• 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.

Religious intolerance in India would have shocked Mahatma Gandhi: Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
Religious intolerance in India would have shocked Mahatma Gandhi: Obama


WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama on Thursday said the "acts of intolerance" experienced by religious faiths of all types in India in the past few years would have shocked Mahatma Gandhi.

The comments by Obama came a day after the White House refuted suggestions that the US President's public speech in New Delhi in which he touched upon religious tolerance was a "parting shot" aimed at the ruling BJP


"Michelle and I returned from India - an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity - but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs - acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation," Obama said in his remarks at the high-profile National Prayer Breakfast.


The US President, who has just returned from India, was referring to violence against followers of various religions in India in the past few years.

He, however, did not name any particular religion and said the violence is not unique to one group or one religion.



http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Religious-intolerance-in-India-would-have-shocked-Mahatma-Gandhi-Obama/articleshow/46136924.cms


[h=1]Obama's religious tolerance remarks misconstrued: US[/h]

The White House on Tuesday said President Barack Obama’s remarks on religious tolerance during his India visit invoked a shared value, and they have been “misconstrued”.


“I think that’s been somewhat misconstrued,” said Philip Reiner, National Security Council senior director, adding, “I wouldn’t insinuate that there’s any baggage there at all.”


The President’s speech, the official said, reviewing the visit at a news briefing, was about “core democratic values and principles” shared by India and the US, which Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself spoke about just the night before.


President Obama’s remarks from Siri Fort — that “India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along the lines of religious faith” -- was widely seen as a thinly veiled criticism of Modi.


Opposition parties pounced on it. BSP leader Mayawati called it a “parting shot” while RJD leader Lalu Yadav said, “Thanks to Obama, we have recognized the true colours of Modi.”


US media was on it too. The Wall Street Journal reported that a newsreel made of the visit by the MEA omitted any reference to those remarks. The White House insists President Obama’s remarks only invoked shared principles. “I don’t believe that this was a parting shot by any means,” said Reiner.


The official, who was part of President Obama’s delegation to India, also tamped down reports that said China was the first subject Modi and Obama discussed when they met.


“I mean, the notion that the very first thing that we would talk about as we come in the door is China is just – I mean, there were many things that we spoke about,” said Reiner.


“Coming in the door,” as he put it, “the primary thing” talked about were the Delhi Declaration and the joint strategic vision, which the two sides had just agreed upon.


The vision document is indeed mostly about China, but in Reiner’s telling of the discussions, it figured in the larger context on the region, which included Pakistan and Afghanistan.


Beijing had very sharp words about Obama’s visit, calling it “superficial rapprochement”, and the US President later said he was surprised by the vehemence of those remarks.


Apart from the deals and documents signed and announced, Reiner said the Republic Day visit institutionalized the vision statement made by the two leader in September — “putting in place a framework that actually creates action behind the vision so that it’s not just another piece of paper”.


On the issue of nuclear deal, Reiner said “There are no further impediments. It’s now for operationalization. The governments don’t necessarily get involved in the decisions that companies make, right? But at this point, what we’ve done is we’ve removed the ambiguity that was preventing those companies from moving forward.”


“We’ll continue to focus on and need to focus on the tough issues. The United States will need to see further progress on things like intellectual property rights, local content requirements, for example," he said.




http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/obama-s-religious-tolerance-remarks-misconstrued-says-white-house/article1-1313402.aspx
 
Last edited:
Mr. Obama is not aware of the ground realities. Who is Mahatma Gandhi in Hindutva? I am sure his name will be wiped out from India. It is Godse who is revered.
 
Maybe Obama was pressurized by the Church 'o' mafia in the US of A, and had to spend sleepless nights until he could voice a resentment to ease the increasing decrease in the number of conversions. Which he ultimately did, albeit veiled.
 
In the same meeting, it seems a christian preacher said - they will go to hell if they have no faith in jesus. Dalai lama too was present. Obama does not know Gandhi who advised Hindus not to resist killing by Muslims. Better to sacrifice life than fight. Obama must listen to Gandhi.
 
