Has Omar Abdullah crossed the line here ?

[Desi Cartman]

Only in India they have a right to hold aloft an effigy of an Indian soldier

[MarathaPride]

Loved that comment.

Thanks Preds!!

[CC1981]

You are either trying to play the fool here and get into wordplay or you miss my point completely. My comparison to Marathis is not of scale but of nature. I am challenging your unequivocal comment of 'land of kashmir is ours' and my point of contention is simple : by doing so, you are denying the reality of India and its history. Whether you like it or not, FACT remains that India is a mosaic of differnt cultures,languages and ethnicities and we all have an extra special place for our homeland IN India. My point is not to deny that an Indian can feel entitled to all of the territorry in India's control currently- but at the same time, we should NOT deny the fact that a lot of us feel extra-attached to our own chunk of India. Most Bengalis have a closer spot and more opinion about Bengal than say Kerala and Most Kannadigas care more about Kannada culture than Santhal. This is the real fabric of India and IMO you are denying the reality that Kashmiris too feel the same and are entitled to feel the same.

Note to all: P-secs love personal attacks when they lack any substantive argument.

Except that there was no personal comment in the quote you stuck it under.

Note to all: P-secs love to believe that writing off the Hindu Dharma qualifies them to be so-called intellectuals.

Whats with the P-sec bit ? I am a secular person- i am agnostic, i view almost all religions with equal disdain (though i do consider buddhism and jainism to be more respectworthy of other religions) and i am all for removal of religion from the government- i argue in favour of TOTAL seperation of church and state, where matters of religion is completely not a matter of politics. As such, what is the 'psuedo' bit in your labelling ? I am as secular as they come, star- i have and will always argue for equal rights/disregards for ALL religious activity, irrespective of the demographics of the said nation. Refer to me as a secular, but if you accuse me of being a psudo secular, meaning a 'pretend-secular', then show where my bias lies and how. This is a common tactic of the saffron mullahs - if you criticise their religious doctrine and fundamentalism, you are automatically a psudo secular or a maoist or a muslim/radical muslim. This is quite lame, really.

The most basic and fundamental building blocks, tenets and principles of Buddhism and Jainism are derived from the Sanatan Dharma

That is a common myth, very aptly propagated by the saffron mullahs and the saffronised NCERT textbooks of India. Buddhism came around in 500 BCE period- everyone knows that but it borrows FAR MORE from Jain philosophy than prevalent hindu philosophy of sanatan dharma and it is a PROVEN historical fact that Jainism has been around for a LONG TIME before the time of Mahavira. (He isnt the founder, he is the 16th or so Tirthankara of Jainism and there are mentions of Jains in India from OUR OWN SOURCES far before the time of Mahavira) The hindu zealots have effectively brainwashed a lot of hindus in believing that hinduism is the 'original' religion of India, when fact is, Jainism and a few (now-dead) philosophies, such as ajivika and karvaka are atleast as old as Hinduism. So, i am fundamentally disputing your idea that India has always had Santan Dharma at its core. I am fundamentally disputing your claim of Sanatan Dharma being really Santan and existing in its current form from aeons ago. Why should i believe your account of the Mahabharata or Ramayana and not the Buddhist account ? Why should i believe that Balaram is Krishna's older brother and not actually baladev, Krishna's younger brother ? Both the hindu and (in this case, Buddhist) versions of Mahabharata that we know of were penned around the same time and as a secular guy, what is my basis of giving one or another the right of authorship ? There have been fundamental parts of history where India was vastly dominated by non-Hindu population : During the mauryas, kushan and gupta times ( effectively 250 BCE till 550 AD continuous), most of north India was more Buddhist and Jain. Even in the south, great empires and its populace, like Satavahan or Rashtrakut, etc. had huge jain populace. All facts point towards a simple conclusion : Hinduism/Sanatan dharma you practice today has only small elements of ancient 'original hindu' practices to it, while a lot of it is fusion of jain,buddhist,carvaka, etc. ideas in the chaos that followed the hun invasions and culminated with Islamisation of India. Hinduism, with its far more militant nature than these philosophies, weathered the storm of Huns and Turko-Persian Islamists better than the other philosophies and thus its current supremacy in the subcontinent. There is no dispute that hinduism, buddhism and jainism are all very closely knit, but to claim that hinduism is older than jainism or that buddhism borrows a lot from hinduism is simple religious propaganda.

