• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

P k

Status
Not open for further replies.
L. Ramakrishnan said:
Charlie Hebdo Attack: 12 Killed in Shooting at French Paper's Paris Office : this is a result of cartoons on Prophet Mohammed.
Click to expand...

Yes The whole world kows that I donot want to be on the kerb watcing this news with no emotion & not take any position

Faith accompli?


If it’s the lunatic fringe, why is all Islam held accountable?

bl10_FTV_think1_BL_2274310e.jpg



Shortly after the news of the terror attack in the offices of Charlie Hebdo broke, questions were asked of Muslims around the world to justify the “violent nature of their religion”. Islamic terror, as it is now called — an umbrella term that rather insensitively covers any bearer of a Muslim name who is at the operating end of a gun— is a wholly accepted term. The minute it is established that it is indeed a Muslim who held the gun, anyone practising the Islamic faith is asked why their religion is so violent, or why the religion can’t do something to rein these gunmen in.
Ever since the attack on the World Trade Centres, Muslims around the world have been consistently pushed into the defensive. They are expected to have an explanation for the violence from “their community”. On Twitter and Facebook, questions are unabashedly asked of anyone with a Muslim name as to how they would “explain” it. Why should a practitioner of a faith be forced to defend the actions of a faraway lunatic? When rightwing fundamental Hindus perpetrate violence, the larger community is never questioned. The default option for most Hindus is to be a benign observer or an objective third party commentator of crimes perpetrated by its violent fringe. In the new ‘with us or against us’ world that George W Bush heralded, Muslims are somehow not allowed this dignity.
In fact, the morning before the Charlie Hebdo attack unfolded, newspapers carried the story of BJP’s Unnao MP, Sakshi Maharaj, extolling Hindu women to have four children. Everyone laughed, and rightly so. No one asked random Hindus on the internet to explain this twaddle or defend it. It was understood that his wasn’t the voice of the reasonable Hindu. The truth of the matter is, the fringe is the fringe. And the fringe is often lunatic. Whether they wield Kalashnikovs or trishuls, the onus is not on the moderates to explain it.
Veena VenugopalDeputy Editor
(This article was published in the Business Line print edition dated January 10, 2015)


I feel is the correct stand!
 
Last edited:
Washington post has acknowledged that violence pays and has chosen to delete true excerpts from its report. How the terrorist forced a woman journalist with her kid to open the door punching her security key. Unfortunately a violent murderous fringe is more lethal a billion slogan shouting Hindus. A hundred killers were enough to drive out lakhs of kashmiri pundits. 2000 Syrian return jihadis will terrorize Europe now. One book launch has been suspended, author has vanished and the publisher has vacated his office premises.
 
Only secular humanists can see the parallel between a statement to produce more and beheading or shooting with a sogan. Time now to take a stand on violent killing.
 
Janaki Jambunathan said:
Yes The whole world kows that I donot want to be on the kerb watcing this news with no emotion & not take any position

Faith accompli?


If it’s the lunatic fringe, why is all Islam held accountable?

