tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post7597084712240929817..comments2023-11-02T19:19:15.129+05:30Comments on Death Ends Fun: Baba stuffDilip D'Souzahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-53020723183310648652011-06-13T04:36:27.282+05:302011-06-13T04:36:27.282+05:30"Do you not think Indians are still too busy ..."Do you not think Indians are still too busy in-fighting, ferocious but to their own kind, for instance by despising their black-sheep neighbours and/or minorities?"<br /><br /> India is hardly what you call ferocious. Defensive, cautious, disdainful( rightly), but not ferocious.<br /><br /> "How can India take on more of a regional leadership role"<br /><br /> What ideas do you have? If they include paying baksheesh to Pakistan( i.e its military or elite), or handing over tracts of territory, forget about it. The cure in that case is far worse than the disease.<br /><br /> India can simply 'lead' by example, in continuing to maintain its democracy, pluralism, secularism and rationality. This is what Shashi Tharoor calls India's soft power, the power of example. Other developing countries can learn and/or be inspired by the good in India, which is plentiful. And reject the bad and harmful.Chandru Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-72649016754790215912011-06-12T22:15:25.707+05:302011-06-12T22:15:25.707+05:30I am tired of scapegoating Hindus...
Hindus have ...<i>I am tired of scapegoating Hindus</i>...<br /><br /><i>Hindus have definitely been chilled into silence</i>...<br /><br /><i>We must look within our hearts and repent for the sorrow we have inflicted on our Hindu brothers and sisters</i>...<br /><br /><i>a chilling effect on the freedom of expression of Hindus</i>...<br /><br />All sentiments to applaud. But then it's followed up with this:<br /><br /><i>I don't care about anything Hindu</i>.<br /><br />So which is it, actually? You do care or you don't?<br /><br />That apart. Earlier on this page, I wrote this line:<br /><br /><i>Even so, he [Baba R] is entitled to free speech</i>.<br /><br />Of course, for people with obfuscation on their minds, it works well to twist that into:<br /><br /><i>Your illogical justification to deny Ramdev of the rights to express his views</i>.<br /><br />Bravo.Dilip D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-33400282043225042112011-06-12T20:45:36.828+05:302011-06-12T20:45:36.828+05:30"Thus, Indians left themselves handicapped an..."Thus, Indians left themselves handicapped and open for invasion. But none of the invaders had a walk over.... violence and conquest.... which was alien to the Indian ethos". <br /><br />Chandru K: So the invaders were "ferocious", like beasts, while Indians were not. Does that display a predator-prey relationship, albeit at the human level? Should Indians become more ferocious now, in response? Do you not think Indians are still too busy in-fighting, ferocious but to their own kind, for instance by despising their black-sheep neighbours and/or minorities? How can India take on more of a regional leadership role rather than express a sibling rivalry - and how can persons and attitudes like yours have a positive role?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-52437489536435049202011-06-12T19:29:39.810+05:302011-06-12T19:29:39.810+05:30What is amazing is your inability to comprehend th...What is amazing is your inability to comprehend the issue of freedom of expression and to set up strawman arguments. As a person born as a Christian, I don't care about yoga or anything Hindu.<br /><br />What I do care is the oppressive nature of the Indian state under UPA and the pliant and corrupt journalists (google for radiagate for evidence of this) who refuse to condemn police brutalities. Who cares if he ran away disguised as a woman? It is still a free-speech issue and a case of police brutality which you stubbornly refuse to condemn. <br /><br />Besides, he was merely one of the lakhs of people assembled at the ground. What is your justification for the brutality on the others? That they are Hindu? I don't agree that only Christians are entitled to freedom of expression or that such rules must be applicable only in the White man's country. For a wonderful exposition on this thought process, I would recommend you read Richard Crasta's "Impressing the Whites: The New International Slavery." <br /><br />Your illogical justification to deny Ramdev of the rights to express his views because he was disguised as a woman does not cut it. That is a bad argument.Vincentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-26803678458337486612011-06-12T07:15:41.386+05:302011-06-12T07:15:41.386+05:30Amazing.
