Traitors And Anti-nationals In India!

[G.Subramaniam]

It is a list of anti-hindu groupings
with a few gandhist fools thrown in

Watch their activities soon

[Guest]

GS.
This should not be in this list, They are doing a good job.
World Council of Arya Samaj , New Delhi, India

[G.Subramaniam]

As I said 90% of them are non-hindu / anti-hindu

There are of course some foolish hindus on the list
what Lenin called 'useful idiots'

The Arya Samaj has several factions and I do know that the Agnivesh faction has
openly refused to take up the cause of hindus ethnic cleansed for refusing to convert to xtianity in the north east

[Guest]

Anyone in USA and Canada DO NOT WATCH the upcoming Johnny Lever show. I have an Inside story, it is 100% being sponsered by the Terrorists. So much so that their ad on Zee TV says "Call Rahu at nnn-nnn-nnnn" but if Rahul calls you back his name is "Momin".

[Guest]

Agnivesh faction is more for pride and news coverage and involved in politics. He is greedy. He follow Arya Samaj but not a leader or Pracharak of Arya Samaj. He is independent political leader, kicked out in 1970s.
--------
Swami Agnivesh was born Vepa Shyam Rao in a Telugu-speaking family in a village that is now a part of the eastern Indian state of Orissa in around 1940. He encountered the teachings of the Arya Samaj while a student in Calcutta, joining that organization at the age of seventeen. He went on to obtain an M. A. in law and business management. After a brief stint as a lawyer he become a lecturer at St. Xavier College in Calcutta, a school which Arthur Bonner calls "exclusive." In 1968 Agnivesh resigned that position to devote himself full time to political and religious questions. Upon becoming a renouncer, in 1970 Rao became Swami Agnivesh. <b>Around this time Agnivesh was first exposed to Swami Sampurnanand's interpretation of the contemporary political and social relevance of the Vedas and Swami Dayanand's thought, and this became the core of his life's work. On the same date that he became a renouncer, Agnivesh, along with a colleague Swami Indravesh, founded a political party called the <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Arya Sabha </span>to realize their dream of a political order founded on Arya Samaj principles</b>

I was initiated by Swami Brahma Muni, a great Vedic scholar. <b>However, I accept Swami Dayananda Saraswati, his life, mission and teachings, as guiding principles. But I do not consider him to be the guru in the sense that most other gurus are taken. </b>He is a guru because he inspires me to find the truth. Swami Dayananda Saraswati is the founder of the Arya Samaj. <b>But in a broader sense, there are many, many other gurus. I am also inspired by Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Vivekananda, Gandhiji and Karl Marx.</b>

[Hauma Hamiddha]

I believe Bharat-Rakshak could slip into the list. While it is not anti-national, it is futile, for it is strongly controlled by anti-Hindu Christian elements in the guise of being a "military" forum. I understand that one of its putrid participants, Sanis, is a member of one of these anti-Hindu organizations.

[Hauma Hamiddha]

Maharatta caste Shiva dharma is an organization that seeks to separate Maharattas from the Hindu fold and pit them against the brahmins of Maharashtra.

It may be a Christian backed movement

[Hauma Hamiddha]

Secular India Another drohi organization.

[Guest]

While I am no fan of certain elements in BR, one must be careful branding people and organizations as anti- national or as traitors. India is going through a churning process and during this process there will be many attempts made to denigrate the Hindu in order to change the character of the country and prevent the Indic civilization from occupying its rightful place among the family of civilizations. Such a churning process is unavoidable in a diverse society such as that of India. We should not sink to the same level as those elements in BR who are intent on keeping BR free of 'tainted' elements like us. In fact we welcome diversity of views and ideas, unlike the attempt in BR to create a community o f'like minded individuals'

We should win the battle that is ongoing by appealing to superior ideas and the ability of the Dharma to adapt to the mores of different yugas, while maintaining the fundamental ethos , values and civilization that have stood us in good stead for millenia. It is this ability to prevail over competing ideologies by the sheer force of its intellectual discourse, that has enabled the Indic civilization to withstand the most savage onslaught in the history of humankind.

As a criterion for being branded as an anti national i would suggest that the organization or person should actually commit an act (as opposed to thinking and expressing unpleasant thoughts) that is deemed traitorous or anti-national.

