)
I'd call it more political than religious, though both aspects
existed, because those uttering the battle-cry were more warriors than
devotees, and they invoked Mahadev to help them gather vigor for
battle, rather than do battle to serve Mahadev.
>>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.
>>
>
>but it is not purely political either.
The article was about reservations for Muslims: how religious is
*that*, by anyone's standards?
>>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
>>
>
>But that would be a subjective judgement on your part. If you are not
>interested in seeing a Rama Mandir then you could very well justify it as
>a political issue. But what about the masses, who want to see a Rama
>Mandir built there?
I too want to see it built there, btw. I was arguing from
Ramakrishnan's perspective.
But in my own experience, _most_ of the "mandir wahii.n banaayenge"
crowd are politically motivated, and while I may not disagree with
their politics (at least to a very large extent), I cannot call it
religion either. For example, I have listened to L.K. Advani's
public-address after the Rath Yatra of '90, and he didn't make any
bones about the fact that he wasn't a Ram-devotee in the main; to him,
the whole exercise was one on "national character-building." That, if
you please, is political, even if it be of a kind of politics that one
does not disagree with.
>>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 about your Swamiji, who perceives this as spiritual? As long as your
>Swamiji sees as spiritual, it shall be spiritual. :-)
Hmm..., no :-)
You're putting words in his mouth, actually. His stand has always
been that *he* is doing it as service to Sri Raama; others may have
petty motives that cannot be called spiritual. And quite a long time
ago (back in '89, I think, just after the first shilaanyaas) he said
after a visit to Ayodhya that because there was the "sannidhaana"
(presence) of Sri Raama at the hallowed spot, the temple would come up
inevitably, in spite of any opposition. So as far as he is concerned,
he is merely acting as an instrument of the Divine Will. But others
who do not have this perspective cannot say their actions are
religious, and they aim for other things than the pleasing of the
Lord, unlike him.
>>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
>>
>
>Take a look at Hindu Civilization as a whole ... not just the spiritual
>axis.
I don't see the point you're trying to make here.
>>Parivar, is at least seemingly about the political and socio-economic
>>consequences of being Hindu, or of whatever other group.
>>
>
>so it is justified being posted on SRH. Right?
It may be. Views differ. Given that there is a valid interest base
in Hindu politics, there certainly should exist a forum for it. But
given that (a) purely political articles are said to be disallowed
from SRH, and (b) a soc.religion.* group should be primarily, if not
exclusively, for religious discussion, such matter are best left to
other fora (which may have to be created).
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>regards,
>Rajiv