[CC1981]

Wow Dead Wrong (again). I wonder if this comment even merits a response. Every little speck of dust that comprises India's geography belongs to all Indians first. As a law-abiding Indian, I have every right to go to Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, Bengal, Gujarat, Kerala or wherever. No state has the right to secede from the Union, and what you are saying is highly treasonous. No further comment.

What am i 'dead wrong' about ? Kashmir's instrument of accession to the Indian Union is still technically contingent on plebiscite. Also, where in our constitution does it bar secession from the Indian union ? Where exactly does it say that if tomorrow majority of Biharis voted for independence, the government would deny it ? And even if it does, our constitution should have the provision for peaceful secession AND accession to the union of India ( this can in future be a potential tool for expansionism IF Indians can keep their nascent racism in check). You must realize that India is a multicultural democracy and with 220+ million non-Hindus, you CANNOT project a position of hindu hegemony and expect the 220+ hindus to consider less entitled status to the land or destiny of our nation. You CANNOT deny secessionist right atleast in theory or in a peaceful democratic process. Yes, as an Indian, you or I am entitled to go ANYWHERE in India- i am not disputing that. But at the same time, if an ethnic group in India did vote in a democratic referendum to seceede, it must be legally possible: that is the fundamental bedrock of a free country and society or else, it becomes imperialism and dictatorship of the majority. IMO, you fundamentally misunderstand me- nowhere do i wish for Kashmir to actually seceede from India, nor do i wish for it to set a precedent of shrinking borders. However, unlike you, i am not in favour of denial of rights. You wanna know how a plebiscite can be held, to give India complete legitimacy in Kashmir and still ensure an anti-ascention outcome: Its simple. Follow Canada's lead. We gave Quebec the right to seperate. That is their democratic right, we cannot deny them that. However, we ensured a pro-Canada outcome, by making SURE a lot of people born in Quebec (and thus qualified as Quebecois, even if they've never lived in Quebec for more than 2 weeks or whatever) returned to Quebec to vote. With careful planning, you can have your plebicsite, quash the secessionist rhetoric politically and stabilize Kashmir too. You do not realize how much harm ANY sort of communal behaviour is to India's future : projecting a hindu hegemony and 'first rights' to Indian culture/societerial status will never go down well with that 200 million + block of Indians and is a recipe for disaster and continued turbulence in India. In the world today, where logical existentialism and a karmic concept of life is slowly ending the hegemony of religious psychobabble, you CANNOT persue a religious agenda in a nation that isnt almost universally monolithic in its religious base. IMO, your communalism is far more damaging for India than persuit of a secular fabric.

You dont want to live in India, you issue treasonous statements, and you despise Hinduism...yet you write about India. You seem to be a totally different species of p-secs/commies.. [/qutoe] 1. A lot of people here don't want to live in India either- if they did, they'd be living in INdia and just check how many here don't. I am simply more honest about it/have reconciled myself with the fact that i don't want to live in INdia, instead of being one of those 'head-stuck-in-sand' guys who say they want to live in India but live overseas for most of their lives. 2. Nothing treasonous about my statement- i said if Kashmiri or any regional political party of India were to win a referendum to seccede, it should be constitutionally valid, for democratic and freedom ideals are to be cherished over Han-Chinese-esque hindu-hegemony over India. 3. Yes, i despise HInduism- since when is that a pre-requisite for being Indian ? I despise all religions- i am an agnost and i have little time for religious bull*****. Be it pertaining to nailing on the cross, multiple wives and black stones, daari, kara and knife, saffron trishuls or buddha worshipping idiots. But if it gives you some solace, there are certain religions i hate more than others and Hinduism is definitely not in the top end of that list. 4. I am neither a commie nor a p-sec. Pucca secularist, leftist-capitalist guy as any you will ever find. 5. Its funny how snooty you get about 'personal comments', yet it is YOU who issues such inflamatory personal comments as traitor. Its a predictable hypocrasy of the saffron-mullahs like yourself to accuse someone of doing something you are doing.

Socially backward, irresponsible...lets see...what other words did you use to describe India..ahh yes Inept. Whatever "service" you may doing, please stop right now.

