Communal Relations - Conflicting Narratives

04-14-2007, 07:13 AM

Hey, first post in IF. I am the guy quoted in Acharya's first post in this thread <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clap.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='clap.gif' />

04-14-2007, 07:22 AM

QUOTE(Sumann Bharadwaja Sarma @ Apr 14 2007, 01:42 AM)Hi Abhijit,

Would it also be possible to get list of people actively constructing the Hindu narrative in our times?Â

I tend to think of the narrative as my story-- just what am I about in relation to Bharath and Hinduism. It starts out simply as things about my childhood, my family, and how they came to be. It then brings in my ancestors and how they came to be, our village, the dialect and how all that came to be. It catalogs regular and peculiar customs of our community and what we've endured, how we screwed up, and where we shined. At some point all that mingles with your story and the next, becoming our narrative. From such kathopÄgyÄna may emerge a modern ArthaÅÄstra that serves as the compass of our destiny.

Our narrative has become so private that I find strange lyrics in what I thought was our song. I find myself gobbed with so many layers of distant world-views that I am yet to begin the first line of the first scentence of the first book of the first volume after having gone a good length of my life.

That is the reason I ask for list of people or types, and not in the least meaning it to be provocative.

Thank you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Abhijit @ Apr 13 2007, 12:52 PM)I would like to dissect the fourth issue I mentioned in my post viz. why is there a fierce opposition to a Hindu narrative by various sections. First let me try to list the various sections that are (IMO) opposed to a Hindu narrative.
- EJ's
- IJ's
- Commies
- Non-EJ Christian Indians (at least a section of them - probably a large one)
- Non-jihadi Indian Muslims (at least a section of them - probably a large one)
- Non-commie Hindus who believe they are secular but probably do not understand the implications of 'secularism'
- Lower caste Hindus, especially those who carry an anti-upper caste chip on their shoulders
- Business leaders

Is that an exhaustive list or did I miss any big section?
I intend to expand on this issue in a series of posts as time permits and invite others to chip in.
[right][snapback]66926[/snapback][/right]

[right][snapback]66949[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Swami Vivekananda already explained the Universal nature of Vedantic Path. This Universality makes absorption of ideas easy.
Hinduism shoud stand for Universality and Individual Hindu as part of whole connected Universe.

04-14-2007, 09:23 AM

Ok Prem, you've brought out a number of questions.
First, I am only starting to delve into Swami Vivekananda, so I have much to learn.

Would it be possible for you to put these notions of universality and connected universe in the context of the origins of this thread -- the strongly perceived external threat to the hindu narrative?

How is it possible to promote a connected universe and universality of the Vedanta approach in the face of alternate world-views that have not shared it and threatened it wholesale?

QUOTE(prem @ Apr 13 2007, 09:52 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sumann Bharadwaja Sarma @ Apr 14 2007, 01:42 AM)Hi Abhijit,

Would it also be possible to get list of people actively constructing the Hindu narrative in our times?Â

I tend to think of the narrative as my story-- just what am I about in relation to Bharath and Hinduism. It starts out simply as things about my childhood, my family, and how they came to be. It then brings in my ancestors and how theyÂ
............
That is the reason I ask for list of people or types, and not in the least meaning it to be provocative.

Thank you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Abhijit @ Apr 13 2007, 12:52 PM)I would like to dissect the fourth issue I mentioned in my post viz. why is there a fierce opposition to a Hindu narrative by various sections. First let me try to list the various sections that are (IMO) opposed to a Hindu narrative.
- EJ's
- IJ's
- Commies
- Non-EJ Christian Indians (at least a section of them - probably a large one)
- Non-jihadi Indian Muslims (at least a section of them - probably a large one)
- Non-commie Hindus who believe they are secular but probably do not understand the implications of 'secularism'
- Lower caste Hindus, especially those who carry an anti-upper caste chip on their shoulders
- Business leaders

Is that an exhaustive list or did I miss any big section?
I intend to expand on this issue in a series of posts as time permits and invite others to chip in.
[right][snapback]66926[/snapback][/right]

[right][snapback]66949[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Swami Vivekananda already explained the Universal nature of Vedantic Path. This Universality makes absorption of ideas easy.
Hinduism shoud stand for Universality and Individual Hindu as part of whole connected Universe.
[right][snapback]66983[/snapback][/right]
</div>

04-14-2007, 01:49 PM

When you talk of a Hindu narrative, it is important not to get tied up in knots about who is a Hindu.