bl10_FTV_think1_BL_2274310e.jpg



Shortly after the news of the terror attack in the offices of Charlie Hebdo broke, questions were asked of Muslims around the world to justify the “violent nature of their religion”. Islamic terror, as it is now called — an umbrella term that rather insensitively covers any bearer of a Muslim name who is at the operating end of a gun— is a wholly accepted term. The minute it is established that it is indeed a Muslim who held the gun, anyone practising the Islamic faith is asked why their religion is so violent, or why the religion can’t do something to rein these gunmen in.
Ever since the attack on the World Trade Centres, Muslims around the world have been consistently pushed into the defensive. They are expected to have an explanation for the violence from “their community”. On Twitter and Facebook, questions are unabashedly asked of anyone with a Muslim name as to how they would “explain” it. Why should a practitioner of a faith be forced to defend the actions of a faraway lunatic? When rightwing fundamental Hindus perpetrate violence, the larger community is never questioned. The default option for most Hindus is to be a benign observer or an objective third party commentator of crimes perpetrated by its violent fringe. In the new ‘with us or against us’ world that George W Bush heralded, Muslims are somehow not allowed this dignity.
In fact, the morning before the Charlie Hebdo attack unfolded, newspapers carried the story of BJP’s Unnao MP, Sakshi Maharaj, extolling Hindu women to have four children. Everyone laughed, and rightly so. No one asked random Hindus on the internet to explain this twaddle or defend it. It was understood that his wasn’t the voice of the reasonable Hindu. The truth of the matter is, the fringe is the fringe. And the fringe is often lunatic. Whether they wield Kalashnikovs or trishuls, the onus is not on the moderates to explain it.
Veena VenugopalDeputy Editor
(This article was published in the Business Line print edition dated January 10, 2015)
Click to expand...

People world over who ask these questions are not fools, nor are they compelled to toe the appeasement line which *sickular* media in India has to adopt. One cannot expect a better **avial** from the commie plus minority appeasement publication like Hindu and it would be making inane comparison of Sakshi Maharaj utterances of 4 children is the same as the explanation of violence perpetrated by islamic terrorists.


I feel is the correct stand!
Click to expand...

You may think so. But here is a more balanced viewpoint.

Koenraad Elst
 
What you want me do? We have planned our next week end at Kumarkom In fact this is organised by Batul and her husband Razack Beacuse some fringe lunatics were triger happy in Paris i should avoid them or tell them you are Moslem & hence terrorist!! I donot understand this sort of Logic ! The logic of Induction - Oru Pannai sothukku oru arisi padam - will not apply here There it is one Panai a closed are in which grains exposed to same condition of boing at the same temperature and time period . You donot come to the conclusion about the arisi in 2 panii checking one arisis in pot 1 . Here you will be commiting the fallacy of hasty genralization if you paint them all with a same brush in single stroke
 
Last edited:
Open letter to 'Bollywood'

Open letter to 'Bollywood'

Dear Vishal Bhardwaj and Raju Hirani, I would have kept quiet like any 'decent, tolerant' Hindu about PK and Haider but Vishal Bhardwaj's lamentations about freedom of speech in Sunday Times on 4th Jan, 2015 forced me to put my pen to paper.



I saw many films with a sense of guilt as a Hindu when he saw that priests were nearly always greedy, lustful rotund people who didn't mind raping a lady even in sacred temple precincts. I appreciated Rahim chachas, father Patricks and an alcoholic Anthony with a golden heart and felt deep in my heart why our despicable priests couldn't be like them. I felt a pang of guilt when films lampooned or caricatured lovable Parsis. I am sure, many of my age group would identify these films and characters easily. So, for people of our generation in their fifties and sixties a PK or a Haider fell into the same pattern and we were hurt but not agitated but don't howl in protest. I too would have remained silent as I belong to a generation who were taught in schools under secular education system conceived by great leader with scientific temper, Mr. Nehru, that there was something basically rotten with Hindu society which resulted in horrors of caste, superstition, poverty that finally resulted in slavery under benign rule of Mughals and British.

With christening of Hindi film industry as 'Bollywood' this cleavage between west oriented film industry and traditional society became pronounced. Industry was no more rooted in Indian ethos. But, the embarrassment of being Hindus inspite of trying to exhibiting their western orientation didn't go away. So, we saw a new breed of movies like OMG - Oh My Godwhere Mithun caricatured, rather lampooned one of the most respected Guru Sri Sri Ravishanker for no rhyme and reason. We had Singham Returns where the villain was an incarnation of evil under the garb of a sanyasin or Guru. And then we had Haider and PK too.