Sorry, unlike you, i am not blinded by saffron-colored patriotism. My purview is far wider- your pyaare hindustan is just a part of the human spectrum- the far bigger human spectrum and society to which we all belong. I am not insecure enough to provide reality checks when required and every single epithet i've used for India is applicable in the comparative scale of nations today. Unlike you, i chose to see the real picture and focus on the negetives to get rid of them, instead of protective of the whole culture- the negetives included. Your country IS one of the most backwards on this planet - thats not a lie, thats a truth. It is one of the most fractuous and communalised nations on the planet- again, truth. One of the most socially irresponsible ones- again a truth. Hard-hitting but denial of these doesnt lead to improvement.

In short, you are saying ignore our History, ignore what our rich Hindu traditions have given us (Vedas, Upanishad, Bhagvad Gita), and make our borders super-porous so that in the next 10 years, we go back to the times of Aurangzeb.

No, in short, i am saying that YOU are ignoring our history by painting it in a pro-saffron color - the BS about hinduism being the original religion when facts point towards a multi-theistic core and a distinctly non-hindu nature of Indus Valley civilization ( dude, IVC buried bodies, didnt cremate. They ATE beef and hunting of animals for food was widespread) all contradicts your ' hinduism original dharma of india' religious-superiority claims. In short, i am saying that there is FAR MORE to our history and traditions than just hinduism cr@p or other religious cr@p. In short, i am saying that your type of saffronized hindu fundamentalist comments contribute to further deteriorate the situation than improving it and your perview is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You are in a for a very rude surprise.

Yah sure, whatever. I am in for a rude surprise coz i said ' India's borders will shrink as well as expand in the future and aint no force on the planet who can stop that' ? Sorry vatz, history is on me with this - not only for India but for ALL geo-political culture-spheres on this globe. They grow, they stagnate, they shrink, they grow again and repeat the process over and over again. India's borders - culturally and politically- have grown, stagnated and shrunk in the past, it will do so in the future. No force today can change that- not your hindu fundamentalism, nor my secularism, nor the islamisation of some others or communism.

[Guest dada_rocks]

MP mian has some fire in belly.. keep it up.. :two_thumbs_up:

[King Tendulkar]

Loved that comment.

Exactly

[King Tendulkar]

ISI brilliance has ensured Kashmir's predominantly tourism and handicraft based industry never moves into the modern era and thus Kashmir does not create much jobs which would attract non-locals. .

Is that what you call it brilliance!

[CC1981]

Is that what you call it brilliance!

Yes, thats exactly what i call brilliance...brilliance is to do with competency in whatever you are doing...you can be brilliant baddie, brilliant goodie, brilliant inventor, brilliant destructor...and there is no question that ISI has been brilliant with its operational successes and vision in Kashmir.

[CC1981]

You forget to mention the other clause .... which is withdrawal of Pak from POK ... once that happens and the situation and demography is restored back to what it was circa 1947 India will do a plebiscite which is what we have been saying since then.

Except this is nothing more than saffron-mullah stalling tactics. Say a region deciedes to join you for a limited period on condition that the nation will hold a plebiscite to deciede future involvement. Then this region gets attacked and a chunk of it comes under foreign control. Thats sh!tty, but what exactly is preventing us from upholding our part of the deal and holding the plebiscite in the part we control ? Lets take the insanity of your suggestion even further : the parts that are NOT in our control is a large nearly uninhabited desert (Aksai Chin), so the status of that area is irrelevant to the polls about kashmiri future. The other big chunk in foreign hands has been in foreign hands for over 60 years, is almost 99% muslim and has shown ZERO inclinations towards joining India- ever. Not **ONE** demonstration or article or anything has come out of Azad kashmir and Northern areas showing solidarity with India since 1947. Therefore, arguing that they too be included in the polls is not only a stalling tactic, it is fundamentally flawed, because those guys, if anything, will vote AGAINST union with India and may just be enough to swing votes in overall Kashmiri breakaway. IMO, if you hinduvtas had actually any brains, you guys would've HELD a plebiscite, just to shut up the naysayers at international and 'legalese' level and then did what Canada did to ENSURE that the plebiscite isnt lost. Instead, your paranoia and chest-thumping manuvers continuously keeps giving India a bloody nose on international forums as far as legitimacy of its rule in Kashmir goes.