A Hindu is anyone who thinks he is one. His story is his narrative. If it is his story, it should not be disputed - it becomes part of the narrative.

If, for example, a person who is a Hindu laments that Hindus are intolerant and that they should should not be antagonistic towards Islam or Christianity - this person's narrative is a powerful tool in the Hindu narrative.

Even if you classify this person as a Dhimmi or a psec, his narrative, as part the Hindu narrative will stand out as a beacon of Hindu tolerance in stark contrast to the dogma Christianity or Islam that will not allow acceptance of this kind. The strength of such a narrative lies in the fact that the person with this narrative claims to be a Hindu (he has not converted) and looks askance at other Hindus whom he feels are showing intolerance. Showing intolerance to this view is a tactical blunder. The Hindu narrative cannot exclude narratives from any Hindu. The act of rejecting this narrative as that of a dhimmi or "not a true Hindu" only thins the ranks of Hindus and encourages alliances with others.

04-14-2007, 06:02 PM

I believe that Hindus in general suffer from certain leftover traits that have often been described as dhimmitude or as being Macaulay-putras.

While the terms and the characteristics these words describe may not be wrong they create an impression that those people who can be described by these words have all the deficiencies and those who cannot be described by these words do not suffer from any deficiencies.

I believe that the truth is more complex than that.

Hindu psyche has layer upon layer upon layer of complexity and removing the dhimmi/Macaulay layers does not necessarily remove all the problems that the Hindus mind is hamstrung with.

Besides, and more importantly, it does not remove the years (decades/centuries) of having the Hindu narrative written by all sorts of conquerors, sycophants and Hindus who were just trying to save their own skins by telling a narrative in a particular way. I am certain that these complex layers of "forced Hindu narrative" that is in contrast to the real Hindu self image cause Hindus to react in a particular way.

At least on the internet I have noticed Hindus reacting in a particularly harsh and angry way to criticism, flamebait and plain lies. This is counter productive in the long run. All too often, Hindus are at pains to instantly prove that they are neither dhimmis nor Macaulay-putras and this instant knee jerk is a kind of switch that can be used to tweak and aggravate Hindus to get them to react angrily and then eliminate them from debate as violent, hateful trolls as has happened frequently on BRF.

Christianity and Islam, in the process of selling and promoting themselves have developed standard "ready to use" rhetoric to tear down arguments against them. Islam actually teaches rhetoric as a subject in mulla-universities. Hindus have no such knowledge to fall back upon. Rhetoric is no use when you search for truth. Rhetoric died out with the advent of modern science. Except with some religions, from where it has been honed into an art akin to a diamond edged knife.

So you find incredibly sophisticated Christians and Muslims, with readymade rhetoric in front of whom the poor Hindu often comes out looking like a naive schoolboy in comparison. On BRF I have seen situations where a sophisticated troll is able to successfully trip up half a dozen Hindus from stating their viewpoint by using the "switch" that gets them angry. Appropriate flamebait is posted - that gets Hindus arguing about the flamebait and sooner or later one of them gets angry enough to say something that gets classified as "hate speech" and he gets banned. Guess whose narrative loses out?

The point I am trying to make is the need for a single minded purpose in putting forward one's narrative without getting into arguments. When you get into an argument with somebody's who opposed your view - you are giving his narrative attention and you are allowing him to use a flawed view to get you angry. You lose both ways. You end up looking stupid and your view has been successfully sidelined.

A Hindu view will never get aired if Hindus choose to go on the defensive and start arguing the minute their worldview is criticized. The way forward is to blurt out your view and ignore those who oppose your narrative. Let them oppose it - there is no need to get into an argument. A person who opposes you WANTS you to get into an argument and specifically chooses arguments designed to irritate you. His intention is to irritate you, get you arguing and trip you up. An angry person is easy to trip up, and an angry person just has to say a few words that can be construed as hate speech" to permanently put a seal on his narrative.

There are things loaded against a Hindu narrative, but only you can avoid falling into the trap.