These movies disturbed me but I kept quiet as a 'good' 'modern' Hindu. Unfortunately, the new self- confident aggressive generation that has seen rise of India as a power in technology and science cannot stand such a depiction. They are outspoken, blunt and impatient. So, many of them have spoken out, a few in a manner which is termed 'lumpen' by our social elite. Though, why such description is not used for violence by other religious followers is unfathomable.

Surely, Hinduism is most open to self criticism and self correction, so such movies should not lead to violence. There are better ways to register unhappiness and complain about being pushed around for being 'good boys'. May be Hindus should have sent you 'Get well soon' cards like Munna bhai.

"What is wrong in pointing out wrongs in a society?" - hurt producer/directors ask. Right sir, but people probably find it wrong the way you do it. To my mind, the sense of hurt has less to do with pointing our wrongs in Hindu society, but the lack of balanced, secular approach to the problems of our society in throes of tectonic changes and sensitivity of all its communities.

You can take out a march and get a film banned that shows a padre lusting for a woman or a padre hungry for money. You can get a movie song removed or a large chunk of movie cut because it hurts the sentiment of Muslim community due to perceived threat of violence. One can get a TV serial banned just because it is written by Tasleema Nasreen. But, nary a cry of freedom of speech! You keep quiet about this naked threat to freedom of speech.

Whatever PK wished to convey, could have been conveyed using different religious practices. E.g. if going to temple is out of fear, but then so is going to church or offering namaz. (it is a different issue that 'God fearing' is an English term, Hindus have no such term, it is 'Prabhu premi - God loving). If pilgrimage is superstition, it is so for all religions. If so called godmen are spreading superstition what are 'changai sabhas' or 'miracle sessions' of evangelists?

Vishal, coming to your laments about 'freedom of speech' and his fear of security, he refuses to acknowledge that he showed Indian army in poor light. He showed atrocities on Kashmiri Muslims but failed to amplify that this was one of the consequences of barbarian ousting of Kashmiri Hindus and an attempt to separate Jammu & Kashmir from India.

No sensitive director in his right mind would use one of the most sacred temple to film dance of devil there. A Hindu like you, Mr. Vishal, would never have dreamt of shooting this song against the backdrop of a Church or a Mosque and rightly so. But, Hindus are 'good boys' and can withstand any misrepresentation in the name of liberty.

No government can allow any part of its land to be cut off like this. Army was doing its duty in a very tough and hostile terrain during this critical time. To demoralize and demonize it and show it in poor light is almost an act of treason to the national cause. Remember, for India, J&K as an integral part of India is proof of its secular credentials. Do jawans need no sympathetic hearing?

Please talk to army men and hear their side of the story too before passing off such anti-national presentation as cinematic liberty. Perhaps you could take a leaf out of Hollywood movies whom you love to hate but whom Bollywood copies shamelessly. They produce macho movies to cover up their embarrassing disasters of their Vietnam and Iraq etc. Here our secular Bollywood converts even successful campaigns into embarrassment.
A recent article in The Guardian on 25th December, 2014 asks- "Why is Hinduism the driving philosophy from Interstellar to Batman to Star Wars? Writer, Nirpal Dhaliwal quotes Petar Rader, the producer of first Matrix movie, "It's a yogic movie. It says that this world is an illusion. It's about maya- that if we can cut through the illusions and connect with something larger we can do all sorts of things." But before Nolan, before the Matrix, before, even, the iPad, there was Star Wars.

It was the film, with its cosmic scale and theme of a transcendental "force" which opened up mainstream American culture to Indian esotericism more than anything else. A philosophy to which many are keen to subscribe is what makes religions successful. But, alas, Bollywood has no balls or brains to understand the supreme beauty of Hinduism and use it to produce movies that could enlighten the society. So, they keep raking up the rancid old muck and recycling the same crap formulae to rake in their moolah.

Let right to freedom of speech be equal for all- whether somebody wishes to criticize Hindus or any other religions, or wishes to draw an image of naked Hindu gods and goddesses or prophets; or question birth of Jesus, or be dissenter of any faith; or for one wishing to lampoon character of charlatans of any faith.