It is possible to condemn the police atr...Amazing.<br /><br />It is possible to condemn the police atrocity of that Saturday night, which we all must do. (More reason to understand that possibly the most urgent issue India faces is police reform).<br /><br />It is possible to do that without following the garden path the Baba's followers, like on this page, are trying so hard to lead us on. With his fast fizzled out, with the issues he claimed to be focusing on now obscured by his actions, with his fibre now exposed by his running away in a woman's clothes, with his various business affairs now showing up with not a lot of credit to him ... with all this happening, the followers have no choice but to find such a garden path. <br /><br />This noise about freedom of speech and the suppression of Hindus is exactly such a garden path. <br /><br />I know plenty of Indians who have (putting it kindly) minimal respect for Baba after the last few days. Like the population of this country, about 80% of them are Hindu. Please don't speak for them, even under assumed names.Dilip D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-2963720716234306932011-06-12T01:11:07.385+05:302011-06-12T01:11:07.385+05:30Who, Hindu or otherwise, has been chilled into sil...<i>Who, Hindu or otherwise, has been chilled into silence?</i><br /><br><br>Hindus have definitely been chilled into silence. Guess you have not heard the phrase "chilling effect" and are hearing it for the first time. It is a very common expression in every single lawsuit in the US that challenges the infringement of free-speech rights. The idea is simple - the government is so powerful that if they win, it results in so much penalty that it instills fear.<br /><br><br>Evidence for the chilling effect is determined very easily. Did anyone attempt to run away? If so, the government's actions had a chilling effect on free-speech. It does not matter if one individual is braver than another and willing to take bullets. The law must protect the weak and the strong equally. Yes, there were people who attempted escape.<br /><br><br>There is at least one lady who is in a coma as a result of police brutalities and the suppression of free-speech by the government. This is attempted murder and makes the government into killers.<br /><br><br>All this is common sense, no matter how you spin it and try to justify the brutal attack on free-speech. This is a much bigger issue than Baba Ramdev. It is about free-speech.<br /><br><br>And remember, someday you can say, "First they came after the Hindus, I supported it..."Vincentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-5514818674112339922011-06-11T23:14:37.159+05:302011-06-11T23:14:37.159+05:30killers who came after him.
Who did they kill?
i...<i>killers who came after him</i>.<br /><br />Who did they kill?<br /><br /><i>it had a chilling effect on the freedom of expression of Hindus</i>.<br /><br />Who, Hindu or otherwise, has been chilled into silence?Dilip D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-3519011780475996502011-06-11T20:11:04.973+05:302011-06-11T20:11:04.973+05:30Oh, and while some blame can be attached to India ...Oh, and while some blame can be attached to India with its internal divisions and inequalities, the far, far greater blame rests on the invaders themselves for invading India and despoiling and ravaging the country. They are the ones who should really have the guilt complex, not India. The victim is not the guilty party here.Chandru Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-79826391768459484562011-06-11T20:05:25.108+05:302011-06-11T20:05:25.108+05:30"vanquish-me" India, Chandru please, I w..."vanquish-me" India, Chandru please, I want to hear your thoughts in that difficult area.