Clarke Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Then why discuss/debate about it? :dontknow: Zara thanda le bhai. Do not try to indulge in really poor (and irrelevant) rhetoric. If the discussion about Hindu Nationalists so important, then this goes beyond that. The question is still out there though, if someone wants to explain whether Hindustan a is communal name.
Crookbond Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 If the discussion about Hindu Nationalists so important, then this goes beyond that. The question is still out there though, if someone wants to explain whether Hindustan a is communal name. The discussion was about what Hindu nationalist meant. Two CM's of the same party can't seem to have a consensus on the definition. It doesn't matter if Hindustan is a communal name or not.
Clarke Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 The discussion was about what Hindu nationalist meant. Two CM's of the same party can't seem to have a consensus on the definition. It doesn't matter if Hindustan is a communal name or not. Why not ? The origins of their communal behavior might just lie in Hindustan.
surajmal Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Indian passports say Bharat Ganrajya. So would one of the resident gyanis explain what a nationalist of Bharat is supposed to mean?
Crookbond Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Why not ? The origins of their communal behavior might just lie in Hindustan. Irrespective of the origin of their behavior (which may well be Pakistan or Afghanistan as well!) the term Hindu nationalist seems to draw two diverse (and contrasting) definitions from two CM's of the same political party. I find that a bit amusing - probably their origins were not the same after all.
Crookbond Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Deleting all my previous posts to take out the mess created on this thread probably to go back and start a civilized discussion.
Crookbond Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Irrespective of the origin of their behavior (which may well be Pakistan or Afghanistan as well!) the term Hindu nationalist seems to draw two diverse (and contrasting) definitions from two CM's of the same political party. I find that a bit amusing - probably their origins were not the same after all. Surajmal - When I said this I referred to the origins of the behaviors two CM's and not the definition of the term "Hindu Nationalist". The word origin was used for "behavior" in the 1st line of the post.
surajmal Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Surajmal - When I said this I referred to the origins of the two CM's and not the definition of the term "Hindu Nationalist". Yeah. One guy rose from the dirt to become the best administrator in post independence history. The second guy is a brahmin. How do seculars get over their cognitive dissonance in this comparison.
Crookbond Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Yeah. One guy rose from the dirt to become the best administrator in post independence history. The second guy is a brahmin. How do seculars get over their cognitive dissonance in this comparison. :wall: It was a barb and referred to the point that both of them do not agree on a definition of a term depite being CM's from the same party ( I found that relevant to an "elections thread"). That's just about it! It is not to belittle them from their contributions to the society. Serious question - Why do you have to be so aggressive in your posts? :dontknow: You disagree - fair enough and fine.
The Outsider Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 How would you have said what we think Parikar meant? Honestly, I am not sure what he meant. Maybe if you can explain what he meant I can try to rephrase it. That's fair; btw is Hindustan a communal name for the country ? No, it is not because the word Hindustan has never been associated with any division based on religion. On the contrary, Hindu Nationalism as propounded by Savarkar, who is an ideologue of the BJP - the party of the two CMs in question, explicitly excluded Muslims and Christians. Whether they believe Savarkar's idea of Hindu Nationalism I don't know and frankly they don't seem to know either, given how they gave completely different explanations for it.
surajmal Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 :wall: It was a barb and referred to the point that both of them do not agree on a definition of a term depite being CM's from the same party ( I found that relevant to an "elections thread"). That's just about it! It is not to belittle them from their contributions to the society. Serious question - Why do you have to be so aggressive in your posts? :dontknow: You disagree - fair enough and fine. Nature of rhetorical discussions. You want it toned down? Talk substance. That is why asked you to look at the origins of the term "Hindu".
