Self respect movement

[C RAVI]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sri.Ravi, Greetings.

I carefully went through my message in post #136. I have not made any accusations against you. I only made a suggestion. Suggestions are not accusations. If I wanted to accuse, I would have done that without beating around the bush. So, I don't owe you an explanation. But the fact is, you are accusing me of such an act.

I was not in discussion with you or anyone else when I wrote my message in post #132. So, I like to make it clear, I have no strategy - decent or otherwise. Also in my message in post #136, I signed off from that small discussion, after only making a suggestion in my last line. That should reiterate that I have no strategy at all.

I hardly take part in any discussions are debates. I have no strategy at all in any of my messages. So, I shall return your accusation to yourself, please. I don't like to take it. Thank you.

There is a reason for making suggestions in post #136. Kindly read this -



Sri.Nara many times reiterated that he does not wish ill feelings to brahmin community as such. I believe Sri.Nara and other members what they write in this forum. So, the quoted message, in my opinion was not in good taste. That's why I made the suggestion. I can only suggest; one may write what he / she wishes to write anyway.

So, I am making one more suggestion, please. Kindly don't take suggestions as accusations. Since I did not make any accusations, I shall not continue this discussion further. [/COLOR]Thank you.

Cheers!

Any one can say that I don't wish ill feelings to brahmin community as such BUT openly express their admiration to a Man who had spoiled the survival of Brahmin community in TN with his ideologies and filthy strategical implementation, playing a crooked role to secure all the other upper castes other than brahmins, in disguise of protecting dalits.

Among the brahmin community who hear this and who still hold on to brahmin affiliations, would for sure have utter contempt to such public expressions.

As such, I pointed out your error is your understanding of Shri Nara's sense of admiration, when you said that he is supporting a hypocrite. I said, Shri Nara is least bothered about how hypocritical EVR was or not, what was wrong or right in his agenda and all repercussions of it etc..etc. All that Shri Nara is highlighting is EVR's potent ideology and strategy could successfully defaced brahmin community from TN and that was what the need of the hour, considering the betterment of dalits. As such Shri Nara has great admiration to EVR and personally would give a great round of applause to him.

Since Shri Nara wishfully has isolated himself from Brahmin community for the best reason that he could feel good for him and having no specific considerations/needs to any such affiliations, his sense of admiration to EVR's ideas and revolutionary strategies are very much reasonable.

As such, Shri Nara is not supporting a hypocrite BUT his vibrant personality and potent ideologies that could successfully bring about changes in TN and defaced Brahmin community.

Having said all that is black and white for all the members here, I failed to see the reason behind your personal suggestion to me, asking me not to talk ill of any member. This is absolutely unwarranted and in fact unsubstantial. This only reveals your utter lack of understanding.

Such suggestion are valid on the grounds when some one is found to be indulging in talking ill of some one. As such, I return your suggestion back to you so that you can offer it to the deserving member, if need be, in future. As well to have a check on yourself.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri kannanpadmanabhan, greetings!

I thank you for your response. Please see my answers below.

.... i) the name of the Swamiji does not fit in,

I have cited my source for this Sri Mukham and EVR's response. At that time, newspaper editorials and magazines were the only medium to exchange ideas and engage in debates. Brahminical publications like Suthesamitran and NB publications like Kudiarasu were constantly attacking each other, which, in effect meant, they served as fact checkers for each others assertions. So, I am satisfied that this Sri Mukham was most likely not a fabrication from EVR's side, as that would have been called out immediately and EVR would be shown to have manufactured this Sri mukham.

and ii) Periyar at 1930 was still soft and decent and totally different from the Periyar of later decades.

What is the basis on which you assert that he became totally different in later decades? Even in his 1920s writings we can see the same fierce opposition to Brahminical ideology as his later years.

Everyone knows EVR started his political career as a staunch congressman. He gave up all his government positions to join congress. He was an ardent advocate of Kadar. He supported and admired Gandhi.

However, even from those early days, he had to fight with the Brahmin congressmen who asserted varna darma and jAti based separation. He was scathing in his attacks against not only Brahmin congressmen, but the NBs who sided with Brahmins in advocating varna/jAti ideology as well. His scathing attacks were laced with liberal dose of salty language and biting mockery -- what you characterize as "venom".

But, at the same time, he did not hesitate to express his admiration for those Brahmins who did not advocate varna, and whom he considered honest and truly patriotic.

His respect for Gandhi started to wane after Gandhi gave a speech supporting the Varna ideology. EVR wrote an article critical of Gandhi, but free of his usual rhetorical hyperbole. The piece was almost like EVR was pained to see Gandhi expressing such views.

Only after it became clear to EVR that social reform was not a priority to Congress, he left it to join and then lead the Justice Party. At that time, the Justice Party stalwarts were rich NBs with nothing but anti-Brahminism in their agenda. It was EVR who transformed JP into a broader social movement to include opposition to not just Brahminism, but other social evils as well. All this put him at logger heads with the high caste NBs in JP. There was epic animosity between the two wings. I say all this because there is an uninformed view here that EVR was opposed only to Brahmins, but was cozy with all NBs. He certainly was not. Some of his most scathing pieces were against NBs.