<br /><br /> India was a civilisational entity, with an underlying unity, but one divided by politics, egos and individual rivalries. Added to that is the fact that Indians felt secure in their traditional prosperity and traditional weapons, and had little inkling of the ferocious invaders and their ferocious ideology, from the North and West. Thus, Indians left themselves handicapped and open for invasion. But none of the invaders had a walk over. They were defeated repeatedly. However, they possessed a relentless, single-minded ideology of violence and conquest, which was alien to the Indian ethos. Coupled with internal divisions among the Indians, that ferocious ideology "won" at the end of the day-for a time and /or place. We should note the great resistance put up by Vijayanagar, Colachel( where a small Kerala kingdom defeated the Dutch in their heydey) Mewar in Rajasthan, the Sikhs, Marathas, Jats, Bundelas and Assamese, who were never really conquered. So yes, the experience of the last 800 years was negative, but containing innumerable bright spots. And 1947 ended essentially centuries of foreign domination, keeping in mind the independence of large areas of the subcontinent from Moslem rule for hundreds of years.Chandru Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-66717034554520973322011-06-11T19:01:56.757+05:302011-06-11T19:01:56.757+05:30To me, a man hiding from such consequences in a wo...<i>To me, a man hiding from such consequences in a woman's clothes is not very different from someone hiding from such consequences behind a fake name.</i><br /><br><br>Ramdev did not hide under any identity to make his point. He made his point under his own identity. When the state came after him and used violence, he disguised himself to escape them. They were two different issues. One was the expression of his ideas and the other was to escape from killers who came after him.Vincentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-407494657391139752011-06-11T18:55:12.982+05:302011-06-11T18:55:12.982+05:30Dilip, you are just spinning your statements a lot...Dilip, you are just spinning your statements a lot. If running away when faced with enormous state power (governments chill free-speech more than anyone else) makes a person undeserving of the title of a votary of free-speech, then he joins the ranks of Salman Rushdie and Julian Assange. <br /><br />History is replete with examples of people who escaped their government and continued speaking out while in exile. Your arguments are just getting plain silly.<br /><br />This was a shameful crackdown by the government and it had a chilling effect on the freedom of expression of Hindus.Vincentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-56588640242867717112011-06-11T18:25:57.983+05:302011-06-11T18:25:57.983+05:30Let me say this unambiguously: I have no problem w...Let me say this unambiguously: I have no problem with anonymous comments.<br /><br />My point in this discussion was about free speech. To me, it is also about responsibility. If you want the freedom to stand up and criticize something, you have to be prepared to face the consequences, whatever they are. If not, you don't know what free speech really means.<br /><br />To me, a man hiding from such consequences in a woman's clothes is not very different from someone hiding from such consequences behind a fake name.Dilip D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-17206588790650924852011-06-11T18:11:50.240+05:302011-06-11T18:11:50.240+05:30"I also believe that those who understand the..."I also believe that those who understand the meaning of free speech have the courage to speak their minds using their own names"<br /><br />I don't want to open another discussion front here since I am working on Chandru K: - explain the "vanquish-me" India, Chandru please, I want to hear your thoughts in that difficult area. <br /><br />However - anonymous blogging and courage have almost nothing in common. For instance voting in a free democratic system is always by secret ballot. Referees in reputed journals write their comments anonymously. Your blog permits ( and therefore supports ) anonymous comments. So you cannot use that fact against your commentators. Have the courage to disable anonymous comments or agree that you like them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-12806898920676259062011-06-11T09:11:52.104+05:302011-06-11T09:11:52.104+05:30So according to you, if a man disguises as a woman...<i>So according to you, if a man disguises as a woman to escape the police, he is not entitled to the rights of free-speech</i>?