[Reader-list] Feudalism in Pakistan

[Murali V]

Dear Rakesh JI,

Here are some facts which you might want to know.

1. Haj pilgrimage subsidised to several 1000's of rupees while Amarnath
Yatra taxed.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=952&id=893408&tablename=News>
2. When a Newspaper in Denmark published an offensive cartoon caricaturing
the Prophet, the non-descript Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh
called up the Denmark Prime Minister to object to the publication of the
cartoon. The same Prime Minister maintained an attitude of cold and
calculated pseudo-secular silence when a hundred year old Malaimel Sri Selva
Kaliamman Temple in Kuala Lumpur was demolished very recently. Our Prime
Minister did not even issue a statement, much less call up the Malaysian
Prime Minister. Against this known anti-Hindu stand of the Government of
India, even within the country, no respectable or responsible Indian citizen
can ever expect our Prime Minister to speak boldly to President Musharaff,
lodging his protest against the demolition of the Krishna Temple in Lahore.
The list could be endless.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=952&id=893408&tablename=News>
3. Hindu temples brought under govt. control whereas Auditing the overseas
cash inflows and outflows of Churches, no way can that be questioned.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=952&id=893408&tablename=News>
4. During the regime of S M Krishna, Sangliana, a Christian Officer from
North-East openly sided with missionaries when the Ma Bhagavati temple in
Devanahalli (Bangalore Rural) and Sri Durgamba Temple in Banaswadi
(Bangalore) were demolished and churches erected in their place in
2002.<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=952&id=893408&tablename=News>
5. Gandhi and Nehru objected to the decision of the cabinet and insisted
that Somnath Temple should be reconstructed out of public funds, not
government funds, while in January 1948 they pressurised Sardar Patel to
carry on renovation of the mosques of Delhi at government
expense.<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=952&id=893408&tablename=News>
6. In 2002, Karnataka State received Rs.72 crores as revenue from temples,
returned Rs.10 crores for temple maintenance, and granted Rs.50 crores for
madrasas and Rs.10 crores for churches. (Daily Pioneer, October 7, 2003.)
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=952&id=893408&tablename=News>
7. 8. BJP-ruled Rajasthan has to change the name of a colony named after the
Goddess Sati, but Maharashtra sanctions a Christian township!
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=952&id=893408&tablename=News>
8. A minister in the state government, Mohammed Yaqoob Qureshi, offered a
reward of $US11.5 million ($15.6 million) for the beheading of any of the
cartoonists. No case was filed against him for instigating communal
violence. BJP’s reward for killing militants: Case registered against
Katiyar. The Jammu Police have registered a case against Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) general secretary Vinay Katiyar for attempting to incite
communal violence by announcing reward money for those civilians who killed
militants. What hipocrcy and pseudo-secularism.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=952&id=893408&tablename=News>

stating what Congress and Pseudo-secular Congress are doing on the following
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=1707&id=625347&tablename=Business>
1. UPA announcing quota for Muslims, on the basis of religion, is not
communal.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=1707&id=625347&tablename=Business>
2. Manmohan Singh, giving a clarion call that Muslims must have first access
to national resources, is not communal.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=1707&id=625347&tablename=Business>
3. Postponing Afzal's hanging, for the sake of UP elections, is not
communal.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=1707&id=625347&tablename=Business>
4. Releasing the communally doctored Justice Sachar Report is not communal.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=1707&id=625347&tablename=Business>
5. Lalu, releasing Banerjee Commission Report on Godhra carnage (when
Nanavati commission was enquiring into the incident) on the eve of Bihar
Elections is not communal. 6. Rahul, telling that Babri Masjid would have
been safe under Gandhi dynasty, is not communal.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=1707&id=625347&tablename=Business>
7. Mulayam Singh's attempt to close the criminal cases against SIMI
terrorists is 'not communal'.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=1707&id=625347&tablename=Business>
8. surreptitiously slipped in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution in
order to convert the Hindus in Majority in India into serfs of the
'Minority' in perpetuity is 'not communal'.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=1707&id=625347&tablename=Business>
9. We do not have Haj subsidies in any other Islamic or non-Islamic country
in the world is 'not communal'.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=1707&id=625347&tablename=Business>
10. Union Finance Minister, recently announce a new 'Communal' programme of
'COMMUNAL LOANS' by asking the Banks to refashion and restructure their
lending policy by earmarking 15 per cent of the priority sector loans
exclusively for the minorities? is 'not communal'.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=1707&id=625347&tablename=Business>
11. Soon after the Mumbai train blasts, Sonia Gandhi visited Mumbai and
declared that 'the feelings of the minority Muslims should not be hurt,' in
spite of being fully aware of the fact that these acts of terror were
perpetrated by the Muslims with the full backing of ISI in Pakistan is not
communal.
<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=1707&id=625347&tablename=Business>