Remember that KAshmiris back then had no problems joining India.

Boolsheet. They didnt get to have a say. An aged hindu monarch made the choice for them. If Kashmiris had no problem joining India, Pakistan wouldn't have been so successful keeping PoK/Azad Kashmir so placated and peaceful and our side of Kashmir wouldnt be in so much turmoil.

Now keeping that in mind please feel free to tell MP on your views about PoK and how Pak was jnustified to keep it as that is a stable region

Damn right. If people of a particular area have no problems with who they are governed by, who the feck are you or I-being outsiders to that region- to argue otherwise ? If tomorrow India stomps through Burma and for 50 years Burmese people show no problems with India's control over Burma, i'd argue EXACTLY the same- that the one who's arguing over 'burma's handover' has no business arguing such.

your views on how Indian Soldiers giving up their lives in Kashmir was for a worthless/useless cause

I have corrected you numerous times and adviced you not to spread lies about me or quote me out of context. I said that the cause is worthless/useless because thousands have died and the situation has not changed and it is NOT going to change if another 50,000 Indian soldiers die in Kashmir. Senselessly occupying an area who's political situation is in turmoil and not resolving the political turmoil is as great a disservice one can do to our jawans as possible. For it means they die but their deaths become meaningless, because their contribute nothing WHATSOEVER to improving the situation. Ie, your types make 'bali ka bakraas' out of our Jawans and send them to their deaths needlessly. When you keep sending people to their deaths but the situation causing those deaths dont change and show no signs of changing, then yes, those deaths are worthless, just as worthless as you trying to move a mountain- you are doing the work but getting no results : the DEFINITION of a worthless persuit! Indeed, i will stand by that.

and how Pak will be justified if it Nukes India if India stops water supply

Again, damn right. I have explained this line of logic before too and you/your cohort of hindu-mullahs have run away like cowards from debating me on this. If India stops Paksitan's water supply, it will result in MILLIONS of deaths in Pakistan due to water shortage. MILLIONS of civillians, innocents and noncombatants dead. What does that sound like ? a nuclear war, doesnt it ? If India takes an action that will send MILLIONS of innocent people to their deaths, then India is doing what Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia would be doing and thus, would be VERY VERY justified in getting nuked. Don't forget - you are a human being first, Indian,paki, chinese,whatever second. Acts of genocide and catastrophic wipeout against one community is unjustified and your vaunted nationalism comes a distant second to the common ideal of humanism, where it is your DUTY as a human being to protest such acts instead of hiding behind the cowardly coat of nationalism. If India ever gets a lunatic government crazed enough to cut off Pakistan's water supply and be responsible for the death of millions, then its doing what Nazi Germany did. And then it becomes the OBLIGATION for a true Indian to take up arms or action against our own government, much the same way the few anti-Nazi germans did. Your primary obligation is to your SPECIES first. Your obligation to arbitary lines on the map and arbitary cultural variances are SECONDARY. Now debate me and prove me wrong on this instead of running away yet again, vatz.

your views on Sharia and how you have "no problems" with it etc etc etc ....

ha ha, i see you've come out with your old cliched points all over again and specializing in lies, twisting of others comments, etc. SHOW ME, vatz, where i said i have no problems with Sharia. What i said is, i have no problems with the level of sharia practiced in some nations and in some Islamic nations, their version of Sharia results in living conditions not much different than in India. And on this, vatz, you have zero authority to contradict me- unlike your sabre-rattling 'kick all muslims out of India' type discriminatory comments with zero experience, i have actually LIVED in some of these nations with sharia law. Samjhey, vatz ?

[CC1981]

Hello boss, where are you...or are you going to keep throwing out allegations and running away when i make my point ? bossbhaga yet again ??? Aoo vatz...aao....bhago nahi....show some chutzpah man, instead of showing your typical disappearing act when proven to be in the error yet again.