<br /><br />No (and you know it). According to me, if a man says he wants to speak his mind freely but then runs away from the consequences (whatever they are), he knows nothing about free speech. <br /><br />Even so, he is entitled to free speech. <br /><br />Try not to twist that into something other "according to you" position I never took. <br /><br />I also believe that those who understand the meaning of free speech have the courage to speak their minds using their own names.Dilip D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-89735942913768822462011-06-11T08:41:07.263+05:302011-06-11T08:41:07.263+05:30By "we" I mean those have been classifie...By "we" I mean those have been classified by the Government of India as having been born in the Christian religion. This includes those like me who have shunned it and people like you too. Whether you claim to be a Christian or not, the Indian government at some point of time classified you as one even if you refuse to reveal your religion affiliation or lack of it now.<br /><br />Yes, we have had it easier than Hindus. We could operate colleges and hospitals while they could not without government interference. Sad, but true. We must look within our hearts and repent for the sorrow we have inflicted on our Hindu brothers and sisters.<br /><br />The ban on the Da Vinci Code was an example of how we have had it better than Hindus in India. They have been magnanimous enough to accept Christians and George Fernandes, a Christian, was the Defence Minister a few years back. This just shows their magnanimity.Vincentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-83821622044450128792011-06-11T08:33:26.102+05:302011-06-11T08:33:26.102+05:30Really? None of the champions of free speech whom ...<i>Really? None of the champions of free speech whom I know and admire would choose to dress up in women's clothes and hide among women to evade an advancing posse of cops. They'd stand their ground and stand for free speech.</i><br /><br><br>So according to you, if a man disguises as a woman to escape the police, he is not entitled to the rights of free-speech? It just exposes your understanding of free-specch.Vincentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-78566570896609440012011-06-10T23:31:14.252+05:302011-06-10T23:31:14.252+05:30"we can call all that "riots against Sik..."we can call all that "riots against Sikhs and Moslems". <br /><br />3000 massacred is nearly 20 times the number who were slaughtered in Nov 2008 in Bombay. But no, it's a just a "riot"."<br /><br /> Number, range, type, frequency and motivation/ideology are important. The Naxals, Kashmiris and Khalistanis are/were relentless in their use of terror as an instrument to overthrow the existing democratic,pluralistic state, and form a new totalitarian, Islamist or Sikh-Khalsa entity, devoid of freedom, secularism and pluralism. They are/were very willing to kill large numbers of even the people they claim to represent, if they were not sufficiently Naxal, Islamist or Khalistani enough.Chandru Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-35561931256660123072011-06-10T23:24:27.541+05:302011-06-10T23:24:27.541+05:30So anon@ 1044pm doesn't want 'some Canadia...So anon@ 1044pm doesn't want 'some Canadian' telling him what kind of neighbours India should have? Would he rather have 'some Pakistani' or 'some Sri Lankan' tell him that? <br /> The problem in India's neighbourhood, is that the neighbouring countries are not progressive and pluralistic, and the US-UK combine, lately joined by China, have tried in their own way, to prevent these countries from being so. It's almost as if they want self-pitying, hyper-corrupt, arrogant and super-paranoid elites in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal( Bangladesh has improved a bit of late) who constantly harp on the Indian threat. And that Indian threat is really nothing other than the threat of pluralism, secularism, democracy and rationality underming the position of those elites. Pakistan has had that problem while it was still being conceived, in the pre-independence era.It's in its blood. Sri Lanka's injustice and idiocy was the grotesque "Sinhala only" policy that it followed for 4 decades. And this while India was accommodating 18 languages and scores more dialects.Chandru Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-51250815676337648772011-06-10T22:44:19.533+05:302011-06-10T22:44:19.533+05:30... & as an Indian-Indian with a large degree ...... & as an Indian-Indian with a large degree of affinity and sympathy for my country, I dont want some Canadian telling me what kind of neighbour he wants my country to have. so If thats your motivation, please stuff it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-53370711212110864362011-06-10T21:57:59.427+05:302011-06-10T21:57:59.427+05:30riots against Sikhs in 1984 and Moslems in 1993.