[Guest]

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/2004...10421-1045r.htm

India File: At Islamabad, India blinked


By MANI SHANKAR AIYAR
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL


NEW DELHI, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- With the world applauding the India-Pakistan joint communiqué issued Jan. 7 in Islamabad, it does seem a bit churlish for an Indian as committed as I am to a sensible relationship between the two countries to start "if-ing" and "but-ing." Yes, I hail the new dawn but regret the needless night into which we have been led these past five barren years. The same Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf who for all these years has been excoriated as the butcher of Kargil in India is now regarded as the indispensable bulwark of better India-Pakistan relations. The same military dictatorship that has been repeatedly denounced as the main obstacle to progress is now being trusted as the guarantor of agreements once made being kept. And the same Pakistan that has been doggedly portrayed as an incorrigible promoter of terrorism and Talibanization is now being wooed as our partner in peace.

Good. But can we have some consistency please? If General Musharraf, as chief of army staff, was the chief conspirator to undermine the Lahore summit in February 1999 of former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee by launching the armed incursion across the line of control, the de facto border, in the Kargil sector of Jammu and Kashmir, how has he now emerged as India's favoured interlocutor? The answer given officially in India is that Kargil is behind us and Musharraf has now offered to end terrorism emanating from his country's soil.

The fact is Kargil has been behind us all these five years. And Musharraf's sweet words on terrorism are exactly what he said in his celebrated speech of Jan. 12, 2002. Far from believing him then, the Vajpayee government went into overdrive over the armed attack on the Indian Parliament a month earlier, Dec. 13, 2001. Instead of giving him any credence, the India side insisted - with little proof - that as the attackers - all of who were killed - were Pakistani citizens, it was clearly the Pakistan government that was behind this heinous assault on the citadel of our democracy. The country went along with the government in its assertion this was an officially sponsored Pakistani assault. As a people, we had no alternative. We assumed the government knew a great deal we did not know, accepting the "need-to-know" principle in regard to national security.

Therefore, few questioned the deliberation with which the government of India after Dec. 13 hacked away at one after the other of the links which had been so assiduously put together over decades to keep people-to-people contacts going whatever our doubts or derision about the Pakistan establishment. It was India, not Pakistan, that banned overflights. It was India, not Pakistan, that stopped the train service. It was India, not Pakistan, that snapped the bus service. It was India, not Pakistan, that withdrew its high commissioner. It was India, not Pakistan, that asked the Pakistan high commissioner to leave, then expelled the charge d'affaires. It was India, not Pakistan, that slashed its diplomatic staff strength and compelled the other to do the same. It was India, not Pakistan, that mobilized the bulk of its armed forces to go to the frontline and wait there for 10 long months on full alert twiddling their thumbs. And thus started the vicious spiral of tension-stoking between two nuclear-armed neighbours, bringing in the world to twist both our arms. The progress made these last few months has been no more than the undoing of the unilateral decisions of our own government. Is this statesmanship?

And through these five years, the Indian government has endlessly repeated its mantra, "No dialogue till cross-border terrorism is ended and the infrastructure of terrorism dismantled." To save face, the Vajpayee government is now fooling itself, fooling the country and fooling the world into believing that some great breakthrough on terrorism was achieved at Islamabad.

The fact is that it is India that, on bended knees, has accepted the Pakistani formulation, not the other way round. Back at the Lahore, Pakistan, summit of February 1999, the Lahore Declaration pledged both countries to eschewing terrorism of any kind. That did not stop either the Kargil attack or the unceasing infiltration over the past five years of thousands of well-armed, well-trained, highly motivated and richly remunerated terrorists from Pakistan into the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir and, indeed, into other parts of India. When the perpetrator of Kargil, Musharraf, came to power a few months later through a military coup, the Indian government started making a fetish of the expression "cross-border terrorism", insisting no other form of referring to terrorism was adequate, and Pakistan must accept that it is guilty of "cross-border" terrorism. When it was pointed out to Vajpayee that the expression "cross-border terrorism" did not appear in the Lahore declaration, he made the absurd response that cross-border terrorism had started at Kargil after Lahore. Ridiculous, because Pakistan's first act of cross-border terrorism was arming, commanding and despatching across the Jammu and Kashmir border their Pashtun "raiders" in October 1947. The next round was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's Operation Gibraltar in August 1965, which ignited the war of September 1965. The third round began in December 1989 with Pakistan's relentless stoking of its proxy war in the Kashmir Valley, which continues till now. There has be no reduction in infiltration other than the usual winter climb-down when snow makes the infiltration routes impassable. There has been no acceptance by Pakistan of its role in sending in running a well-oiled terrorist training infrastructure over the past 15 years. And there has been no credible guarantee that cross-border terrorism has finally ended. Indeed, according to the Pakistanis, it never even began! It is just that Vajpayee and his team plain forgot to bring in the expression "cross-border terrorism" at Lahore.