Can list more and the list could be
endless.<http://www.ndtvgoodtimes.com/mb/readreply.asp?topicid=952&id=893408&tablename=News>



On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Rajen jee
>
> First of all, it's you who keep on constantly arguing about discrimination
> being made against Hindus in the name of minority appeasement and religious
> basis. And in this mission, you are not alone but served by the likes of
> Murali ji and others as well.
>
> My simple argument to you on that would be that are there facts and figures
> which prove your statement at all. If yes, please do present them here.
> Manmohan Singh and Congress and other 'secularist' parties can say many
> things, but the ground realities are totally different, going by the data
> collected through the Census and other surveys.
>
> Secondly, I have stated again and will again state that issues should not
> be mixed. And what's more, we need to talk about issues which actually
> concern the people of this country, most of whom are poor, economically
> destitute, deprived of food, health, proper sanitation and education. On top
> of that, they are socially and sometimes racially discriminated. And then,
> they are politically powerless. So we need to look about them.
>
> Instead I see you and others (and here I blame myself as well) for
> discussing issues which simply are of no value at all. We instead talk about
> minority and majority politics all the time. And now I am supposed to have
> been charming all with grace and arguments to be in politics. For your kind
> information, if politics would have been my forte, Sarai would have been the
> last resort for me. The first would have been ground work and trying to do
> something for people, with the objective of gaining votes. I am not one of
> the Arun Jaitleys, the Arun Shouries, the Manmohan Singhs, the Pranab
> Mukherjees (at least till pre-2004) who try to gain backdoor entry through
> the Rajya Sabha without even trying to face the people, without even
> understanding issues or electoral politics properly.
>
>
> When I look at such kind of arguments, I seriously feel that people should
> try to behave as per their age. I can understand ignorance of issues, and
> misunderstandings are also common, but such kind of statements do make me
> feel as if I am making a child understand, and yet the child refuses to
> listen to me. Pardon my language on this count, but I really don't know how
> to say it in a better way.
>
> By the way, unlike your idea, I have not perceived you as the 'other' who
> is 'religious'. If that were the case, like Anupam jee, I would have simply
> refused to reply to your argument. I am in the hope that people like you
> would realize the importance and priorities of what is to be done for the
> people at large, and come over to support it. This 'other' is within us, not
> outside us.
>
> Lastly about proselytization. The reason Gandhi is against proselytization
> is because people are simply changing their faith, without even reasoning
> out as to why they should do so. And because some agencies are utilizing it
> for an irrational purpose, Gandhi's grouse against them is perfectly
> acceptable. However, if people are that much ready to change their faith
> without reasoning out at all, some fault does lie with those changing their
> faith. Moreover, there's a difference between conversion and proselytization
> too.  Gandhi wasn't against conversion (which meant changing your faith by
> reasoning out) but against proselytization.
>
> What's more, if you feel it's wrong, simply discard those who proselytize
> as 'bad Hindus' and take them as 'bad people'. What's wrong about that?
> Instead, today's arguments about proselytization seem to bring to mind the
> insecurity that if all poor and destitutes were to become Christians, then
> upper caste Hindus would have no one to boss around, and would also become
> politically powerless (as these Christians may be asked to vote for secular
> parties, on the plank of communalism and protection of their rights). Why
> then should not we talk about reconversions (also a kind of
> proselytization), that too of tribals, who have never understood what it
> means to be a Hindu?
>
> Infact, how many on this forum, who consider themselves to be Hindus,
> actually know what it means to be a Hindu? I would be glad to know that as
> well.
>
> By the way, even Christ was against conversion, and would have been apalled
> at such proselytization by Christian missionaries. But then there should be
> a proof of this happening. Inspite of the Freedom of Religion Act passed in
> Gujarat, in 10 years, only 3 cases were registered of conversions under
> 'allurement or force'. And if this is still taking place, then it's wrong
> and let's protest it. What's wrong with that?
>
> But not from the religious angle. From the reasoning angle.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
>