Anyway, IMO, after reading what the man wrote over the years, I see he was more or less the same from the 1920s. If his language and rhetoric were considered soft and decent in the 1930s, then the same must be considered true in the 1960s as well. If he was considered a venom spewing monster in the 1960s, then he must be considered the same in the 1930s as well.

I grew up in Erode district amongst DK cadre everywhere. I have seen EVR visiting our small town many times. I used to be quite perplexed as EVR was bad mouthed at home, but venerated as a saint outside my home by all my friends. I didn't care much at that time, but later on I started reading EVR. I slowly understood the reason why he is still so revered as Thanthai Periyar.

All the virulent hatred for EVR we see in this forum, and the hatred towards me for admiring what he stood for and wrote, has convinced me that most people here have not read much of anything he wrote. Mostly the hatred is based on hearsay. Those who say they have read EVR and claim his writing is full of hatred have probably gone in with the express reason to dig up dirt to make their case. The only thing that matters to them is he was opposed to Brahminism and Brahminists and that is good enough for them; and to top that he was an avowed atheist, there is no need to do any further research, he is undoubtedly a venomous monster, a Hitler, Stalin, and all other monsters rolled into one. I submit, this is not a wise approach.

iii) it was a news in his own journal/paper So the reference given in your post cannot be given much weightage, it looks like

I have addressed this concern above, nothing more to add.

Cheers!

 

[prasad1]

Any one can say that I don't wish ill feelings to brahmin community as such BUT openly express their admiration to a Man who had spoiled the survival of Brahmin community in TN with his ideologies and filthy strategical implementation, playing a crooked role to secure all the other upper castes other than brahmins, in disguise of protecting dalits.

Among the brahmin community who hear this and who still hold on to brahmin affiliations, would for sure have utter contempt to such public expressions.

As such, I pointed out your error is your understanding of Shri Nara's sense of admiration, when you said that he is supporting a hypocrite. I said, Shri Nara is least bothered about how hypocritical EVR was or not, what was wrong or right in his agenda and all repercussions of it etc..etc. All that Shri Nara is highlighting is EVR's potent ideology and strategy could successfully defaced brahmin community from TN and that was what the need of the hour, considering the betterment of dalits. As such Shri Nara has great admiration to EVR and personally would give a great round of applause to him.

Since Shri Nara wishfully has isolated himself from Brahmin community for the best reason that he could feel good for him and having no specific considerations/needs to any such affiliations, his sense of admiration to EVR's ideas and revolutionary strategies are very much reasonable.

As such, Shri Nara is not supporting a hypocrite BUT his vibrant personality and potent ideologies that could successfully bring about changes in TN and defaced Brahmin community.

Having said all that is black and white for all the members here, I failed to see the reason behind your personal suggestion to me, asking me not to talk ill of any member. This is absolutely unwarranted and in fact unsubstantial. This only reveals your utter lack of understanding.

Such suggestion are valid on the grounds when some one is found to be indulging in talking ill of some one. As such, I return your suggestion back to you so that you can offer it to the deserving member, if need be, in future. As well to have a check on yourself.

I fully agree with you. It is preposterous of someone to suggest otherwise. I was shocked to read the posting by Mr. Raghy , but then he was absent for a long time from the forum. This constant praising of a "Brahmin hater" tantamount to hating brahmins. No amount of sugarcoating with politically correct writing is hiding the real intent. It is like praising Ahmadinejad
in Israel. It hurts the feeling of majority of TB here.

 

[Nara]

Continuing on the 10-point debate between Rajaji and EVR. here is point #7. For earlier post in this series, please click here.

Point #7:
Rajaji's argument as presented by EVR:
"பார்ப்பனர்களுடன் புரியும் போரில் கோயில் வேண்டாம், நோன்பு வேண்டாம், ஹிந்து மதமே பொய், பழைய ஒழுக்கங்களே அநாகரீகம் என்ற நாஸ்திக எண்ணங்களைப் பரப்புதல் ஏழை தமிழ் மக்களுக்கு பெரும் கேடாய் முடியும்"

EVR's response:
பார்ப்பனருடன் புரியும் போரில் கோயில் வேண்டாம், நோன்பு வேண்டாம், ஹிந்து மதம் வேண்டாம், பழைய ஒழுக்கங்களே அநாகரீகம், என்ற எண்ணங்களைப் பரப்புதல் ஏழை தமிழ் மக்களுக்கு பெரும் கேடாய் முடியும் என்பது --

பிராமணன் தவிர மற்றவன் உள்ளே போகக்கூடாது என்பதுதான் கோயிலானால், அது வேண்டாவே வேண்டாம். பார்ப்பனருக்குக் கொடுப்பது தான் புண்ணியம், பார்ப்பனருக்குக் கொடுத்தால்த்தான் மோக்ஷம் என்பதுதான் நோன்பானால், அந்நோன்பு வேண்டவே வேண்டாம்.