Then came the Agra summit of July 2001 between Vajpayee and Musharraf. Everything was going swimmingly well, the two foreign ministers having agreed to the entire wording and punctuation of the draft agreement when the summit was broken against the rock of those two tiny words "cross-border terrorism." Musharraf refused to accept the expression arguing (quite correctly) this was well-understood code for Pakistan's malfeasance; Vajpayee refused to sign the document till "cross-border terrorism" was put in. And thus began a 1,000 days of sometimes truly alarming military brinkmanship between the two neighbours.

Now at Islamabad, Musharraf has had his way. "Terrorism" certainly figures, as it figured at Lahore and Agra, but of "cross-border terrorism" there is no mention in the joint communiqué. Musharraf baulked and India blinked. Now five years of barren reiteration of the expression "cross-border terrorism" is being covered up. Our preconditions for dialogue were always wholly impractical. Cross-border terrorism will be ended when the dialogue reaches a fruitful conclusion. We have been making the desired outcome the pre-condition.

A dialogue is now promised but there is no recognition in the communiqué of the need for a structured dialogue, so structured as to keep the dialogue going, uninterrupted and uninterruptible, till both sides discover the modus vivendi that will enable India and Pakistan and, therefore, South Asia, to live in peace and work together toward prosperity. With India going to the polls in a few months, it is electoral compulsions, not sincerity, that has determined the phony peace at Islamabad.

-0-

Mani Shankar Aiyar is a member of Parliament for the Congress Party. His column appears weekly.

[Guest]

I have a question for the resident experts.


Why is it that you have to be an anti national intellectual to be an intellectual ? Leave alone the Arundhathi Roy types , who pander to the self-loathing and guilt of yuppy Americans to make them feel like they are involved in a bigger cause even though they rape mother earth every day by driving a Humvee to the mall <!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo--> and they are far deeper even though they have to go and get regular botox injections .

Even in India , you do not find many nationalistic intellectuals. Immediately they are marginalized as extremists. When did indian media confuse nationalism and secularism? How does the media benefit by this pseudo secular stance?

I am a secular hindu and have no problem with other religions as long as they keep the interests of our country ahead of any irredentist extra national affiliations. When I say that , I become an extremist.


any comments?

[Guest]

SSR are you or were you a member of BRF??

[Hauma Hamiddha]

Kaushal I agree with your statement (message edited)

[Guest]

SSR, part of the problem in India is the way an intellectual is defined. Too often in India being intellectual is confused with command of language (in particular English). Being a part of the English speaking Macaulayized layer of society in India is confused with being synonymous with intellectualism. An intellectual is someone imo who is able to pull together diverse sources of knowledge in order to arrive at conclusions that are far from obvious. This may of course be too restricitive, but the point being , language is only a part of the process of framing and articulating views and opinions that are not mere cliches.

As a consequence of the above , those with a more mundane role such as ekeing out a living from the land are excluded . If we include the vernacular press, i am sure the situation would be somewhat rectified.

The role of secularism in the national discourse of India is subject by itself which is why we have a thread devoted to the Great Indian Political debate. That thread addresses the issue of nationalism vs.secularism in some detail.

[Guest]

The one thing I noticed is the definition of "intellectual" in India, is culled straight from Marxists books. Intellectual = revolutionary. Does not matter what you are revolting against, you constantly have to revolt almost like opposition for opposition sake. If any one gets a chance, read the book "The end of Utopia", cannot think of the authors name, but it is an excellent book.

[Hauma Hamiddha]

<!--QuoteBegin-SSRamachandran+Jan 15 2004, 12:07 PM-->QUOTE(SSRamachandran @ Jan 15 2004, 12:07 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> I am a secular hindu and have no problem with other religions as long as they keep the interests of our country ahead of any irredentist extra national affiliations. When I say that , I become an extremist. 
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SSR,
I am not sure what exactly you mean by secular Hindu. The word secular has assumed a life of its own in bhArata. Originally secular meant areligious. So if you are a Hindu then you cannot exactly be areligious. Furthermore, the problem goes much deeper. As Prof. Balagangadhara explains what the Hindus mean by "religion" is not at all the same as what Abrahamists mean by religion. This is one of the reasons why there was and is a great asymmetry in understanding things such as the two nation theory. The two nation theory makes perfect sense to the Abrahamists but the Hindus it is not clear at all because they do not have the same axioms as the Abrahamists. This fundamental difference in perception is felt in many directions. he main consequence of this is the ability of Hindus to coexist peacefully with other pagans and un-obtrusive Abrahamists but not the obtrusive Abrahamists. Thus for the Indian system to survive it is very important the the Hindus are in control and the Hindu socio-cultural structure is preserved without much dilution. If the Abrahamists are given a free hand, like parasites they will ravage the host system. The alternative is that the Abrahamists become unobstrusive in one way or the other. The simplest option for them is to drop evangalism and jihad. If they are not willing we can bid coexistence good bye.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not sure what exactly you mean by secular Hindu. The word secular has assumed a life of its own in bhArata.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