[MarathaPride]

You are either trying to play the fool here and get into wordplay or you miss my point completely. My comparison to Marathis is not of scale but of nature. I am challenging your unequivocal comment of 'land of kashmir is ours' and my point of contention is simple : by doing so, you are denying the reality of India and its history. Whether you like it or not, FACT remains that India is a mosaic of differnt cultures,languages and ethnicities and we all have an extra special place for our homeland IN India. My point is not to deny that an Indian can feel entitled to all of the territorry in India's control currently- but at the same time, we should NOT deny the fact that a lot of us feel extra-attached to our own chunk of India. Most Bengalis have a closer spot and more opinion about Bengal than say Kerala and Most Kannadigas care more about Kannada culture than Santhal. This is the real fabric of India and IMO you are denying the reality that Kashmiris too feel the same and are entitled to feel the same. Kannadigas feel affinity towards Karnataka. Marathis toward Maharashtra, and Bengalis towards Bengal. Agreed. But, every one of the aforementioned groups is INDIAN first, a regional later. Would I work for the welfare of Maharashtra? Sure. After all, Maharashtra is my JANMA-bhumi. Bharat, however, is my MATRA-bhumi...my MOTHERLAND-land. There in lies the primary difference, and any one with the gall to even contemplate seceding from India should be dealt with in the most severe and uncompromising manner. My original point, the land of our Kashmir is OURS , and will forever be ours still stands...since that is part of my MOTHERLAND. Understood, vatz? Except that there was no personal comment in the quote you stuck it under. Whats with the P-sec bit ? I am a secular person- i am agnostic, i view almost all religions with equal disdain (though i do consider buddhism and jainism to be more respectworthy of other religions) and i am all for removal of religion from the government- i argue in favour of TOTAL seperation of church and state, where matters of religion is completely not a matter of politics. As such, what is the 'psuedo' bit in your labelling ? I am as secular as they come, star- i have and will always argue for equal rights/disregards for ALL religious activity, irrespective of the demographics of the said nation. Refer to me as a secular, but if you accuse me of being a psudo secular, meaning a 'pretend-secular', then show where my bias lies and how. A true secularist would never argue in favor of secession (that is treason of the highest order) as you have. A true secularist would grant equal rights to all religious beliefs, but would also guarantee that punishment be meted out equally...you, regardless of what the issue is at hand, label Hindus and Hindutvavadis as the prime culprits. Dont give us this line - "Oooh..I have served bans at ICF for bashing Muslims..I bash all religions equally..yada yada yada" The problem here lies squarely in the lap of the Kashmiri Muslim community, and yet you have managed to insult Hindus and Hindutvavadis while defending Kashmiris and their right to secession. Want me to go on? This is a common tactic of the saffron mullahs - if you criticise their religious doctrine and fundamentalism, you are automatically a psudo secular or a maoist or a muslim/radical muslim. This is quite lame, really. Criticizing doctrine is one thing. But you p-secs slap the Hindu/Sanatan dharma in the face, while giving minor admonitions to practiioners of other religions...when, infact, is they who should be given stern warnings. Dear CC, you are indeed a p-sec That is a common myth, very aptly propagated by the saffron mullahs and the saffronised NCERT textbooks of India. Buddhism came around in 500 BCE period- everyone knows that but it borrows FAR MORE from Jain philosophy than prevalent hindu philosophy of sanatan dharma and it is a PROVEN historical fact that Jainism has been around for a LONG TIME before the time of Mahavira. (He isnt the founder, he is the 16th or so Tirthankara of Jainism and there are mentions of Jains in India from OUR OWN SOURCES far before the time of Mahavira) The hindu zealots have effectively brainwashed a lot of hindus in believing that hinduism is the 'original' religion of India, when fact is, Jainism and a few (now-dead) philosophies, such as ajivika and karvaka are atleast as old as Hinduism. So, i am fundamentally disputing your idea that India has always had Santan Dharma at its core. I am fundamentally disputing your claim of Sanatan Dharma being really Santan and existing in its current form from aeons ago. Why should i believe your account of the Mahabharata or Ramayana and not the Buddhist account ? Why should i believe that Balaram is Krishna's older brother and not actually baladev, Krishna's younger brother ? Both the hindu and (in this case, Buddhist) versions of Mahabharata that we know of were penned around the same time and as a secular guy, what is my basis of giving one or another the right of authorship ? There have been fundamental parts of history where India was vastly dominated by non-Hindu population : During the mauryas, kushan and gupta times ( effectively 250 BCE till 550 AD continuous), most of north India was more Buddhist and Jain. Even in the south, great empires and its populace, like Satavahan or Rashtrakut, etc. had huge jain populace. All facts point towards a simple conclusion : Hinduism/Sanatan dharma you practice today has only small elements of ancient 'original hindu' practices to it, while a lot of it is fusion of jain,buddhist,carvaka, etc. ideas in the chaos that followed the hun invasions and culminated with Islamisation of India. Hinduism, with its far more militant nature than these philosophies, weathered the storm of Huns and Turko-Persian Islamists better than the other philosophies and thus its current supremacy in the subcontinent. There is no dispute that hinduism, buddhism and jainism are all very closely knit, but to claim that hinduism is older than jainism or that buddhism borrows a lot from hinduism is simple religious propaganda. In these verbose paragraphs, you have managed to only parrot simple and bland facts. You have talked about "practices", "dates", "kingdoms" but do you truly understand what it means to be a Hindu, what it means to be a Buddhist, and what it means to be a Jain? If you truly understood what Hinduism means, and after stripping away all rituals and practices, if you grasped the core essense of Hinduism, it would become perfectly clear to you that regardless of the name of the religion (Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism), it has been Sanatan Dharma that has been practiced all along. It has been Sanatan Dharma that once made India the envy of the world, and it will be Sanatan Dharma that shall once again free our beloved Motherland.