John Stewart Mills noted more than a century back that, 'your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins'. This is the basic principle of responsible social liberty and democracy. I request Raju Hirani and Vishal Bhardwaj and his Bollywood ilk not to bloody the nose of Hindus to show off their liberty.

Ratan Sharda
Open letter to 'Bollywood'
 
zebra16 said:
People world over who ask these questions are not fools, nor are they compelled to toe the appeasement line which *sickular* media in India has to adopt. One cannot expect a better **avial** from the commie plus minority appeasement publication like Hindu and it would be making inane comparison of Sakshi Maharaj utterances of 4 children is the same as the explanation of violence perpetrated by islamic terrorists.




You may think so. But here is a more balanced viewpoint.

Koenraad Elst
Click to expand...

Now see how Islamic treorrism is justified by Mani Shankar Iyer! You think this is balanced?


Paris terror attack a 'backlash': Mani Shankar Aiyar | Zee News
 
PK is a anti Hindu movie and Aamirkhan was funded by Dawood for this Film.Aamir khan is anti Indian. Govt is probing this angle. if evidence is found then Aamir khan will be in Jail. He him to to jail. He had insulted Hindu's in this movie. Does he have guts to say on Christian or Islam.will he drare to write dialogues on Imam's character. Please do not support this movie.
 
Mr. Rajeev Dhavan is a Supreme Court advocate and constitutional law expert.

To restore sanity to our minds, it is surely useful to see how we view ourselves through the fictional eyes of those beyond in the cosmos. For this we have to set aside portraying aliens as predators. Enter ET, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and of course the much maligned PK against which so much angst has been directed.
How would a cosmic outsider view our fractious religions’ wars? Or our obstinate beliefs for which we are prepared to humiliate and annihilate each other? PK is not a person but an idea that interrogates, even scolds us. Like any other idea it asks us to re-examine who we are; and the many bigotries we are heir to. To consider that one’s own bigotry is not an excuse to censor, intimidate and destroy ideas.
So many in the world, including Indians, look outside from inside. Is it not a bigger challenge to look inwards from outside so that we have an external measure of ourselves? Ex-colonial nations are not unused to disparaging outsiders looking at and deriding their way of life. But PK should be seen as no more than a balanced way of thought that asks us to look at ourselves differently again and again.
If we really allow ourselves a ‘PK look’, we would re-examine the intensity with which we believe and disbelieve. We can of course choose to run away from such exposure by accusing PK, or any such process, as full of prejudices and biases. Alternatively we could allow PK as an idea, to re-examine ourselves with an undisguised freedom to do so.
Unfortunately, our refusal to take a PK look stems from obdurate sensitivities which have become so important to us that we prefer to isolate ourselves in the castles of our mind. The film PK revealed too little. But heightened sensitivities politicised by social and political warfare have condemned it without even seeing it.
If we take a PK look, surely Babri masjid can be easily resolved. Stop fighting and build both the m asjid on its site and a magnificent Hindu temple nearby. Surely communal riots would find perspective rather than being suspended in the limbo of animosity forever.
Aggressive policies of ghar wapsi would be abandoned on the premise that being an individual choice, ghar wapsi can always be negated by people finding their own ghar. Surely a PK look would not condone the greedy, violent and rapacious nation we have become?
Nor would we censor artists, historians, theologians and sociologists who present alternative ideas and approaches. Perhaps we might even accept that our superstitious minds need elaboration and understanding. Perhaps we might be better placed if, with Francis Bacon, we notionally distance ourselves from the idols of the tribe and the marketplace?
For me, the reaction to the film PK can be viewed from three perspectives. First, the rule of law perspective which has been espoused by Maharashtra, which says it will not ban a film that has approval from a statutory censor board. The Supreme Court mandated the government, in the Shankarappa case, to positively protect censor board-approved films. Alas, few governments are prepared to do that.
The second perspective could well be that “thuggery”, as social censorship resulting in not just boycott but violence to theatres and theatre-goers and intimidation to any or all dissidents, is unacceptable. The third is a rather more serious question of sensitivity demanded of those who use and espouse free speech.
Speech has many gradations ranging from criticism, provocation, offensiveness, insult, repulsiveness to incitement. Some of the unpublished but circulated Danish cartoons were repulsive. I saw them with a sense of disgust. Certain films of sexual behaviour with children and animals are repulsive.
But in India the pendulum is swinging to attack alternative perspectives or strong criticism. At times the arrow of censorship targets offensiveness. This shows intolerance. Criticism can be ans-wered by criticism and offensiveness by critical but peaceful outrage through non-inciting speech. But to kill speech is to kill what the gods would forbear, silence the gift of being human in a democracy.
Eventually there is the issue of good faith. Rangila Rasul was not published in good faith. Satyartha Prakash was. The former escaped criminal punishment leading to statutory change, the latter was banned.
Was there really any sense in banning Katherine Mayo. Nine Hours to Rama, The Satanic Verses and a host of TV dramas such as Tamas or Ore Oru Gramathile? Or writings on Shivaji or Wendy Doniger writing on Hinduism? All these were written in good faith without meaning to offend. India’s list of social, political and legal censorship is too long, too mindless.
Let us go back to PK as an idea: as a way of looking at ourselves and keeping social, political and legal censorship in the domain of the rule of law. Let us honour exchanges of views as a gift of democracy. We are not too far from bigotry becoming India’s icon.
Click to expand...