True. India is full of people who have charted out their own ways and destinies based on their beliefs as Indian culture has nurtured them.

Sikhs for example believe apart from spiritual aspects one must also be practicing the deeds., that is what separate the Sikh thoughts from other Indian faiths. Sikhs are suppose to be both Saints and Soldiers and it is based on time tested traditions of India., just like Ramchandara was both Saint and a Soldier and Krishna was both Saint and a Soldier Guru Nanak Dev and Guru Gobind Singh were both Saints and the Soldiers. No other faith in India currently being practiced touches this aspect of organized fight for righteousness.
Sikhs think that worship of a saint/soldier is actually a disgrace to them, the biggest worship is to be like them in practice.

Now sadly many people in India are totally ignorent about Sikhs and the beliefs of Sikhs thinking of them as some sort of mixture of Hindus and Muslims., nothing is away from truth.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-sbajwa+Jan 16 2004, 12:59 AM-->QUOTE(sbajwa @ Jan 16 2004, 12:59 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
I am not sure what exactly you mean by secular Hindu. The word secular has assumed a life of its own in bhArata.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

True. India is full of people who have charted out their own ways and destinies based on their beliefs as Indian culture has nurtured them.

Sikhs for example believe apart from spiritual aspects one must also be practicing the deeds., that is what separate the Sikh thoughts from other Indian faiths. Sikhs are suppose to be both Saints and Soldiers and it is based on time tested traditions of India., just like Ramchandara was both Saint and a Soldier and Krishna was both Saint and a Soldier Guru Nanak Dev and Guru Gobind Singh were both Saints and the Soldiers. No other faith in India currently being practiced touches this aspect of organized fight for righteousness.
Sikhs think that worship of a saint/soldier is actually a disgrace to them, the biggest worship is to be like them in practice.

Now sadly many people in India are totally ignorent about Sikhs and the beliefs of Sikhs thinking of them as some sort of mixture of Hindus and Muslims., nothing is away from truth. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sbajwa, but how many sikhs also are ignorant about our hoary history and tradition? When did this happen and how did this happen? Was it a recent one? I have few sikh acquaitances who themselves claim they are closer to Islam than Hinduism. I am a neophyte in understanding this, and I would appreciate your take on it. One baffling thing about these sikh acquaintances is when they are with hindus, they participate and totally relish everything about India and Dharma, but the moment we have either pakis or white, they distance themselves from hindus. Why? Just an ignorant question, do not mean to cause a flame.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sbajwa, but how many sikhs also are ignorant about our hoary history and tradition? When did this happen and how did this happen? Was it a recent one? I have few sikh acquaitances who themselves claim they are closer to Islam than Hinduism.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Guru Nanak Says

IK OM Kar
Satt Naam
Karta Purukh
NirBhau
Nirvair
Akal Murut
Aajuni Sai Bhang
Gur prasad
Japu Aad
Sach Jugaad
Sach Haibhi
Sach Nanak
Hosi Bhi Sach.

-----

Sikhs are neither closer to Islam nor away from it having nothing in common with them. I am not sure which sikhs you are talking about but I have always maintained that Sikhs are a separate faith with emphasis on Saintliness and Soldierliness alike. NO OTHER RELIGION IN THE WORLD SAYS THIS.

Well.. I have observed that muslims in USA do give respect to Sikhs it could be because

1. Khalistan and the whole 1980s.
2. Sikhs ruled Pakistan from 1760 till 1849 and they see monuments daily.
3. Nalua and his soldiers conquered NWFP and they respect soldiers.

It is as simple as, As long as Sikhs feel threatened in India they will keep on asserting that they are separate the day they feel threatened from Muslims (as was happening prior to 1947) it will appear that they are more towards Hindus.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sbajwa, but how many sikhs also are ignorant about our hoary history and tradition? When did this happen and how did this happen? Was it a recent one?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It has always been happening.