Set aside anger. Just do your duty. Without anger.

04-14-2007, 06:56 PM

Shiv

If I could add that Hindus have to resort to the same strategy some people of other religions resort to with when dealing with Hindus in order to try to put Hindus on the defensive

When dealing with such people, Hindus can maybe use the strategy you best described sometime back i.e. the example of 'You farted'...now let the other person start defending himself/herself or the other strategy 'so what if my shirt is torn, your fly is open' is the strategy Hindus can also use instead of Hindus going on the defensive, eventually getting angry and lashing out.

Hauma Hamiddha · (This post was last modified: 04-14-2007, 09:09 PM by Hauma Hamiddha.)

QUOTE(Ajatshatru @ Apr 14 2007, 06:56 PM)Shiv

If I could add that Hindus have to resort to the same strategy some people of other religions resort to with when dealing with Hindus in order to try to put Hindus on the defensive

When dealing with such people, Hindus can maybe use the strategy you best described sometime back i.e. the example of 'You farted'...now let the other person start defending himself/herself or the other strategy 'so what if my shirt is torn, your fly is open' is the strategy Hindus can also use instead of Hindus going on the defensive, eventually getting angry and lashing out.
[right][snapback]66995[/snapback][/right]


Why not resort to educating them.

here is a link to another discussion about Hinduism between Hindus and non-hindus.
http://www.dialognow.org/node/view/497
please take a look.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>
<b>You need to change you usrid to a proper sounding name- admin</b></span>

04-14-2007, 08:30 PM

QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 14 2007, 06:02 PM)<b>Set aside anger. Just do your duty. Without anger.</b>
[right][snapback]66992[/snapback][/right]


Yeahh right!!! We will just do our duty without anger when our Gods are insulted in every imaginable way. Its not possible anymore. Just have a look at this If you are still not angry then please help me out because I am very angry <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' />

04-14-2007, 08:34 PM

Common bases of Hinduism:

This question seems to crop up again and again. It may be necessary to come up with the lowest common denominator and put this matter to rest. Here is a summary of what Swami Vivekananda came up in his speech with the same name in Lahore more than a century ago. I believe that both the common bases and a narrative that animates these bases in a million different ways are necessary.

Every Hindu should try and check whether these bases apply to her/him just as an exercise to vet these bases. Lot of us may not be aware of these critical elements that define us as Hindus. If the bases are insufficient then our acharyas need to come up with better/newer bases.

I have tried to come up with headings summarizing each of the common bases. They may not be completely accurate or well worded.

<b>1) Sanctity of the Vedas:</b> Perhaps all who are here will agree on the first point that we believe the Vedas to be the eternal teachings of the secrets of religion. We all believe that this holy literature is without beginning and without end, coeval with nature, which is without beginning and without end; and that all our religious differences, all our religious struggles must end when we stand in the presence of that holy book; we are all agreed that this is the last court of appeal in all our spiritual differences. We may take different points of view as to what the Vedas are. There may be one sect which regards one portion as more sacred than another, but that matters little so long as we say that we are all brothers in the Vedas, that out of these venerable, eternal, marvellous books has come everything that we possess today, good, holy, and pure. Well, therefore, if we believe in all this, let this principle first of all be preached broadcast throughout the length and breadth of the land. If this be true, let the Vedas have that prominence which they always deserve, and which we all believe in. First, then, the Vedas.

<b>2) The concept of God:</b> The second point we all believe in is God, the creating, the preserving power of the whole universe, and unto whom it periodically returns to come out at other periods and manifest this wonderful phenomenon, called the universe. We may differ as to our conception of God. One may believe in a God who is entirely personal, another may believe in a God who is personal and yet not human, and yet another may believe in a God who is entirely impersonal, and all may get their support from the Vedas. Still we are all believers in God; that is to say, that man who does not believe in a most marvellous infinite Power from which everything has come, in which everything lives, and to which everything must in the end return, cannot be called a Hindu. If that be so, let us try to preach that idea all over the land. Preach whatever conception you have to give, there is no difference, we are not going to fight over it, but preach God; that is all we want. One idea may be better than another, but, mind you, not one of them is bad. One is good, another is better, and again another may be the best, but the word bad does not enter the category of our religion. Therefore, may the Lord bless them all who preach the name of God in whatever form they like! The more He is preached, the better for this race. Let our children be brought up in this idea, let this idea enter the homes of the poorest and the lowest, as well as of the richest and the highest--the idea of the name of God.

