 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
Then it should be extremely easy to convert these people to Hinduism
by providing longer-term medical care, right? So why protest when it's
so much easier to send them a big bottle of aspirin?
>promised heaven once they convert but all such promises are fake. There
>is nothing wrong in opposing such conversions. There is nothing wrong in
>opposing such persons who tend to take advantage of poor tribals.
In the article, it was made clear that the missionaries were also
getting the tribals to give up their bad habits, like tobacco.
>Vivek seems to indicate that 'right-wing Hindus' (I don't understand the
>meaning of this phrase; anyone who stands for Hindus instantly becomes a
>right-winger these days) never helped tribals.
Read the article again - these tribals had absolutely no help from the
right-wing Hindus, and all it took to gain their favor was _aspirin_.
>These 'right wing' Hindus
>run thousands of primary schools (Saraswati Shishu Mandir's) throughout
>the country and a large number of these are in tribal areas. They also
>run an organization 'Van Bharati' whose primary purpose is to provide
>basic medical facilities, job oriented training and to prevent their
>exploitation. Incidentally, Missionaries in Madhya Pradesh have
>vociferously protested the presence of Van Bharati in tribal areas.
I have no doubt that the missionaries are looking for converts when
they go into tribal regions to help them. However, if "competition"
is what it takes for these tribals to actually get any help, then I
don't see the harm in making all "religious organizations" compete
to provide them with basic services.
>It is not social service that offends Hindus. What offends Hindu's is
>the conversions carried out in the garb of social service. Social
>service per se should be free from any preconditions.
That should be "what offends _some_ Hindus..."
I also have a hard time believing that the right-wingers do all their
social service totally free from any advertising, etc. The
missionaries aren't saying "convert and we'll give you aspirin" -
they're saying "have this aspirin, and hey, are you interested in our
religion".
It's not a precondition as much as it is regular marketing. I have no
doubt that the right-wing groups in India also engage in such
marketing.
>Nothing prevents us from helping the poor and as pointed out above, we
>do help them. But considering the face that about 200 million of us are
>poor and we do not have unlimited sources of money (unlike Missionaries
>which have swollen coiffers overseas),
Oh, I've seen some of the organizations operating among the NRIs here,
and they definitely have a fair bit of resources. However, you're
right - they don't have the resources to take care of the poor. Their
resources, instead, go into promoting political movements in India.
>it is not possible for us to help
>each and every poor person. Any help that is received from organizations
>can only temporarily alleviate suffering. But to permanently eradicate
>this problem, we need a change in style of governance. And this change
>can be brought about only when we come together and elect such persons
>who are honest and have foresight about the future of the country. These
Surely if everyone were convinced that these people were as honest and
selfless as they claim to be, everyone would automatically vote for
them, right? So why even bother with the political machinery when the
social service machinery should automatically catapult the leaders
into the realm of sainthood?
>people are poor not because 'right-wing Hindu's' refused to help them
>but because we had rotten governments, corrupt politicians and lazy
>baboodom for the past 50 years.
Let me give a local example - in Houston, there were three events in
the past year that I found interesting, and all three were organized
by roughly the same people. One was a canned food drive for the local
food bank. The second was an organized protest against an obscure
Muslim radio show that once had on an obnoxious guest. The third was a
city-wide Janmastami program. Would you care to guess the resource
allocation among the three events? OK, I'll make it easy - would you
care to guess which of the three events received the least attention?
>> As long as our community focuses on shows of strength rather than on
>> any meaningful changes, there won't be any foundation on which to
>> build real strength.
>
>Show of strength over the issues that affect the community is essential
>for the survival of any community. History has shown that only strong
>commmunities prosper.
I won't mention Napoleon and Hitler, then.
>Such countless examples can be given where
>communities come together to show their strength for the issues that
>affect their community, religion or culture and this has helped them
>prosper.
Silly me - I guess I forgot how France and Quebec, with such a strong
emphasis on their cultures (sustained by threat of law) have continued
to be world leaders. Likewise, I guess I forgot how Iraq, with its
strong religious backing, has been a shining example how of right-wing
"religious" support can uplift a country's citizens.
-Vivek
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|