தனது மதத்தில் இருக்கும்வரை ஒருவன் தீண்டாதவன், பார்க்கத்தகாதவன், தெருவில் நடக்கத் தகாதவன், சண்டாளன்; வேறு மதத்திற்கு போனால், அவன் பரிசுத்தன் என்கிற கொள்கையை உடையதுதான் இந்து மதம் என்றால், அம்மாதிரியான மதம் வேண்டவே வேண்டாம். அந்த மாதிரி மதம் பொய்யே பொய்தான்.

திருடினாலும் பிராமணன், குடித்தாலும் பிராமணன், லஞ்சம் வாங்கினாலும் பிராமணன், பொய் சொன்னாலும் பிராமணன், வக்கீல் வேலை செய்தாலும் பிராமணன், கொடுமை செய்யும் அரசாங்கத்திற்கு உளவாளியாயிருந்தாலும் பிராமணன் என்று சொல்லுவதுதான் பழைய ஒழுக்கமும், தர்மமுமாயிருக்குமானால், அவ்வித ஒழுக்கமும், தர்மமும் நமது நாட்டுக்கும், எதிரியின் நாட்டுக்கும்கூட வேண்டவே வேண்டாம்.

இவைதான் நாகரீகமானால், இவையில்லாத அநாகரீகமே மேலானது. இதை ஏழை மக்களிடம் பரப்புவதால் தமிழ் மக்களுக்கு கேடு வருவதோடும், நரகம் வந்தாலும், அதற்காக பயப்படுபவன் மனிதன் அல்ல.

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

Answers to questions Nara has raised through EVR in his post #154 can be found here:
http://www.tamilhindu.com/2008/12/subbu-column-4/
http://www.tamilhindu.com/2008/12/interview-kalidass-swamigal/
Untouchability – Is it really Evil? | Senthilraja\’s blog
dalit | Search Results | Senthilraja\’s blog

An atheist can never be a proxy and lead any theists who feel neglected in their society and religion. This is one reason EVR's movement has failed, with no takers today, specially with regard to his hateful speeches against Hindu religioin, its gods and texts.

And here is some interesting news:
Dalit outfits petition collector against non-dalit association
http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...rai/31280915_1_dalit-u-sagayam-office-bearers

 

[tks]

Having said all that is black and white for all the members here, I failed to see the reason behind your personal suggestion to me, asking me not to talk ill of any member. This is absolutely unwarranted and in fact unsubstantial. This only reveals your utter lack of understanding.

Such suggestion are valid on the grounds when some one is found to be indulging in talking ill of some one. As such, I return your suggestion back to you so that you can offer it to the deserving member, if need be, in future. As well to have a check on yourself.

Sri Ravi -

While I have not followed this thread - because frankly the topic is boring to me - I resonate with your statement above. I think post #136 offering under the guise of a gratuitous 'suggestion' was actually an accusation and done in poor taste. I would ignore such posts and not dignify with a response any more.

You are one of the most sincere member in this forum and I admire the way you always look for the best in others

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Ref. Ozone post #142

One can see how cleverly the forum has been persuaded to follow rules that suit communal bashing (in particular brahmin bashing).

A community is being repeatedly criticized unjustly but defending is made difficult because the defender, ipso facto, is accused of being a communalist. You lose the argument before it begins not because you do not have good counter arguments but because attacks against you are generalized attacks against your community whereas the same facility is not available to you.

<Edtd - KRS> Please do not question Forum rules and Moderation in public. If you have concerns, please contact us by pm. Thank you.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

In continuation of my post # 157

Most members, I think, know about Anna Hazare. He is on a crusade against the corrupt central government headed by Congress. There have been too many scams. The govt is finding it difficult to provide any reasonable explanation. What does the Congress do? It simply accuses Hazare of having connections with hindutva. See how devious the plan is. Hazare is forced not just to deny the connection but he must deem BJP as untouchables. Anything less he would be portrayed as partisan. A win-win situation for Congress. See how seamlessly the argument is shifted from congress' corruption to hazare's secular credentials to hindutva!

One can see similar strategies being deployed in this thread. Watch for the clever use of the word "brahminist". To argue against EVR's glorification, you have to prove that you are not a supremacist, you have to prove that your primary identity is not brahmin, you have to prove that you do not support brahminism etc etc. That is, you are either partisan or being a member of brahmin community itself is bad! Clever indeed.

As far as I am concerned,the fact that the term "brahminism" is used repeatedly in place of "casteism", is proof enough of the hatred that some people have against the brahmin community. I have read Raghy's posts. I have respect for him. But I disagree on his opinions in this thread!