<b>3) Cyclical universe:</b> The third idea that I will present before you is that, unlike all other races of the world, we do not believe that this world was created only so many thousand years ago, and is going to be destroyed eternally on a certain day. Nor do we believe that the human soul has been created along with this universe just out of nothing. Here is another point I think we are all able to agree upon. We believe in nature being without beginning and without end; only at psychological periods this gross material of the outer universe goes back to its finer state, thus to remain for a certain period, again to be projected outside to manifest all this infinite panorama we call nature. This wavelike motion was going on even before time began, through eternity, and will remain for an infinite period of time.

<b>4) The concept of Atman:</b> Next, all Hindus believe that man is not only a gross material body; not only that within this there is the finer body, the mind, but there is something yet greater--for the body changes and so does the mind--something beyond, the Atman--I cannot translate the word to you for any translation will be wrong--that there is something beyond even this fine body, which is the Atman of man, which has neither beginning nor end, which knows not what death is. And then this peculiar idea, different from that of all other races of men, that this Atman inhabits body after body until there is no more interest for it to continue to do so, and it becomes free, not to be born again, I refer to the theory of Samsara and the theory of eternal souls taught by our Shastras. This is another point where we all agree, whatever sect we may belong to.

<b>5) Sat Chit Ananda (Eternal, Purity, Bliss) of the Atman:</b> Some of you, perhaps, who have been studying Western thought, may have observed already that there is another radical difference severing at one stroke all that is Western from all that is Eastern. It is this that we hold, whether we are Shaktas, Sauras, or Vaishnavas, even whether we are Bauddhas or Jainas, we all hold in India that the soul is by its nature pure and perfect, infinite in power and blessed. Only, according to the dualist, this natural blissfulness of the soul has become contracted by past bad work, and through the grace of God it is going to open out and show its perfection; while according to the monist, even this idea of contraction is a partial mistake, it is the veil of Maya that causes us to think the soul has lost its powers, but the powers are there fully manifest. Whatever the difference may be, we come to the central core, and there is at once an irreconcilable difference between all that is Western and Eastern. The Eastern is looking inward for all that is great and good. When we worship, we close our eyes and try to find God within. The Western is looking up outside for his God. To the Western their religious books have been inspired, while with us our books have been expired; breath-like they came, the breath of God, out of the hearts of sages they sprang, the Mantra-drashtas.

04-14-2007, 08:51 PM

When in doubt consult your scriptures to see if the sages have answered your questions.

Hinduism = Righteousness

Semantics of the above apart, It is what being Dharmic means. It is to lead a noble life, fulfuill your duties, and live like an Arya.

It cannot be things like freedom et al. A dharmic code of life does not mean you are free to do anything you want. Even freedom has to be in bounds of Dharma.

I guess, experts can expound on the concept more.

A few things need to be answered for a Hindu narrative to come out.

- An understanding of the theological conflicts between Hinduism and the monotheistic faiths
- An accurate understanding as to why, Hinduism failed to resist the onslaught of the monotheistic faiths
- The consititutional, social and political impediments to the evolution of the Hindu faith, as a way of life in the contemporary context
- What needs to be done for a course correction
- What are the eventual goals of the Hindu narrative in the social and political and geo-political context

I have some theories for most of the above, but nowhere close to a complete understanding of all its dimensions. Hope we can explore some of these aspects, here.

04-14-2007, 08:55 PM

One request. Can we keep this thread to the issue at hand that is
Communal Relations - Conflicting Narratives. I am sure many here can post some very interesting tit bits about Hindu philosophy and many would like reading them as such, including myself. But that does disrupt the flow of the thread. A request to make those posts, in the appropriate threads on the forum. Unlike BRF, those threads, exist here.