Guru Nanak born in 1469 refused to put on Janeu and revolted against Brahmins., he held discourses with Naths, Taps and Jogis all his life telling people about futility of Idol worship, Casteism, Sati and other ills of India. He lived among low-caste, outcaste and ate among them. He travelled with a Muslim mirasi named Mardana and a Shudra named Bhai Bala, who both sang Kirtan with him.

Second Guru Guru Angad dev ji who was a priest of a Durga Temple understood the message of Guru Nanak and became a Sikh, he created small centers of Sikhs all over Punjab.

Guru Amardas ji put the message of Guru Nanak into practice through an institution he called "Sangat and Pangat" i.e. "people and discipline" , he ordered all people (king, queens, low caste, muslims,high castes, etc) to come to him after eating together (langar practice was started to kick out the casteism). Brahmins and Khatris of Lahore complained to Akbar about "sangat and pangat" and anti-casteism, as well as anti-sutti and other things that Guru was doing, Akbar summoned Guru Amardas, Guru Amardas ji sent his disciple Bhai Lahina to Akbar who after listening to Lahina was astonished and personally went to see Guru Amardas at Goindwal.

So.. right then., when Brahmins and Khatris of Lahore complained to Akbar to finish Guru and his anti-hindu practices.. was the first contention.

Then Guru Ramdas created the city of Amritsar and his Son Guru Arjan Dev created Golden Temple as well as compiled the Adi Granth(which now we call Guru Granth). A Khatri named Chandu of Patiala was a high official in the court of Mughals and his wife saw Guru Arjan Dev's son Hargobind and wanted to marry her daughter to Hargobind. Guru refused the marriage offer after Sikhs of patiala complained that Chandu is against Sikhs. Then Chandu conspired with Mughals authorities to get Guru Arjan Dev arrested and matyred at Lahore when Guru Arjan Dev refused to convert.

After Guru Arjan Dev, then Guru Hargobind, Guru Har Kishen, Guru Har Rai, Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Gobind singh all not only had to face Muslims but also Hindus (Ganghu Brahmin, Hill Chiefs, Dogras, Lakhpat Rai, Jaspat Rai, etc).

In Sikhs opinion the only true message in India is Khalsa (saint and soldier both) while people of India have always insist that Sikhs are nothing but "Militant Hindus". Sikhs say that CORRECT FORM OF A HINDU IS A KHALSA while Hindus call Sikhs a "distinct part of them employed for martial services". You pick and choose who is correct and who is wrong. The Khalsa has five symbols that remind him to be towards Satt, Santokh, Sabr, Daya and Dharm and away from Kaam, Krodh, Lobh, Moh, Hankaar.

Satt = truth, Santokh=Contentment, Sabr=Patience, Daya=Compassion, dharm=Righteousness
Kaam=lust, krodh=anger,lobh=greed,moh=attachment to material stuff, hankaar=ego

and when Guru Gobind Singh gave Khalsa these five symbols he was putting the Guru Nanak's bani in practice as all other gurus have done from time to time.


Problem is that Hinduism does not have a defintion... who are Hindus and who are not.. you cannot define at least in India.

[Guest]

Rhytha : yes , I used to be a member of BRF , but the admins banned me an year back because I said some thing about the "Imam Bukhari" of the mosque in new delhi , who was crying wolf because US attacked the talaban. I ment it as a genuine question , but I got banned even with out one warning. BUt having said that , I go there regularly and read the posts.

Kaushal : I shall visit that thread

Hauma Hamiddha : You raise a very very valid point. How ever it is very conflicting for me to say that some how since my religion is in majoroty , it must hold the reins of power. By a scular Hindu , I mean that I practise my beliefs and my way of life , and I have no problems with others doing the same even it they are different as long as they do not undermine the very system that protects both me and the other person to have that freedom.

I think that even if one is a non Hindu , I will respect him based on his deeds,actions,thoughts,contributions to the socitey. Man is a sum of his deeds. This is what I mean by calling myself a secular Hindu.

On the same note I cannot ague with the logic of your statement. The Abrahamic religions essentially insist upon total confirmation to their "gods" . No matter how good you are as a person, if you dont kow-tow to their god , you are the devil's spawn. They do take advantage of the system that gives them the freedom to practise their faith , subvert it so as to take away the freedoms of the very people who gave it to them in the first place.

I work here with a person from the Middle east.Him and I talk a lot about politics. He became very close to me , because of my intrest in how the arabs think and my frankness with him . One day , he said ...Ram , I like you very much " You should become a muslim" ...he said it in an endearing way .. I felt very sad because to this human , my humanity does not matter ...only confirmity to his clan matters.