Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content count

    7,570
  • Runs

    112,930 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    91d 13h 38m 34s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. Even Krishna was not righteous. He flat out lied about the sun setting, hid the sun and then releazed it to bail out his chamcha Arjun from a stupid vow he took to commit suicide. Nobody is 100% righteous in the Mahabharata and that is what makes the tale so beautiful.
  2. Sorry my bad. However, Krishna is not without his deception/deceit. It was him that 'hid the sun' and falsely declared the day over, to kill whatsisname that Arjuna had vowed to kill within the day or commit suicide. If Surya gave Karna the kavach-kundala, its perfectly moral and just: a father has the moral right to give his children what is his. However, this doesn't excuse Indra's deception or Krishna's deception during Kurukshetra. I tolerate them, which is why i am not for banning religion. Learn that freedom of speech and ideas means that as long as no living entity is being libelled against, you have the right to say whatever you want. I shall defend YOUR right to chant 'ram nam satya hai' or 'Allah-hu-akbar' in public. Because its your right. Sad to see that right wingers do not extend the same right to atheists, who are also equally in the right to say 'God is BS'. False. Two wrongs don't make a right. A wrong action, is still a wrong action whether its committed against a treacherous person or not. Just because a person is a criminal, does not give you the right to abuse their personal freedoms. Show me where it says that....in any scripture. I will wait. The stories THEMSELVES show that Avatars are not infallible. Rama regretted sending Sita into banishment. If Avatars are infallible, then it means each and every action of the avatar is infallible, ergo, Rama would not have committed an action he regrets. That is direct contradiction of the term 'infallible' and the tales themselves demonstrate that Avatars are not infallible.
  3. Muloghonto

    It’s the policy of Modi govt to isolate Pak, says Imran Khan

    Really ? No....really ? Welcome to reality, Imran Khan.
  4. Krishna, is an avatar. Not a God. An avatar is not infallible, even by technical standard of Hinduism. I come from a brahmin family- before i stopped believing in the nonsense that is religion, the whole ' what is the difference between krishna, vishnu and rama' are the type of keen discussion any brahmin family (especially with the upanayan-guru) has. And whether you like it or not, the story tells itself- i did not invent anything, nor twist anything. Every version of Mahabharata has Krishna decieving Karna as a brahmin alms-seeker when Karna is performing the Surya pranaam. Pretending to be something you are not is deception. If i dress like a policeman and act like one, i am being deceptive. Similary, Krishna was being deceptive when he pretended to be a brahmin alms-seeker. An act does not become less/more moral because a God or prophet did it versus a normal person. An act stands on itself and the Mahabharata is not subject to your interpretation nor mine- it says what it says. And it clearly shows even Krishna is not beyond treachery. Which, ironically, makes it a far more 'divine' in my eyes than the mickey-mouse tales of other religions, as it actually portrays reality as being grey.
  5. So righteous that he had to resort to treachery to steal Karna's jewels. That Karna was wise enough to see through Krishna's deception does not change the fact that Krishna flat out lied in his personification of a brahmin beggar asking alms. Nobody is righteous in Mahabharata except maybe Bhisma - and IMO the whole point of the book is the idea that good and evil are relative, with nobody ever being completely 100% good or evil, Krishna included.
  6. Muloghonto