 

[C RAVI]

Sri Ravi -

While I have not followed this thread - because frankly the topic is boring to me - I resonate with your statement above. I think post #136 offering under the guise of a gratuitous 'suggestion' was actually an accusation and done in poor taste. I would ignore such posts and not dignify with a response any more.

You are one of the most sincere member in this forum and I admire the way you always look for the best in others

Thank you very much Shri TKS, for your kind words and kind gesture towards me..

 

[suraju06]

Folks,

This was the question asked by K.Padmanabhan:

What I wish to say therefore is: i) the name of the Swamiji does not fit in ii) ………iii) it was a news in his own journal/paper So the reference given in your post cannot be given much weightage

And this was the reply given:

I have cited my source for this Sri Mukham and EVR's response. At that time, newspaper editorials and magazines were the only medium to exchange ideas and engage in debates. Brahminical publications like Suthesamitran and NB publications like Kudiarasu were constantly attacking each other, which, in effect meant, they served as fact checkers for each others assertions. So, I am satisfied that this Sri Mukham was most likely not a fabrication from EVR's side, as that would have been called out immediately and EVR would be shown to have manufactured this Sri mukham.

The question is sharp and probing while the answer is wishy washy and ends up with “I am satisfied(and so this has to be gospel truth!!) that………… .

Please judge for yourself.

Cheers.

 

[ozone]

Sri Raju,
Your post #160.
It is no surprise that some times you dont get answers for direct questions.
In science we use analogy to get some insights under such situations.
Even, in the court they use past rulings to arrive at a judgement when there is no clarity.
At the risk of being dubbed irrelevant or misplaced, I quote some past responses (verbatim including spells)to similar situations that perhaps with some reasoning can be adapted to this situation also.

Please dear brother, the web site you cited has an agenda,

This book cites no source or reference for this assestion. This is no more reliable than the assertions made here in this frum. Put up some verifiable evidence.

What you have cited are unverifiable attributions, hearsay,
Those who wish to believe this are obviously free to do so. But, these citations are insufficient to claim the charge is irrefutable fact.

 

[Nara]

Your post #160.
It is no surprise that some times you dont get answers for direct questions..

Dear ozone,

I have always welcomed civil debate. I have never shied away from answering questions the best way possible. I have never hesitated to admit any shortcoming from my side. What I don't care for is the constant sniping and badgering. When a member makes a habit of this I ignore him/her.

Now, I think your charge is baseless on several counts.

[1] If my objections to the impartiality of the references you guys cite is unacceptable, why must I accept your objections to the references I provide?
[2] References from Hindutva web sites and other partisans are polemical in nature. They cannot be accepted as neutral sources of unimpeachable validity.
[3] I am not questioning the authenticity of the web site itself, I am only rejecting the validity of their arguments.
[4] The Sri Mukham I quoted was not an argument for anyone to accept or reject. It is just a Sri Mukham. You may reject the answer EVR gave for the Sri Mukham as self-serving or whatever, but to question the authenticity of the Sri Mukham itself is questioning EVR's honesty, very different from what I did.

For the above reasons, drawing a parallel between my rejection of the arguments presented by the cited web sites, and the rejection the very authenticity of the Sri Mukham published claiming it to be fake, is flawed.

Cheers!

 

[suraju06]

Folks, Reference post # 162 by Mr. Nara:

I have always welcomed civil debate. I have never shied away from answering questions the best way possible. I have never hesitated to admit any shortcoming from my side. What I don't care for is the constant sniping and badgering. When a member makes a habit of this I ignore him/he

What is civil and what is uncivil has become highly subjective and relative here. So let us leave this and look at the debate part of it alone. If this is not acceptable it would only mean that the terms civil and uncivil are used as escape hatches to avoid answering inconvenient questions. If doggedly pursuing an argument is sniping and badgering I think we should all snipe and badger for the sake of truth and knowledge. Ignoring is of course one's right as long as it does not appear to be an escapist's trick.

[1] If my objections to the impartiality of the references you guys cite is unacceptable, why must I accept your objections to the references I provide?

This is precisely the question that other members ask Mr. Nara. Now the question has bounced back from him and that is certainly not an answer. Why this game playing wasting the time of all?

[2] References from Hindutva web sites and other partisans are polemical in nature. They cannot be accepted as neutral sources of unimpeachable validity.

Hindutva activists and other members may ask a question here. If Hindutva web sites and their contents are polemical in nature why is this description not applicable to the mouth piece (Kudiyarasu/Viduthalai) of EVR? Should we selectively accept EVR's and his camp's words as unimpeachable neutral sources? If so why?

[3] I am not questioning the authenticity of the web site itself, I am only rejecting the validity of their arguments.

This is exactly what the other members here say about the quotes from the holy nothings mouthed by EVR (and quoted here as if they are from a holy book) while his intentions and schemes are known to these members.

[4] The Sri Mukham I quoted was not an argument for anyone to accept or reject. It is just a Sri Mukham. You may reject the answer EVR gave for the Sri Mukham as self-serving or whatever, but to question the authenticity of the Sri Mukham itself is questioning EVR's honesty, very different from what I did.

