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

Re: ADMINISTRIVIA : Matrimonials



In article <ghenDxBv2x.462@netcom.com>,
Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote:
>Vivek Sadananda Pai (vivek@cs.rice.edu) wrote:
>
>: Dear Dhrubaji,
>
>: I've seen what Jaldhar wrote on the 27th, and it makes sense - many
>: Hindus do consider Jati a valid criterion in matrimonial ads. Now, is
>: this to be considered casteism, and if so, should ads which mention
>: Jati be allowed on SRH, if ads are to be allowed at all?
[...]
>that establish this.  There is nothing wrong in referring to oneself by
>jAti, I would even admit that two families of the similar ancestral
>glories have the freedom to choose each other, but I believe that we
>should come to an agreement that jAti is not to be used for
>discrimination, that is unfortunately a commonplace occurence. I do not
>have an opinion on whether or not the ads should be allowed in SRH.

Well, if I may try to restate Jaldhar's question, it was whether the
use of Jati designations was in violation of the spirit of Hinduism,
and his question was prompted by someone who claimed that it was and
that ads which mention Jati should be outlawed.

If modern-day Jati is a violation of Hinduism, then most of the Hindus
in India aren't Hindus, according to the poster who made the claim.
More interestingly, if SRH is to be the claimed newsgroup for the
Hindus, should it ban the majority of Hindus from participating
because they don't subscribe to the same set of beliefs that SRH does?

-Vivek



Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.
More than one instance of Sumo is attempting to start on this page. Please check that you are only loading Sumo once per page.