Responses in bold. Since you see everything in either black or white, categorically dismantling your points is not a particularly challenging task. Jai Hind! Jai Maharashtra!

[CC1981]

Bharat, however, is my MATRA-bhumi...my MOTHERLAND-land. There in lies the primary difference, and any one with the gall to even contemplate seceding from India should be dealt with in the most severe and uncompromising manner. My original point, the land of our Kashmir is OURS , and will forever be ours still stands...since that is part of my MOTHERLAND. Understood, vatz?

Why should anyone contemplating secession from India be dealt with 'most severely' ? What you are failing to understand is that being part of one nation is NOT an inviolable condition to existence- if a nation is heavyhanded with a particular region under its domain, that region would have EVERY MORAL RIGHT to secede. Your comment reeks of despotism and absolutist control, where nomatter what happens, a nation must remain intact. Sorry, thats not how human psyche works. If a nation is neglectful, discriminatory or heavyhanded towards a particular region, people of that region tend to secede/want to secede and there is absolutely NOTHING unnatural or immoral in that. The entire reason we are one nation is because today, together we can do better than individually. But if tomorrow, new geo/socio-political scenarios mean that Bengal and Bengali would do better on its own than remain with India, i will vociferously advocate seperation. And if tomorrow it becomes clear that Marathis would do better on their own than sticking with India, you can bet your bottom dollar i will argue in favour of marathi seperation. My point is not that Kashmir should seperate or should be let go- but i completely disagree with your absolutist and despotic comment that nomatter what, seperation from a nation is intolerable. Look around you : Quebec tried to seperate and we gave them the chance to. Russia allowed seperation of sixteen or so of its regions, UK allowed seperation of Southern Ireland from its Kingdom. Secession is neither a sin nor should it be completely off the table as an option. The land of Kashmir is ours till the day Kashmiris overwhelmingly favuor seperation. Then the land of Kashmir would cease to be ours. The land of Burma is not ours- till the day Burmese overwhelmingly favour union with India. There is absolutely no logic or morality in proclaiming that 'nomatter what happens, kashmir would always be ours and nothing will change that' - infact that sounds exactly like the soundbytes the Nazis gave out during Hitler's time, saying Leibenstraum would be theirs for the next 10,000 years. Somehow i am not surprised to see many points of similarity between hinduvta movements and Nazism/Fascism.

A true secularist would never argue in favor of secession (that is treason of the highest order) as you have. A true secularist would grant equal rights to all religious beliefs, but would also guarantee that punishment be meted out equally...you, regardless of what the issue is at hand, label Hindus and Hindutvavadis as the prime culprits. Dont give us this line - "Oooh..I have served bans at ICF for bashing Muslims..I bash all religions equally..yada yada yada" The problem here lies squarely in the lap of the Kashmiri Muslim community, and yet you have managed to insult Hindus and Hindutvavadis while defending Kashmiris and their right to secession.