Times Of India | Blogs
 
Last edited:
What was rajeev doing when satanic verses, lajja, davinci code and hundred other movies were hounded. Worth finding out what he did then.
 
Mr. Rajeev Dhavan's other articles.
I am a proud Hindu and I am not ashamed

You will not find me adorned in saffron and shouting hoarse in a crowded market place or at a public gathering that I am a proud Hindu. Neither will you hear me speak of the hidden truth of the great Hindu scriptures or sermonize an unwilling entity on the Vedanta philosophy over buttered scones and tea. I have never found a reason to do any such thing simply because I lack adequate knowledge and even if I were to possess enough of it for arguments sake, I would not see a reason to blow my trumpet unless I am ‘pushed’ to do it. When would I be ‘pushed’ to do such things? If somebody scorns or mocks at the tenets of which Hinduism is based upon, I would then deem it necessary to argue rationally on the merits of the case without making a spectacle of myself. But, this is a highly individualistic display and there are many who well and truly cannot help but make a spectacle of themselves simply because their emotions get in their way. Frankly, even I am not sure as an educated individual if I could garner the gumption to be rationally argumentative and not emotionally argumentative. There is something about religion that always touches the ‘ raw’ nerves. At some point or the other, each one of us have fallen victims to this ‘soft’ spot and even borne the brunt of being termed a bigot.
The fundamental tenets of Hinduism are based on pluralism. In a 1995 judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that “Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism … it is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption … that the use of words Hindutva or Hinduism per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practicing any religion other than the Hindu religion … It may well be that these words are used in a speech to promote secularism or to emphasize the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or to criticize the policy of any political party as discriminatory or intolerant.” Crystal clear in my opinion, what more needs to be explained. When somebody talks of how intolerant Hindus are, I simply say to them that they cannot be following the Hindutva way of life, the one that universally embraces the same values and aspirations.
There is a group that raises its powerful head quite often; lets call them the Illuminati for now. This is a highly educated, influential and affluent group. You will find this group in all walks of life, influencing behavior of others with an agenda best known to them. They pretend they are not religious, they pretend to be democratic and yet they carry with them a sword that tears into every audible murmur that a Hindu will make and will try to take him to the gallows at every given opportunity. The Illuminati at the same time turns a blind eye to reason, facts and factualism are usually relegated to the back burners. If their target so as to dares to substantiate a point of view with credence, the target is immediately zeroed in and labeled as an enthusiastic member of the saffron brigade. They are also termed as the bigots who are tearing down the very fundamentals on which the constitution of this country is drafted upon. You will never hear the last of the logic of the Illuminati; usually blaring at you from those tiny squares on prime time lop sided TV debates. Pretty much like the Illuminati of the yesteryears who were however more productive, this not so secret society conspires to establish a new world order. You will find them peeping in movies, magazines, newspapers, television shows and yes, you will find them pulling the strings. More recently, you will also find them laughing and jeering at the ongoing Science Congress which until recently has probably not even dared to rake up the science