Srisri on Obama. Gandhiji would have been more upset with pink revolution, liquor consumption and destruction of village industries.

Obama should have met religious leaders while here for correct perspective.

Obama has joined the elite company of communists, fundamental islamists, evangelists and pseudo seculars. Worse still he is partially quoted and misquoted to earn him a bad name, but this will benefit bjp in the election.
 
All these Hindutva Hawks are probably contributing to.
[h=1]Hindu Mahasabha to install Godse statue in temples [/h]The Hindutva outfit is in touch with saints and temple trusts across the country for the purpose. There is no room for Mahatma Gandhi in India anymore.
 
Godse will find his own space in a liberal tolerant India. Some many accept, some may not, that is for the future. Gandhi has already enough space all over India, in statues, asramams, roads, libraries, research endowments and institutions. He has a good side and a not so good side, as can be seen from his writings, speeches and actions, which are in public domain.
 
Why is Obama silent on the ethnic cleansing of Pandits in Kashmir and the coercive conversions by the Christian missionaries?
 
Why are you silent on the ethnic cleansing in
Historical context should help illustrate ethnic cleansing's long evolution, motivations and various expressions, as well as its return to Europe on the cusp of the 21st century. Many of today's liberal democratic states have, at some point in their histories, conducted campaigns to displace religious or ethnic minorities, events from which virtually no European nation has been exempt.
The earliest example was cleansing carried out by Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 bc), the first Assyrian ruler to make forced resettlement a state policy. Under his reign about half the population of a conquered land would be carried off, and its place taken by settlers from another region. Tiglath's heirs continued this policy and, over the centuries, so too did the Babylonians, Greeks and Romans, although not always on the same scale and often for the prevailing economic reason of slavery.

World reacts to current events. Duh.
 
Why are you silent on the ethnic cleansing in
Historical context should help illustrate ethnic cleansing's long evolution, motivations and various expressions, as well as its return to Europe on the cusp of the 21st century. Many of today's liberal democratic states have, at some point in their histories, conducted campaigns to displace religious or ethnic minorities, events from which virtually no European nation has been exempt.
The earliest example was cleansing carried out by Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 bc), the first Assyrian ruler to make forced resettlement a state policy. Under his reign about half the population of a conquered land would be carried off, and its place taken by settlers from another region. Tiglath's heirs continued this policy and, over the centuries, so too did the Babylonians, Greeks and Romans, although not always on the same scale and often for the prevailing economic reason of slavery.

World reacts to current events. Duh.

Wah. Ethnic cleansing of pandits is yesterday news. But Sikh riots and partition riots must be kept fresh. Who is the wolf in sheep's clothing here?
 
கால பைரவன்;284707 said:
Wah. Ethnic cleansing of pandits is yesterday news. But Sikh riots and partition riots must be kept fresh. Who is the wolf in sheep's clothing here?

Sir somehow you manage to miss the thread and answer out of turn. I never said anything about partition, or sikh riots. You seem to suffer from some sort of psychological problem. You ascribe and blame me for post from other members. Please read my post separately before you post (if you are responding to my post).
 
Hindus Aren’t The Ones Who Need Religious Tolerance Lectures

Hindus Aren’t The Ones Who Need Religious Tolerance Lectures



This article is going around on Facebook now saying that Indian media has cut part of Obama’s speech out of its reports about his visit, a speech about religious tolerance.

“India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along the lines of religious faith — so long as it’s not splintered along any lines — and is unified as one nation.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-religious-tolerance-india-114729.html
And that may be true enough but why are these warnings directed at Hindus?



All these warnings are meant to tell Hindus to stay tolerant of other religious views. But when Hindus turn intolerant it is for DEFENSIVE reasons. Tell Christians and Muslims in India to stop tricking and coercing people into converting and you’ll see any aggression that might be present in right-wing Hinduism immediately deflate.



We all want to get along.



Hindus want to welcome everyone to practice whatever makes him happy. That is what is natural in our religion. But how can we continue to happily allow anyone to practice whatever he likes when most often what he likes to practice is forcing Hindus to convert to Abrahamic faiths? Telling them that they’ll go to hell? That their Gods are demons?