    Centre drops Tamil, 16 other languages from teacher test

    False equivalency. Bimaru states have literacy problem, period. Its not gonna matter which language gets 2nd language status other than Hindi- which favors the North Indian bimaru states the most. Nonsense and putting pride before common sense. Kids in India already have zero life being kids. If a second language is to be a focus for children's precious time away from being children, then it makes far more sense to use the global language that automatically gives Indian kids a leg-up in the international world, than jingoistic 'extend our culture' nonsense, which serves far little advantage compared to English. Nonsense. There never will be a language that will compete with English in global value. Period. Learning English means automatic advantage in interacting with USA, Canada, Britain, Australia and all of Europe, as Europe averages 40-50% comprehension in English. I've been a tourist in Denmark. Known people who went to study in Norway. Thank God for English and these folks having 70-90% of their population speaking English that life was awesome for us there. English is still the second most common language spoken in Latin America after spanish (even though 90% don't speak it, you are still more likely to find an English speaker in Colombia or Peru after Spanish, over virtually any other language). Relic of the colonial world or not, English literacy serves ANY person in the world infinitely more than any other language. The love for English is completely rational - it is the global lingua franca and serves a person FAR greater global communication ease than Hindi. This i know from being a fluent speaker of both Hindi and English. This is why i recommended every single relative in India to either enroll their kids in English medium schools or pick English as second language over Hindi if they are in Bengali or Marathi medium schools.
  7. Yeah. They don't edit out the embarrassing parts
  8. As in I can find hundreds of incidents detailing non Dalit Hindus killing Dalits because of stuff Dalits are not supposed to do from news. As for history, I don't need a leftist historian to tell me the evidence . Hindu scriptures and historic sources are enough .
  9. Google says you are wrong. Non Dalit Hindus have been killing Dalits for longer than Islam has existed
  10. btw, my family is mostly brahmin themselves. I grew up as hindu, even did the whole pancha-devata pranaam after upanayan. And unlike most educated Bong families, my family is/was mostly not CPM, they were congressi(and now BJP). People think that atheists know jack about religion, but usually people become atheist because they know too much about the nonsense that is religion. I also am a history geek, so i am very well aware of the semi-slavery of the dalits in India through the ages.
  11. Saying 'non-Dalit hindus have murdered and raped dalit hindus' is as factually accurate as saying 'muslims have murdered and raped hindus'. Both statements are true for some cases but false for most cases. That was my point.
  12. Again, if you wanna use half a dozen radical liberals to smear the millions of us, can we start using rapist Sadhus to represent all hindus ? FoE is never absolute. The moment you commit libel, its crime in every single nation and it should be. You don't get the right to make up false claims about me and damage my reputation or income under the guise of FoE, its simple libel, period. He would be fired pretty much anywhere in the west except for deep south or red states in the US.
  13. Dalits are like dwarves of the family: hated by the family but only called family in the face of outsiders. Most Hindus don't consider Dalits to be hindus by the religious practice of being hindu, neither do the hindu texts. Even then the statement 'hindus have murdered and raped dalits for 2000 years' is correct, even if Dalits are subsets of Hindus. X can kill Y, even if Y is subset of X and we can still say X is killing Y. If you don't like it, then what about this: " Non-Dalit Hindus have been murdering and raping Dalit hindus for thousands of years" So are you okay with that statement ?
  14. Muloghonto

    Why is Jinnah portrayed in bad light in Indian history?

    But he did initially support an idea of a nation called India, with muslim and hindu areas being federations. Sort of like how Scotland + Wales + England are under the UK, but with even greater autonomy (he wanted Sharia law for muslim areas, the nations under Great Britain share an uniform civil & criminal code). Important difference is, he did not want different laws for muslims, but for muslim regions.
  15. Muloghonto

    Why is Jinnah portrayed in bad light in Indian history?

    How is he a pragmatic when he wanted an India-Pakistan-Hyderabad 'loose confederation' ? To me thats even less realistic than what Gandhi & Nehru wanted - atleast with the latter, a strong central govt. could've held the nation together. But in Jinnah's model there was no chance fully autonomous federal entities seggregated on religious lines would continue to share a central government. Jinnah only went for full partition after Nehru rejected his bogus Federation idea.
  16. So which Hindu organization supports it like you want support from muslim organizations ? You are Bengali, so you may know - the masjid in Baranagore (Alambazar) regularly allows Durga murti to be built on its doorsteps before Durga Puja.
  17. Again, if you are going to taint millions of liberals by the most extreme 5-6 people, then we are going to start using the most extreme rapist sadhu hindus to represent all the hindus. Fair ? You think a Chef in Dubai got fired for uttering anti-Muslim statements because atheist liberals whined about it ??? Thats the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. He got fired because muslims in Dubai saw his tweet and the establishment is doing the right thing by firing a bigot who'd tarnish their image. Atul would be fired from any decent company for expressing bigotry like that.
  18. Yeah, but has VHP/RSS asked for it like Asterix wants Islamic organizations to ask for it ? Which hindu temple has allowed a goat to be slaughtered inside its sanctum for Eid ?
  19. Because muslims = all the people who follow it. Saying that an entire religion of people are terrorizing you, is not the truth, its victimizing the innocents amongst them. Hating Islam is valid. Hating every muslim is bigotry. Its just that simple. People deserve hate or love based on their actions and personal beliefs, not what tag they identify under. Lets hope you don't get offended by the 'Hindus have been killing and raping Dalits for 2000 years' statement either, as its also a factually correct statement.
  20. Ah. So you are related to Priyanka Chopra i guess. Because if she has a hidden agenda and you are not part of her inner core of people, you have exactly the same information on her hidden agenda as the rest of the 7 billion people on this planet.
  21. Because Atul Kochchar made a bigoted statement. Saying 'Muslims have been terrorizing Hindus for 2000 years' should get you fired just as much as saying ' Hindus have been raping and killing Dalits for 2000 years'. Both statements being factually correct is irrelevant to the bigotry displayed by the statements. It isn't. Strawman argument. The common right-wing argument is to make a strawman out of the most extreme liberals out there as the benchmark of liberals. As soon as VHP or RSS allow Eid to be celebrated in a Hindu temple, you can ask that justification. What right wingers of all religions miss, is the fact that liberals consider ALL religions to be backwards backwaas nonsense and the world is moving away from such idiotic nonsense. Outside of breeding and brainwashing children, religion has zero hope of survival in the future.
  22. Muloghonto