Sri Mukham means a letter in simple English. If the Author of the letter was himself a non-existant entity as pointed out by KPadmanabhan here, where is the question of accepting a supposedly rejection of that letter by EVR on grounds of principles and morals as claimed here. We have not only to reject the authenticity of the letter if the author of the letter did not exist at all but also we have to assess the complsions that made EVR come out with this cock and bull story. Mr. Nara owes an explanation on this.

For the above reasons, drawing a parallel between my rejection of the arguments presented by the cited web sites, and the rejection the very authenticity of the Sri Mukham published claiming it to be fake, is flawed.

Folks please decide which is flawed and which is not. You are the judges.

Cheers.

 

[ozone]

Dear ozone,


I have always welcomed civil debate. I have never shied away from answering questions the best way possible.

Dear Sri Nara,
Firstly, every one wants to debate in a civil manner and there has been several if not multiple attempts to let members know what is civil from our point of view. That you reject it and consider your pov and style of messaging as infinitely civil has been rejected by us as well.
There has been more than one occasions where the answers were not to the point and wishy washy from our point of view.


The point of contention has largely been the one rule for yourself and another for the rest and the word smithing of the answers that provide no scope for debate except a feeling of wanting an upper hand in any arguments. If these are the best way possible answers from you, please accept that they are not satisfactory and dont help us debate further.

Now, I think your charge is baseless on several counts.


[1] If my objections to the impartiality of the references you guys cite is unacceptable, why must I accept your objections to the references I provide?
[2] References from Hindutva web sites and other partisans are polemical in nature. They cannot be accepted as neutral sources of unimpeachable validity.
[3] I am not questioning the authenticity of the web site itself, I am only rejecting the validity of their arguments.
[4] The Sri Mukham I quoted was not an argument for anyone to accept or reject. It is just a Sri Mukham. You may reject the answer EVR gave for the Sri Mukham as self-serving or whatever, but to question the authenticity of the Sri Mukham itself is questioning EVR's honesty, very different from what I did.

I merely quoted previous defences and asked if these ruling can apply in this case.
If only there were references to questioning of honesty in any of the previous citing should that be brought up for discussion here. Otherwise the same context has to be applied.
Why is it that you see the same quote as different - as rejecting the validity in one case,and as questioning the honesty in the other? You have different explanations for the same words . This, when the words are all your own.

For the above reasons, drawing a parallel between my rejection of the arguments presented by the cited web sites, and the rejection the very authenticity of the Sri Mukham published claiming it to be fake, is flawed.

Clearly, you are reading your own quotes in two different ways. If you think otherwise, thats what it is.

 

[KRS]

Dear brother Nara Ji,

I see a lot of water flowed under this EVR debate, since you posted this. But, it is very important that folks understand what we are debating about first.

I never said that you admire all of EVR. What I asked you was how one can take the hateful words of a person who targeted one community alone, that too Tamilians (you never answered my question whether you consider TN Brahmins as Tamilians - and to be frank, you tend to answer only the questions you choose to answer) and take his other thoughts as golden? You never said that he was hateful - your attitude seems to be that he was 'bombastic', did not mean what he said and you challenged me to quote his words saying that 'opinions are just opinions' and implied that my sources were somehow not valid. In response to that when I said that I am collecting his direct quotes, you seem to feel that I am attacking you! I can prove from his quotes that the man was hateful and mean, but your OPINION is that he was not and you can offer no proof. In my opinion, this is okay, but please, do not ridicule others opinions, formed by facts as something less than your own.

By the way, EVR's as well as yours are opinions about the TN Brahmin community. Yet, you pass them off as something based on facts. For example, you can never show that the Brahmins in general in India practiced what you call as 'Brahminism' subjugating others in the society willfully to their material and power advantages. You can only cite examples of a few of them being advisers of some kingdoms - which was the traditional roles they played - but you never seem to accept the fact that most Brahmins lived in villages with the support of other communities, for the welfare of those villages. They were respected. You don't seem to accept the fact that the problem started with the advance of industrialization and the British hiring the Brahmins, because their intellectual skills that they needed. You don't seem to accept any of this. yet intent on putting down a whole community as evil, intent on subjugating other Hindus.

This is the crux of the issue. Why should a community accept the words of a 'hypocrite', who was intent on destroying them as a community? You do not have an answer for this. Yet, you keep on pushing the idea of some 'Brahminism' that you yourself can not define. This is an easy label, one attaches to a community, without any careful thought, starting from the premise that the 'Aryans' subjugated the 'Dravidians'.

The conflagration you see here by others, in my opinion, is not based on any personal animosity, based on your general views. It is this 'in your face' style of extolling a person who the community as a whole (with a handful of exceptions) instinctively know as a person who preached hate against them, among their own fellow Hindus, however just the cause may be.