of the Vedas. It is not about examining into evidences of flights of fantasy that were taken by Indians a long time before Pratibha Patil took them, it is about debunking, refuting the probability of this concept entirely without examination. To the Illuminati, Hinduism is a myth; the sacred texts of the Ramayana and Mahabharata are a mythology in its exact sense even if all other sacred texts that bear no relation with Hinduism are factual Science. But what is their agenda one may ask and the reason for this rather well organized and well funded display of solidarity against all things Hindutva? For one, the core agenda is to shake the roots of which the principles of Hindutva are based upon and to stunt the growth of Hinduism. I must agree with Shashi Tharoor who rightly stated – “To mock the credulous exaggerations of the Hindutva brigade, you don’t need to debunk the genuine accomplishments of ancient Indian science!”
A stone Ganesha cannot drink milk and plastic surgery on the elephant God is labeled ludicrous. Yet a stone Mother can weep blood and the veritableness of Immaculate Conception is not debated upon. Our texts state that even many Hindu Gods and Goddesses had their holy offspring’s via immaculate conception. Why not discuss the significance of these events so carefully drafted in religious scriptures as the foundation for modern day reproductive techniques like IUI and IVF? But, will it be discussed? I am a proud and devout Hindu. I enjoy debating and I strongly encourage multiple narratives, I am a liberal, I am not ashamed of my religion and I will not permit my religion to be made a mockery of and will air my ‘limited’ knowledge without fear of being run down. But how many do?
Times Of India | Blogs


You can google his articles.
 
Last edited:
well, have gone through various and different versions of views but, I do believe PK is not of good taste for hindus yet let us accept it as a fiction. y know I remember having seen one movie(forgot the name of the movie) where Thendil and Koundar acted as Yama and Chitra Gupta which also was a fiction. yet these film makers shud realise their limits. what happened now-a-days by ISIS all over world is manifest of approach. yes ofcourse, no other religion will react like that. what to do we have to move with the flow. we r crossing only quarter(prademe padhe) of Kaliyug; three fourth is yet to come. God save the world and one Lord Krishna/Vishnu will come and save the world. - srinivasan
 
Sharmila Ravinder:

When would I be ‘pushed’ to do such things? If somebody scorns or mocks at the tenets of which Hinduism is based upon, I would then deem it necessary to argue rationally on the merits of the case. . .

 “Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism … it is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption … that the use of words Hindutva or Hinduism per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practicing any religion other than the Hindu religion … It may well be that these words are used in a speech to promote secularism or to emphasize the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or to criticize the policy of any political party as discriminatory or intolerant.”

But what is their agenda one may ask and the reason for this rather well organized and well funded display of solidarity against all things Hindutva? For one, the core agenda is to shake the roots of which the principles of Hindutva are based upon and to stunt the growth of Hinduism.

I am a liberal, I am not ashamed of my religion and I will not permit my religion to be made a mockery of and will air my ‘limited’ knowledge without fear of being run down. But how many do?

Let illuminati imbibe these and stop criticizing hindutva. This lady reflects RSS views. Anyway they who attack brahnins, hindus and scriptures must be retaliated in all ways possible.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest ads

Follow us on Social Media

Back
Top