    Journalist Shujaat Bukhari shot dead in Srinagar

    Says the guy who wants to promote 'dharmic' concept over India,yet forget that the fundamental concept of Sanatan Dharma and Buddhism is balance of all things and middle path. Just goes on to show, that the hinduvta jaahils are copy-cat Islamists who wants to Islamize Hinduism, than actually protect it.
  23. Muloghonto

    How long will Vijay play test cricket?

    This is because both Vijay and Rahane are hard-handed players who play very straight and in the V. Thats pretty much the most consistent style on wickets that have pace, bounce or movement. On Indian pitches, where its powderpuff square turners, ball stops on you or regular slow wickets, you need the exact opposite skillset - ones who can play very well square of the wicket and have very supple wrists to work the ball around with last moment deflections after reading the spin or drop their hands to turn an edge into one where the ball takes the edge and dies halfway between the bat and the slip.
  24. Muloghonto

    Is Indian Tennis Scene ever going to pick up?

    In the early 80s, we had two players in the top 30s : Vijay Amritraj and Ramesh Krishnan.
  25. A big part of the reason, is we don't have recorded history. Think of that for a moment - 99% of Indian and South-East Asian kings we know of, is only due to the inscriptions they've left and less than a dozen written sources on them. There are not very many kings with balls like Suryavarman, Aditya or Paratanka Chola who'd write inscriptions on their temples or copper-plate grants detailing their butchery. We know Mehmoud of Ghazni's barbarity from written sources- from his own courtier. Not because he left inscriptions somewhere. How many Hindu or Buddhist Mehmoud of Ghaznis are hiding in our history because we don't have written sources on them ? This is the advantage(pros) of not having recorded history: we get to gloss over all the barbarity of our ancestors and pretend they were all Sad-gurus. We only focus on the disadvantages(cons) of not having recorded history- which is lack of nationalistic zeal, strong identity with the past or deep knowledge of our ancestors (like the Chinese/Greeks or Italians do). You are completely wrong about all three of them. Suryavarman definitely matches Timur in his destruction and genocide of Champa, in terms of % of population affected in a region. Genocide is defined as the intent and ability to kill an entire ethnicity. Not numbers. Genocide most of 1.2 billion Indians and you are still a genocider. Genocide the half a million Bhutanese and you are still a genocider. Not better. Genocide is not defined by empiric numbers, by any source. Aditya and Paratanka obviously won't make the list, not because of lack of intent, but because of lack of capability: neither one of them was as capable a commander or builder of a powerful military like Timur. Suryavarman was, but he was constrained by geography - Vietnam to China crossing is exceptionally hard (which is why tiny little Vietnam has managed to go most of its history without Chinese occupation, despite China making it a huge priority), so is crossing Burma from Thailand. Why should i consider a genocider to be more humane, simply because he was less competent at growing his power or didn't have favorable geography to assist him ? They are all the same class of genociders - Timur,Paratanka, Aditya and Suryavarman-II, which is defined by the intent and barbarity at display within the limits of their power. If you wanna gas an entire ethnicity of people, it makes you on the same moral plane as Hitler. You don't get a 'i am better than Hitler' tag, just because you are too incompetent to gain power to carry out your genocide or is limited to a smaller scale due to the same reason (inability at power).

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×