04-14-2007, 09:00 PM

justme,Apr 14 2007, 03:44 PM Wrote:[quote=Ajatshatru,Apr 14 2007, 06:56 PM]Shiv

If I could add that Hindus have to resort to the same strategy some people of other religions resort to with when dealing with Hindus in order to try to put Hindus on the defensive

When dealing with such people, Hindus can maybe use the strategy you best described sometime back i.e. the example of 'You farted'...now let the other person start defending himself/herself or the other strategy 'so what if my shirt is torn, your fly is open' is the strategy Hindus can also use instead of Hindus going on the defensive, eventually getting angry and lashing out.
[right][snapback]66995[/snapback][/right]

>>>Why not resort to educating them.

What is the your target audience when you talk of educating them? No.2 Educating them on what specific aspect of Hinduism i.e. Are you talking about educating them about actual history of Hinduism or about threat posed by Js and EJs or about how Westerners(and our own commies) use Psy Op talking about such things as caste system etc ad nauseum to try to put Hindus on defensive. No.3 how do you intend reaching them to 'resort to educating them'? Hopefully solutions to such questions and much more may come out of a frank discussion of Hindu narrative.

I think this is precisely one of the reasons why we so desperately need Hindu narrative and are hoping that conclusions arrived at may provide us Hindus some answers that would prove crucial in our Hindus fight against the threats of Js and EJs now and for future generations.

04-14-2007, 09:04 PM

QUOTE(Vishwamitra @ Apr 14 2007, 11:00 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 14 2007, 06:02 PM)<b>Set aside anger. Just do your duty. Without anger.</b>
[right][snapback]66992[/snapback][/right]


Yeahh right!!! We will just do our duty without anger when our Gods are insulted in every imaginable way. Its not possible anymore. Just have a look at this If you are still not angry then please help me out because I am very angry <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' />
[right][snapback]67002[/snapback][/right]
</div>

I think what sengotuvel (What the heck, Shiv, at least make it human sounding!) is saying is. Control and channel that anger, instead of bursting on the scene like a mad dog, who is likey to get shot or more likey to get hit by a running train.

Raise the game, friend. Do not get mad, get even.

04-14-2007, 09:08 PM

QUOTE(Shaurya @ Apr 14 2007, 04:25 PM)One request. Can we keep this thread to the issue at hand that is
Communal Relations - Conflicting Narratives. I am sure many here can post some very interesting tit bits about Hindu philosophy and many would like reading them as such, including myself. But that does disrupt the flow of the thread. A request to make those posts, in the appropriate threads on the forum. Unlike BRF, those threads, exist here.
[right][snapback]67005[/snapback][/right]


Shaurya, maybe unless certain aspects about Hinduism are clear to a Hindu himself/herself, how would he/she intend answering questions confidently without going on the defensive when interacting with members of other faiths? Then again, right now Hindu narrative is like a big puzzle with many pieces scattered here and there. So maybe only when all pieces come together would a clearer picture emerge.

And I think the topic is more about Hindu Narrative than just mere Communal relations.

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 04-14-2007, 09:17 PM

QUOTEis it true that mention of Gods and Godesses like Shiva, Laxmi, Ganesh and others is found only in Puranas and there is no mention of them in Vedas and Upanishads?

shiva and lakShmI are deities worshipped in the vedas. The classical elephant headed gaNesha is a very late deity emerging in the late vedic/post-vedic period and is not mentioned in the vedic saMhitA-s

QUOTEAlso, in Hinduism are God and Parmatama(Param Aatmaa) different? 
God is an english word- if you translate Ishvara as god then paramAtman and god are not the same. If brahman is translated as god then may be yes.

Given the link between language and the thought process, Indic languages are a must for correct description of Hindu terms.

Bharatvarsh · 04-14-2007, 09:20 PM

QUOTEPeople in Srilanka, Bali, Nepal are Hindus. And I said people with ancestral relations with India - that includes all Hindus who are not Indians.
The reason for a geopolitical definition is that the 'other side' is going to consider them Hindus. This includes Sikh, Jain, Budhhists. The fact that Sikhs, Jains and Budhhists (with ancestral/current Indian links) do not consider themselves Hindus is for them to ponder. Their narrative is also part of the Hindu narrative - are you going to exclude the great struggles of the Sikh Gurus from the Hindu narrative? 
But not all Hindus have ancestral relations with India, what for example would be the ancestral relation of a white Hindu in Europe with India?

