04-27-2007, 03:12 PM
Vishwas - I don't believe that you actually have a clue about India other than what you can garner from your visits and news media. The only sad thing about that is that your views about helping Hinduism (if any) won't count because you are so out of touch. Your fervor sounds useful but your gyan is weak.
Husky has made a passing reference to "villagers" in one post in a sentence whose meaning is not very clear to me - I took the meaning to be "his experience with villagers".
Now that again is a sure-fire sign of a person who is out of touch with things within India. Nothing wrong with being out of touch except that opinions won't count for much if they are unreal. The "Mozie" and "lil critter" stuff confirms that. We are referring to Indians in Hindoostan, not Injuns and we don't get cowboy movies in Inja no more.
The "Indian villager" who gives people a warm fuzzy and bring recollections of old Hindi movies is dwindling to become almost a myth. 40% of India is now urban and most villagers have family in cities. There is a huge population shift and a shift in economics and attitudes to a lot of things. Assumptions that people make - including Vishwas' statements that appear naive and uninformed to me may look good - but I repeat that unless you can get a grip on which way Hindus are moving we may leave huge gaps open for evangelists to work on. You have to know where Hindus' strengths and weaknesses lie. Evanjihadis have a better social netwok and more sociologists working right here in India.
Laughably uninformed statements about who is thinking or feeling what make entertaining reading, but are no substitute for actual polls or social information.
I don't believe that we can seriously even scratch the surface of the issue without recording a tiny sample like about 25,000 narratives (for starters). It is important to just record the narrative. What a person thinks about the narrative is secondary at this stage. if Vishwa sees sex, it only means that his mind works that way and his narrative recognises sex as the motivation in inter-state/caste marriages in India. (or at least in Sengotuvel's family)
Interestingly - let me put this down in a public forum, since I have a penchant for hollering "satyameva jayate". My grandmother and her sisters used to feel that all anglo-Indian women in India were loose women. To them, any childbirth involving a Brit and an Indian meant that sex was more important than faith or other loyalty. Vishwa feels exactly the same about Hindus who marry outside their immediate community.
What that says about him is moot. He has given a narrative about himself without realising it.
Husky has made a passing reference to "villagers" in one post in a sentence whose meaning is not very clear to me - I took the meaning to be "his experience with villagers".
Now that again is a sure-fire sign of a person who is out of touch with things within India. Nothing wrong with being out of touch except that opinions won't count for much if they are unreal. The "Mozie" and "lil critter" stuff confirms that. We are referring to Indians in Hindoostan, not Injuns and we don't get cowboy movies in Inja no more.
The "Indian villager" who gives people a warm fuzzy and bring recollections of old Hindi movies is dwindling to become almost a myth. 40% of India is now urban and most villagers have family in cities. There is a huge population shift and a shift in economics and attitudes to a lot of things. Assumptions that people make - including Vishwas' statements that appear naive and uninformed to me may look good - but I repeat that unless you can get a grip on which way Hindus are moving we may leave huge gaps open for evangelists to work on. You have to know where Hindus' strengths and weaknesses lie. Evanjihadis have a better social netwok and more sociologists working right here in India.
Laughably uninformed statements about who is thinking or feeling what make entertaining reading, but are no substitute for actual polls or social information.
I don't believe that we can seriously even scratch the surface of the issue without recording a tiny sample like about 25,000 narratives (for starters). It is important to just record the narrative. What a person thinks about the narrative is secondary at this stage. if Vishwa sees sex, it only means that his mind works that way and his narrative recognises sex as the motivation in inter-state/caste marriages in India. (or at least in Sengotuvel's family)
Interestingly - let me put this down in a public forum, since I have a penchant for hollering "satyameva jayate". My grandmother and her sisters used to feel that all anglo-Indian women in India were loose women. To them, any childbirth involving a Brit and an Indian meant that sex was more important than faith or other loyalty. Vishwa feels exactly the same about Hindus who marry outside their immediate community.
What that says about him is moot. He has given a narrative about himself without realising it.