I don't understand, as bright as you are, how you miss seeing this. As I have said before, if you want to change someone, you start with love and understanding and empathy, not with words like, 'hypocrites', 'week-enders', 'haters', 'irrational', 'illogical'm etc. You can say all this and feel good that you have slain the ghosts of evil and feel justified, but then, what? You will only be saying that these guys are all you are saying, in ever increasing volume, because as a person laying down an ideology, you understand a community through your own colored glasses. What good does it do?

If you want a whole community to change, you start with understanding the state of the community with love first. Not with recriminations and blanket accusations as you seem to approach us.

Regards,
KRS

Dear brother KRS,

Right from the start I have been emphasizing,

1. I don't agree with every last word EVR has uttered, he himself exhorted his devotees to think for themselves and accept only what made sense to them,
2. I didn't broach the topic of EVR, it was brought in by others --in the past I have always ignored them, but this time I wanted to present his own words, in context, on the outrageous charges that are routinely made as though they are facts,
3. my admiration for EVR is based on the stands he advocated on caste, women, superstitions, etc.

You may choose to ignore all this, but that would not be my problem.


Please, I am not an ignorant fool to simply admire EVR -- earlier you speculated I agree with EVR because I come from the atheist perspective, and now this!!! If the most reasonable person on the other side makes such unwarranted personal assumptions about me, it is no wonder that the rest of the riled up army can only pull the thread down to exchange of invectives.

Anyway, dear brother, please be assured, my stand on EVR is not based on irrational personal adulation, or as his lackey (I don't understand why such derisive language can't be moderated sue motto), my views are based on what I have read, about him and his own words. You go ahead and present EVR's "hateful word" against Brahimism and the Brahmins who practice and defend it, it will serve to balance out the hate already on full display here. But, my request is, do so with some context, the way I am doing. I hope you will take my request seriously.

I will have to take a look at the entire article to make a comment. As I have often said, I don't agree with everything he wrote. But, I don't agree with the conclusion you are arriving of the man. He certainly was a humanist, and stood for liberty and justice for all, not just for some.

He was a plain spoken, earthy person, and it showed in his language. So, it wouldn't be difficult to find tons of statements that would certainly sound crass when taken in isolation and out of context. But, he set his sight on freeing the Tamil population from self-imposed inferiority and superstitions, and instill pride in their self worth and self-respect. All his "crass" and "hateful words" make perfect sense when viewed from this perspective of shaking the Tamil psyche from the stupor of imposed inferiority.


I have read all these criticisms of EVR. Of all these, Ravikumar is the one who makes the best cogent case. I partially agree with Ravikumar, but, I think he overplays these issues and ignores the fundamental nature of EVR's struggle, namely self-respect, which transformed the way Dalit youth viewed itself.

This is a debate between the present Dalit leadership and the EVR people. It is opportunistic to take their dispute and use it to advance a parochial view. All the Dalit leaders are one with EVR in rejecting Brahminism, let us not forget that.

I am skipping the rest of the post as these are opinions. With this riled up vicious army arrayed against me, all of them except you, doing their best to drag me into the gutter where they thrive, and to silence me or drive me out, I am weary of engaging in an opinion-fest.

But, I will answer this one charge that I am avoiding your question:

I did answer, now I wonder whether you even bother reading my posts. Take a look at this post.

"The history of Brahminical dominance, whether they wantonly pursued it or not, subjugated the masses with the help and connivance of other upper castes. How far back does this go, right up to the ascendency of Pallava empire in Tamil Nadu. We have discussed these topics many times in the past. Many research findings have been presented ranging from mtDNA studies to court records to whatever else. It is clear from all these studies that Brahminism has been the ruling establishment power at least for 1000 years in Tamil Nadu. Brahmins either ruled directly, or ruled as top ministers. Even Tippu Sultan surrounded himself with Brahmin ministers. "
​

Cheers!

p.s. after last night I feel I am succumbing to the pressure and responding in kind, I feel ashamed doing that. So, I am resolving to respond only to those who engage in civil discussion, the rest I shall ignore.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Raghy Ji,

You said in # 136 above to Sri Ravi Ji:

Sri.Nara is not a public figure. He is a fellow member in our forum. Commenting something in compliment of our fellow member is welcome; but negative comments are not

With all due respect, and we discussed a similar thing once before, please do not get in to the job of Moderation, as this comment clearly gets in to that category. If a member talks ill of another member on personal terms, as you know, it is against the Forum rules and will be moderated.

Besides, here Sri Ravi is commenting only on brother Nara Ji's way of handling different ideas, and as you can see both Sri Ravi Ji and brother Nara Ji are entirely capable of discussing things on an amicable manner.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

...Besides, here Sri Ravi is commenting only on brother Nara Ji's way of handling different ideas, and as you can see both Sri Ravi Ji and brother Nara Ji are entirely capable of discussing things on an amicable manner.

There is an angry mob arrayed against me, Raghy is the only one who is ready to allow me to say what I want, though he himself is opposed to what I am saying. For this crime Raghy is being roundly criticized by everyone LOL!!!