That is nothing more than utter boolsheet. What has secularism gotto do with anti-secession? Why would a true secularist not argue in favour of secession when the act is justified ? Show me where in secular fundamentals it says that a secularist is a despotic and unilateral nationalist. As per granting equal religious rights, you are late to the party, noobie. Read other threads, where i have OPENLY said that Hajj subsidy etc. should be revoked, Islamic jurisprudence should be revoked etc. and religious beliefs should be granted equal rights. I have said EXACTLY the same thing you think a true secularist should say and i can easily back up my claim by quoting you many many messages before you were even aware this site existed, noobie. If you want to know what a true secular is, let me tell you what a true secular is : a person who doesnt give a damn about the religious background or affiliations of a person - if the INDIVIDUAL is a nice person , then the secularist befriends them, if not, then not. True secularism is about individualism, where the individual and the right of the individual (especially the right NOT to be victimised thruogh generalized steriotypes- something that hinduvtas are guilty of equally with ALL other religious nutters) are more precious than preserving the sanctity of a fairytale boolsheet story ( ram-leela, krishna,mohammed,jesus-take your pick. ALL those are boolsheet stories with more fiction than fact in them, though i agree they can teach something to all of us- but not in the form of commandments or instructions from a so-called God guy. that is the boolsheet part)

Criticizing doctrine is one thing. But you p-secs slap the Hindu/Sanatan dharma in the face, while giving minor admonitions to practiioners of other religions...when, infact, is they who should be given stern warnings. Dear CC, you are indeed a p-sec

No, dear. Its called addressing the crowd. This place is overwhelmingly hinduvta fanatic dominated. You wont find a SINGLE poster here who'd argue in favour of or justify jihad like some would on PP. And FYI, my criticism of Islam is so harsh that PP-ers cant tolerate me for more than a few days at a time.Not too long ago, i went there as Duke_Ellington and you should dig up the few comments i made before being banned from there if you have any doubts about my secularism. What you fail to understand, is that there is absolutely no point in me hollering about anti-islamism here, when 100s others here already do so. However, few here have the ballz or gumption to speak up against equally nefarious hinduvta activities, so i fill the nitche here. Your charge of equal admonition of religions is irrelevant, since there is no point in admonishing a religion here which has no representatives. For eg, i can go on and on about how stupid the ideology of mormons or Jehovah's witnesses or Bushido adherents are- but there is absolutely no point in that, since there isnt a single mormon,Bushido-follower or JW here. Samjhey, vatz ? Your comment that i am a p-sec is simple smear-campaign that all hinduvtas make when they cannot tolerate the truth about their activities and religion : utter boolsheet and utter diversion tactics. Show me a SINGLE post where i've advocated unequal rights for religions, conjugation of church and state or any such ideals that are anti-secular. As i said, champ, i am as secular as you get - you cannot accuse me of favouring one religion over another, because i dislike all religions and consider your concept of God to be boolsheet anyways. An atheist/agnost cannot be partial towards one religion or another- thats a non-sequitur and an absolutely brainless accusation. I hate all religions equally, though i have ample time for philosophy- be it dharmic philosophy (which i am most partial towards), Neitzcheism, Locke, Kant, Plato, Epicurus, Nagarjuna or Vivekananda. So yes, i do despise Hinduism- what you fail to compute for, is that it isnt just restricted to hinduism,neither do i hate hinduism more than other religions...infact, i am softer on hinduism than most other religions, because of family reasons, where most of my family are hindus.

In these verbose paragraphs, you have managed to only parrot simple and bland facts. You have talked about "practices", "dates", "kingdoms" but do you truly understand what it means to be a Hindu, what it means to be a Buddhist, and what it means to be a Jain? If you truly understood what Hinduism means, and after stripping away all rituals and practices, if you grasped the core essense of Hinduism, it would become perfectly clear to you that regardless of the name of the religion (Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism), it has been Sanatan Dharma that has been practiced all along. It has been Sanatan Dharma that once made India the envy of the world, and it will be Sanatan Dharma that shall once again free our beloved Motherland.