...<i>riots against Sikhs in 1984 and Moslems in 1993</i>.<br /><br />3000 massacred in 1984, another 1000+ in 1993 - and these years later, we can call all that "riots against Sikhs and Moslems". <br /><br />3000 massacred is nearly 20 times the number who were slaughtered in Nov 2008 in Bombay. But no, it's a just a "riot".<br /><br />No, I suspect even coconuts have a better notion of morality than this.Dilip D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-82123497339075952922011-06-10T21:30:11.563+05:302011-06-10T21:30:11.563+05:30Chandru K: I understand you don't agree that t...Chandru K: I understand you don't agree that the Sikh killings and Moslem killings are forms of terrorism. How would you describe them? "Riots" is not enough. Do you personally condemn these (and other similar) acts of senseless slaughter?<br /><br />You or I did not choose our parents; nor could one have chosen India's neighbours. Regrettably Pakistan has gone from bad to worse, over time. However putting down Pakistan alone( as does your favourite Hitchins, UK-US person that he is ) is not going to help India. Pakistan can only be reformed from within. <br /><br />Have you ever considered, incidentally, why India has been time, time and time again the hapless victim of external attackers? From Alexander down to the Portuguese and the British? "We are a peace-loving peoples" is not enough - there is and has been enough violence in India. Perhaps you could explain your assessment of the historically proven vanquish-me phenomenon of India?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-38329475226239501812011-06-10T19:47:18.785+05:302011-06-10T19:47:18.785+05:30Here is the Hitchens article:
Again to quote my...Here is the Hitchens article:<br /> <br />Again to quote myself from 2001, if Pakistan were a person, he (and it would have to be a he) would have to be completely humorless, paranoid, insecure, eager to take offense, and suffering from self-righteousness, self-pity, and self-hatred. That last triptych of vices is intimately connected. The self-righteousness comes from the claim to represent a religion: the very name “Pakistan” is an acronym of Punjab, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and so forth, the resulting word in the Urdu language meaning “Land of the Pure.” The self-pity derives from the sad fact that the country has almost nothing else to be proud of: virtually barren of achievements and historically based on the amputation and mutilation of India in 1947 and its own self-mutilation in Bangladesh. The self-hatred is the consequence of being pathetically, permanently mendicant: an abject begging-bowl country that is nonetheless run by a super-rich and hyper-corrupt Punjabi elite. As for paranoia: This not so hypothetical Pakistani would also be a hardened anti-Semite, moaning with pleasure at the butchery of Daniel Pearl and addicted to blaming his self-inflicted woes on the all-powerful Jews.Chandru Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-66417370997957938642011-06-10T19:45:26.607+05:302011-06-10T19:45:26.607+05:30For the record, this is what Christopher Hitchens ...For the record, this is what Christopher Hitchens wrote about Pakistan. As an Indo-Canadian with a large degree of affinity and sympathy for my country of origin, I am aghast and disgusted that India has this kind of neighbour. I want India to have progressive, dynamic, mature, self-respecting neighbours, who can be intelligently critical of India when the situation demands it. But not be constantly paranoid, arrogant, petty, whiny, self-pitying and boastful, that too when there's little to boast of! The problem afflicts Nepal and Sri Lanka as well, but not to the same degree as Pakistan.Chandru Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-34838693824075676972011-06-10T19:40:57.275+05:302011-06-10T19:40:57.275+05:30I am commenting on what D'Souza writes, and po...I am commenting on what D'Souza writes, and pointing out often how false his 'equivalances' are. And I'm not the only one- Nikhil and a few others have denounced the equation of repeated, relentless, ideological, seemingly unending terror = riots against Sikhs in 1984 and Moslems in 1993 spheel.Chandru Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-69295621739098854442011-06-10T18:43:32.694+05:302011-06-10T18:43:32.694+05:30" Not too strong, and sounding very, uh, serf..." Not too strong, and sounding very, uh, serf-like"<br /><br />Chandru K: excellent! You learn fast. I appreciate your positive comments about working towards secularism and pluralism in Pakistan - or elsewhere in the world as the case may be. You may yet transform your serfdom to a kingdom - now that you can distinguish between the two, and the attitudes reflected by each.<br /><br />As for why I am on this blog? The same reason everyone else is - to exchange ideas. Well excepting those who make ad hominem attacks on the blogger or communities at large. I don't subscribe to that and look forward to your continued cooperation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com