Also whether Sikhs or others don't want to be called Hindus is for them to decide, why should we insist that they are Hindus when they do not want to be labelled as such especially when we ourselves are not followers of their particular tradition, there are individual Sikhs out there who consider themselves as Hindus which is fine by me but we shouldn't be insisting that they are all Hindu when they vehemently deny it.

04-14-2007, 09:27 PM

1) Sanctity of the Vedas: I agree it is a great set of books containing enough wisdom and material to take a life time to just read. Granted it spawned horde of other texts, but I would be least bothered if it does not get its prominence. But I do not disrespect it either.

2) The concept of God: Nope I don't believe in it, neither do I disbelieve in it. For the most part of the day and night, I do not think about God. Yes there seems to be something mysterious about this world, and it does scare the living daylights out of me. Is it God or the Force? I don't know. And if someone is going to claim it is the God, then as long as that person is not going to force me to believe, I don't care. It does not mean I don't visit temples or pray to the deity. I like going to the temple and performing traditions associated with it. I do not have the problem of the dichotomy.

3, 4, & 5) Cyclical Universe, Atman, Bliss: No idea about all that stuff. I am a borderline disbeliever.

Yet I consider myself a Hindu and proud of being one. Like Balagangadhara in the article "ââ¦To Follow Our Forefathersâ¦â The Nature of Tradition" by S N Balagangadhara nourishing the home page of India-Forum, I grew up by traditions transmitted by parents and grand parents. Some I continue to do so, some I discontinued. Some might owe their origins to Vedas. So be it.

<b>I am amazed by the thinking done by our ancestors and bow my head. There is lots of good stuff out there. </b>

dhu · 04-14-2007, 11:20 PM

QUOTE"The Heathen In His Blindness" pdf file. by SN Balagangadhara
http://colonial.consciousness.googlepages....isBlindness.pdf

* Introduction: Contents , Acknowledgements and Introduction
* Chapter #1 : Some Puzzles and Problems
* Chapter #2 : âNot by One avenue Only â¦â
* Chapter #3: The Whore of Babylon and Other Revelations
* Chapter #4: Made in Paris, London, and Heidelberg
* Chapter #5: Requiem For a Theme
* Chapter #6: Shall The Twain Ever Meet?â
* Chapter #7: âGuilty as Charged, my Lords and Ladies?â
* Chapter #8: A Human Tragedy or The Divine Retribution?
* Chapter #9: Blessed are Those Who Seekâ¦â
* Chapter#10: âImagine There is No Religionâ¦â
* Chapter#11: Prolegomena to a Comparative Science of Cultures
* Chapter#12: At the End of a Journey
* References: References, Name Index and Subject Index

04-14-2007, 11:21 PM

QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 14 2007, 06:02 PM)The point I am trying to make is the need for a single minded purpose in putting forward one's narrative without getting into arguments. When you get into an argument with somebody's who opposed your view - you are giving his narrative attention and you are allowing him to use a flawed view to get you angry. You lose both ways. You end up looking stupid and your view has been successfully sidelined.

A Hindu view will never get aired if Hindus choose to go on the defensive and start arguing the minute their worldview is criticized. The way forward is to blurt out your view and ignore those who oppose your narrative. Let them oppose it - there is no need to get into an argument. A person who opposes you WANTS you to get into an argument and specifically chooses arguments designed to irritate you. His intention is to irritate you, get you arguing and trip you up. An angry person is easy to trip up, andÂ an angry person just has to say a few words that can be construed asÂ hate speech" to permanently put a seal on his narrative.

There are things loaded against a Hindu narrative, but only you can avoid falling into the trap.

Set aside anger. Just do your duty. Without anger.
[right][snapback]66992[/snapback][/right]

Shiv!

Welcome in IF. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

You made hundreds of BRFites proud there. Thanks.

04-14-2007, 11:24 PM

QUOTE(Alok Niranjan @ Apr 13 2007, 06:42 PM)Hello folks,

me another refugee who has shaheedized himself on BRF ...

will take some time to familiarize myself with the new digs ... nothing to post yet, but will jump in when the handle presents itself ...

Regards.
[right][snapback]66911[/snapback][/right]

Welcome Alok!

Since we have a strategic security section here, your expertise on things related to nukes will be well read.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?