BTW, I have repeatedly requested Ravi to stop speculating what, why and how of Nara, but no avail. Any discussion that is amicable is a myth.

 

[Nara]

...I merely quoted previous defences and asked if these ruling can apply in this case.
If only there were references to questioning of honesty in any of the previous citing should that be brought up for discussion here.

Dear ozone, If you guys want to believe the Sri Mukham was a fake that is fine, but you accusing EVR of faking the Sri Mukham is simply not equivalent to my unwillingness to accept the arguments of Hindutva web sites as neutral and valid.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear brother Nara Ji,

I thought your discussions with Sri Ravi Ji so far has been amicable. You say that concept is a myth. Can you specify where it went outside the confines of being amicable?

If you think that his comments violate the rules by attacking you as a person, can you cite that as well?

I did not join any 'chorus'. I pointed out that his comments intruded on Moderation - that's all.

By the way, please do not forget that I have never said you are not 'allowed' to say what you say. So, in my humble opinion, Sri Raghy Ji is not the only person who has 'allowed' you to say what you say. I also think that you unfairly characterize your fellow members as 'angry mob'. Are they angry? Yes, they are, but I don't see any personal attacks, only on your ideas. Who will not be angry if their community is attacked, as I said above in my post?

But, all the same, if any of the posts violate the Forum rules, please be assured - I will remove them.

Regards,
KRS

There is an angry mob arrayed against me, Raghy is the only one who is ready to allow me to say what I want, though he himself is opposed to what I am saying. For this crime Raghy is being roundly criticized by everyone LOL!!!

BTW, I have repeatedly requested Ravi to stop speculating what, why and how of Nara, but no avail. Any discussion that is amicable is a myth.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Mr. KRS,

Your posts #165, 166 and 169 for reference:

Since Mr.Nara has a lot of grievances-he calls some of us here as an angry mob-I tried earlier once to work out a solution. Our elders used to follow a method called summing up the Poorvapaksham. On any issue we can summarise Mr. Nara's arguments as purvapaksham get his consent that it is indeed his paksham and then deal with his presentation point by point. Earlier when I once proposed this to him he did not seem to be interested in it. In a internet forum like this where the arguments are not spoken spontaneously face to face and are presented in writing this method of debating may work out well. Just a suggestion. Thank you. I am certainly not angry about anything Nara says. If any thing I only feel frustrated at times. But I can handle that.

Cheers.

 

[Nara]

Dear brother, once again your post is full of personal stuff, about me. I have already clearly stated why I am doing what I am doing in this thread. There is nothing much more I can add.

If you wish to discuss anything on what I am excerpting we can do that.

Also you keep saying I am not answering your questions, but I have, and I even cited my answers.

.... What I asked you was how one can take the hateful words of a person who targeted one community alone,

That his words were "hateful" and it was directed at one community alone, is your opinion. As I mentioned earlier I don't want to get into an opinion-fest, if you don't mind.

(you never answered my question whether you consider TN Brahmins as Tamilians - and to be frank, you tend to answer only the questions you choose to answer)

IMO, there is no significant racial separation between the different caste groups in Tamil Nadu. The Brahmins, Dalits, everyone, we all are mongrels. So, I don't believe Brahmins are any more, or any less Tamil/Dravidian, than anybody else.

Now, let me ask this question, do Brahmins think of themselves as Tamils/Dravidians?

Earlier I cited TB's preference for North Indian Brahmins, but not Tamil NBs in case of marriage. I know marriage is a very personal thing, to say that I am interfering with that is absurd. What they want to do is their business, but what they do end up doing can be revealing. This is what I was pointing out. This preference for North Indian Brahmins shows they think of themselves as having more in common with the North Indians than fellow Tamils.

You never said that he was hateful - your attitude seems to be that he was 'bombastic',

I do not believe his words were hateful. He rejected what Brahminism stands for, he was scathing in his denunciation of those who defend the varna/caste practices, both B and NB. IMO, his rhetoric was not "hateful".

...implied that my sources were somehow not valid.

Please do not speculate what I "implied". If you cite a reference that clearly has an agenda, it cannot accepted as valid ipso facto, for the purpose of resolving a point of contention. This is what I said. This is a basic rule that applies to both of us equally.

You are expecting me to accept anything you cite as valid, yet, in reverse, I am not even asking you are any one to accept anything I am excerpting, but still I am accused of being "in your face" and that the source itself is a fake. What kind of balance is this?

... do not ridicule others opinions, formed by facts as something less than your own.

Unwarranted charge, I never ridiculed others opinions. Please, take a look at the barrage of posts made against me the person, and you say I am ridiculing!!!

By the way, EVR's as well as yours are opinions about the TN Brahmin community. Yet, you pass them off as something based on facts. For example, you can never show that the Brahmins in general in India practiced what you call as 'Brahminism' subjugating others in the society willfully to their material and power advantages.