FischerTal Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Dang you guys have too much free time :phehehe:
randomGuy Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Honestly' date=' I am not sure what he meant. Maybe if you can explain what he meant I can try to rephrase[/quote'] You have an idea I guess. 1. If he'd have said western culture instead of Christian culture, that could have had unintended connotations as western culture means liberalism at various place, so he could unintentionally have suggested that Indian culture is conservative. 2. If he had said Portuguese culture, that would have sounded lame - well the Goans are Indians they are supposed to be more culturally indian than portugease. 3. Like I said, culture includes food, values, festivals, attire etc. What if he thought he would be more specific by mentioning Hindu culture because 15% of India eats halal, allows multiple wives, animal sacrifices on festivals, has hijab as main attire for women. Now don't say some Hindus practice animal sacrifice too as its a tiny percentage.
randomGuy Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Dang you guys have too much free time :phehehe: :cantstop: guilty as charged.
saneindian Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 I never said that Advani should be made the PM candidate this time. I simply said (and I stand by that statement even now) that BJP should not go into the elections with an official leader and should signal to the current/potential allies that they have not and they will not decide the PM candidate before the results are out. This was the only way to get support of some pr-poll allies which BJP desperately needs. As for good progress in various states - I don't know about other states but in UP I know that most senior leaders are unhappy with Amit Shah's working style. More importantly, the polarization of Muslim votes because of Modi's elevation (its no longer a "probability" - it is very much happening now. Everyone in UP - be it SP or COng or BJP or even the Intelligence Bureau reports indicate that polarization and communal tension are at their highest level since the early 90s) ) will be more than enough to negate any benefits which the BJP gets from strengthening the booth committees. Yaar ek baat batao, if there was no polarization, would the muslims be voting enmass for BJP? Some level of polarization /emotive issue is what will force the normally dormant BJP voter to come out of homes and vote for the party. Good thing is for that BJP/Modi/Amit Shah need not do much. Mulayam through his shameless muslim appeasement is providing enough opportunities. Zia Ul Haq murder case, Durga Nagpal case, attempts to free hard core muslim terrorists , frequent talks of muslim reservation, 20% allocation of all govt spend on muslims - the list will continuously grow as we approach the elections. There would obviously be a silent reaction from the other side at this blatant attempt of appeasement. Go through the list of riots in last 12 months in UP, majority of those riots are between muslims vs yadavs/dalits. Muslims vs Yadavs is the battle of supremacy under Mulayam govt, both being his core vote banks. Muslims vs dalits is primarily the result of SP vs BSP turf war. As for senior UP leaders being unhappy in UP, its good they are unhappy. Most of them are deadwood anyways having totally destroyed the party plunging it to a low of 10 seats from a high of 57 in late 90s. Amit Shah is trying to get new faces and that is a must to revive the party. Large number of RSS veterans who were staying away from the BJP's electioneering in last 2 elections, are becoming active again. 'Boots on the ground' is what propelled the BJP to its highs of late 90s. It needs a vigorous organization with younger faces to get back
ravishingravi Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 From all accounts, BJP will emerge as single largest party in the country. But will 180-200 seats be good enough.
Crookbond Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 If there was a general election tommorow, who would you vote for? Nature of rhetorical discussions. You want it toned down? Talk substance. That is why asked you to look at the origins of the term "Hindu". An opinion which doesn't match your view point isn't substance. I don't want to look into the origin of the term to understand that two CMs are talking chalk and cheese on the same term. It's semantic is irrelevant in the context.
Clarke Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 No' date=' it is not because the word Hindustan has never been associated with any division based on religion.[/quote'] One could create literal translations and throw tantrums on those, just like Hindu Nationalist. You should have a problem with Hindustan itself. Is Savarkar's ghost coming back in 2014 ? Tell us what the big problem is with whatever communal definitions the respective CMs have put forward, irrespective of their individual interpretations.
Clarke Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Source? saneindian was asking in another thread why the Vanzara and CD case are not being discussed on ICF - with rabid supporters of Modi as shown in the last few posts, what is the point? Chalo, even for a moment one accept that Sohrabuddin and many others were terrorists and killing them off through a criminal act is okay, where does Kaiserbi fit into it? Modi has all the hallmarks of fascism, and yet the so called educated class of India gives him support. Or they see him as the lesser of the evils after having to deal with daily personal and national problems. The secular thugs you support have to go digging 7 years to throw dirt on him while the central govt arm twists the CBI so that your secular state govt can have Raja Bhaiya back in cabinet. Let me think, terrorist killed in encounter vs murderer who killed DSP cleared by central govt ? Hmmm, I would be inclined to come out in support of terrorists if I were a Congressi to guard my vote bank. Oddly, the DSP was also a minority, but that's ok I guess. Did I talk about the better roads and consistent power supply in fascist Gujarat that the educated class prefers ? Or is that the sole right of seculars living in America ?
Recommended Posts