Religious tolerance starts with those who say “Ours is the only valid path to God.” Until those people can learn to accept other points of view, Hindus are going to feel threatened and some will respond defensively.



President_Obama_hugs_Prime_Minister_Narendra_Modi_at_Air_Force_Station_Palam_in_New_Delhi-300x200.jpg



Hindus Aren?t The Ones Who Need Religious Tolerance Lectures


 
What will Hindus do if their population goes on decreasing by overt and covert methods adopted by the abrahamic religions? Looks like as per latest census (2011) the Hindus are under 80% ..May be just 78%..They have to protect their flock!
 
There can be several reasons for Obama saying what he said:

1. Obama might have come to India thinking that India is going to be very useful and fighting america's wars as a proxy in this part of the world for a few Dollars and might have got frustrated by the refusal of Modi to fall in line. Congress and BJP Governments have all along been consistent at least in this. An irritated Obama might have got himself together to shoot one at India.

2. Obama might have been enchanted by India because of the multiple ethnicity that coexist here, the multiple language and culture that coexist, the way people throw up a Government to lead the nation despite the bitter electoral battles etc., While back home just two races are unable to live peacefully together this must have been a wonder for him. And he might have thought of the nightmare that it will turn out to be if all these ethnic/language/cultural groups start seriously fighting among themselves. and in all sincerity he might have loudly wondered about that nightmare.

3. He might have asked for some contracts which would have added a few million/trillion dollars to the national kitty of US and Modi might have refused to play ball.

4. Obama might have asked India to use its cultivated and sustained resources in Afghanistan to maintain peace there after Us troop departure from there and India might have told him that we have our own priorities and plans.

So there is no use reading too much into Obama's words. It is too early. Wait until it pans out further.
 
Obama perhaps is confused about his religious identity, pulled from both Ab religions he has inherited and practiced. He cannot and will not understand and appreciate bharath. He is fully aware of the atrocities committed by India's neigjhbours and the country he headed for from India. There was no need to single out India in his address, in a conference with representatives from other religions taking part.

Anyway bharath is marching forward with noble ideals of hindutva and such patently false and hypocritical acts from the so called free world will only strengthen the resolve of Hindus to show the world their mite and glory, past, present and future. The Giles and lies of media and secular politicians are laid bare in all media. Secular voices will only be heard from back benches.
 
Obama has to be silent on many issues and incidents of atrocities committed by Christians and Muslims. He knows which side of the bread is buttered, wh when he will be pilloried and when he cwill be hunted. He foolishly thinks India and Hindus are soft targets. He is in for a surprise.

Why is Obama silent on the ethnic cleansing of Pandits in Kashmir and the coercive conversions by the Christian missionaries?
 
The Americans whenever they come to India kick Pakistan before they land here and give a parting kick when they leave India. They have fashioned their foreign policy that way since WWII. Our governments would not give them a list of "do and donts" before their visit. This is perhaps mutual goodwill!
 
If the allegations were to be true then the actions, by the police in the US, are an example of what tolerance really is

Perhaps MLK would have appreciated this...
Obama is not all that effective. he came to India to boost his image back home.
His record is one of incompetence.

India has done usually better under Republican administrations. Perhaps Clinton administration was friendly to India.
 
I won't jump to conclusions.

In a free society such a mad behavior on the part of law enforcing agencies does occur occasionally. And there is no prevention methods when someone in uniform gets into head that he should bash someone. It is like the guerilla attack against a well organized battalion of regulars. Because the initiative lies entirely with the attacker it always comes as a surprise and takes its toll. Wisdom, sympathy for the victim, angry outbursts of frustration, compensation payment, apology all are after the event-a very nightmarish event as far as the victim is concerned.

But to judge an entire society or a country on the basis of an isolated incident like this is just childish.
 
I thought you were smart enough to spot sarcasm...

Underestimation. LOL. Read my post as a standalone post explaining my position in this matter without seeing it as a continuation of what you have said earlier. sarcasm and smartness will fall neatly in their place. LOL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top