Strip away the rituals, dolls of Gods and other brainless activities from hinduism and you end up with buddhism/jainism. Your Sanatan dharma is/was nothing more than simlpe God-worship, first from the Rig vedic times of Indra,Varuna, etc. only to later see the rise of the Trimuti (Brahma-Vishnu-maheshwar). The central core of yuor Sanatan Dharma is quasi-abrahamic type of God-worship, prophets and avatars, God's rules and rituals etc. The philosophy of Sanatan Dharma is the philosophy of the Ajivaks,Jains, Buddhists and various other anastik schools of thought that Sanatan Dharma absorbed in its fold over the years, due to a lack of its own philosophical base. I will say this once to you (since you are a noobie) : telling me what is hinduism is like telling Bill Gates what its to be like to be rich. Granted, i am not a pandit in the nitty gritty ritualism and mindless slokas of hinduism- but i am very well familiar with its historicity, its evolution as a philosophy from simple vedic ritualisms and discriminatory retardation. I come from a brahmin family- i used to do some brahmingiri in my youth too and i spent a significant part of my time over the years learning about various religions. Sanatan Dharma today is nothing more than buddhist/jain practices and karmic philosophies absorbed in the mindless vedic ritualisms and god-worship. I am an adherent of karmic philosophy but it is an insult to karmic philosophy to say it is original to sanatan dharma. Sanatan Dharma is primarily about mindless worshipping of dolls and various other ritualism- get rid of that mindless activity and i shall have no problem with sanatan dharma. Lastly, i have great respect for dharmic philosophy. I have utterly no respect for dharmic religions, of which hinduism is the most twisted and ritualistically mindless one.

[CC1981]

Come in boss....bhaago mat.

[CC1981]

You are talking to me ?

You see anyone else with 'boss' in their username ? You made allegations - i answered them...that demands a riposte or are you gonna run away like you normally do ?

[Ram]

O.K, we have had enough of this. This thread is going to go nothing but downhill from here on. Sorry for the inconvenience. The thread has been re-opened out of a request from a poster. If it continues with its trash ways, it will locked again, without warning.

[CC1981]

right now it looks like how a 5yr old would type

Then it should be at your level to answer.

I dont have time for that nor does my life revolve around answering your questions.

Standard and typical evasive comments from Bossbhai, aka Bossbhaga. You cant answer my points, which is why you are clutching at straws and refusing to answer- like the typical propagandist. Those who actually got a point dont make excuses and debate the post. Those who dont and are too cowardly to admit their error ( show me a SINGLE post on chit-chat/politics forum where you admitted your error- just ONE would suffice) will make 1001 excuses to keep running away. I know which category you fall under- so does every sane person here.

[Ram]

Now, its truly OTT. This isnt the place for some silly personal abuse fests.

[CC1981]

Dont worry about my level worry about yours ....

My level of English ? Pffft..you sure you wanna go down that road again, vatz ?

dont give a ants behind as to what you think about my stance .... you dont edit that post it will vanish.

Take that tone with me and i will make sure your exit from here is quick and painless...like last time. And stop opening threads that the moderator closed just for your childish obsession of having the last word - clear despotism and flagrant abuse of your admin powers where you overrule a moderator just for personal kicks. Shameful but then again, you've been caught out in lies once too often. I guess thats why you are so scared about debating me and keep running away from my points.

[Mr. Wicket]

Give it a break, CC. There are quite a few people among the staff/admins who've fought for you to remain a member despite your infractions/warnings for getting into such discussions with the insults/name calling/constant thread digressions. It's quite ridiculous that despite some of us constantly trying to keep you as a member of this site given what you can contribute in cricket/chit chat discussions, you keep going back to square one with the sort of stuff in this topic. Comments like saffron mullahs, hindutvas, etc and a lot of the language you're using is inflammatory and borderline over the top, as you well know. It's getting on people's nerves to no end, and it's getting more and more frustrating given that you can't stop picking e-fights with the same few people over and over again. Either learn to shoulder arms to some of this and avoid these sorts of posts, or tone down your posting (as some of us have requested several times) and keep the threads from being derailed like this.

[kumble_rocks]

Their is too much excess baggage that gets carried around in every thread. Even I am guilty of the same. Debates are getting more and more useless and hostile .Preconceived opinions of the poster will never change no matter what other party posts ! Looks like it is an ego trip for all the posters here be it myself or anybody else.After all , it's a sign of weakness if you admit you are wrong !:--D