It is funny, you say I have to accept whatever you cite as valid, but what I say are just my opinions that deserve to be rejected outright. Anyway, I do believe what I stated are facts. We have had long discussions on this in the past, a lot of references were cited. You don't have to agree with me though, you can still maintain my facts are only opinions.

This is the crux of the issue. Why should a community accept the words of a 'hypocrite', ..... Yet, you keep on pushing the idea of some 'Brahminism' that you yourself can not define.

Another case of unwarranted speculation, a straw man. I never asked anybody to accept EVR's words. I have repeatedly stated that Brahmins need not accept his words, and I have also pointed out earlier that EVR himself urged his own followers not to accept his words blindly.

I have defined the term Brahminism many times in the past. It is an ideology built around Vedas, Smritees, Dharmashashtras, and Itihasa/Purnas; one that asserts a belief in poorva-janma-karma and birth-based hierarchical varna system.

The conflagration you see here by others, in my opinion, is not based on any personal animosity, based on your general views. It is this 'in your face' style of extolling a person who the community as a whole (with a handful of exceptions) instinctively know as a person who preached hate against them, among their own fellow Hindus, however just the cause may be.

Please read the three points I wrote in my last response to you. This is the first time after 2 or 3 years, I am posting the actual words of EVR, in response to the nonstop hateful myths about EVR repeated ad infinitum. Even now I am only excerpting EVR's own words to provide a broader picture of the man. To you, and others, even this simple excerpting is "in your face" style. Nice to know.

As I have said before, if you want to change someone, you start with love and understanding and empathy, not with words like, 'hypocrites', 'week-enders', 'haters', 'irrational', 'illogical'm etc.

This is a false charge. I am not going around calling everyone these words willy nilly. I use these words carefully, and in context, to highlight some actions and attitudes. I standby those words. I am ready to defend those words contemporaneously, and in context. Making blanket statements out of context may give you the satisfaction of scoring points, that is fine too, it does not bother me too much.

I started out saying I am not interested in an opinion-fest. But then, if I don't answer your questions you will come back accusing me of not answering them. Damned if I do, damned if I don't!!! Anyway, I like to continue to present EVR's own words, take it for what it is worth to you.

Cheers!

p.s. Whatever may be your opinion of EVR, he was, and still is, a much revered and loved public figure. Yet, you allow all sorts of derogatory invectives to be used against him here. You use some of them yourself. Not that I want to engage in the same kind of hateful speech about some others, but I know if I did, you would moderate even the most innocuous and widely used respectful appellation, because you are worried it may be misunderstood as mocking by the Brahmins. This, I think, is unfair.

 

[Nara]

...I thought your discussions with Sri Ravi Ji so far has been amicable. You say that concept is a myth. Can you specify where it went outside the confines of being amicable?

Dear brother, he is not one of those worst offenders, but he has the habit of speculating about me, and I find that offensive. I have to tried to reason with him to no avail, I always had to back off.

If you think that his comments violate the rules by attacking you as a person, can you cite that as well?

For the most recent case, take a look at his speculation as to why I am excerpting EVR, Raghy also cited this. Whether that was a violation or not, it cannot be construed as amicable.

By the way, please do not forget that I have never said you are not 'allowed' to say what you say.

I did not use the word "allowed" in the moderation sense. While others are aghast that I am being allowed to excerpt EVR, Raghy is the only one who pointed out that I can say what I want, like Voltaire would do. For that he has been roundly criticized.

I also think that you unfairly characterize your fellow members as 'angry mob'. Are they angry? Yes, they are, but I don't see any personal attacks, only on your ideas. Who will not be angry if their community is attacked, as I said above in my post?

Well, let it be. Nobody has written anything about the excerpts themselves. All I have seen are like EVR is hater, Nara is his lackey kind of comments. If these are attacks on my ideas, I have a lot to learn.

But, all the same, if any of the posts violate the Forum rules, please be assured - I will remove them.

You have been fair to me and I appreciate that.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear brother Nara Ji,
My response in 'blue':

Dear brother, once again your post is full of personal stuff, about me. I have already clearly stated why I am doing what I am doing in this thread. There is nothing much more I can add.
Please do not make a charge that I am saying 'personal' things about you. Please cite where I am being 'personal'?

If you wish to discuss anything on what I am excerpting we can do that.
We are discussing your ideas and your posts. When you post things from a Brahmin hater and say that he was not, then, I have every right to challenge your opinion as you do mine. One can not separate one's sayings, especially a leader like EVR from who he was. Some say he was a 'hypocrite', I say he was a 'Brahmin hater'.

Also you keep saying I am not answering your questions, but I have, and I even cited my answers.
The problem here is, you cite a part of my questions to you in quote and then answer it. You don't quote me fully as I am doing now.

That his words were "hateful" and it was directed at one community alone, is your opinion. As I mentioned earlier I don't want to get into an opinion-fest, if you don't mind.
This is what you keep on saying, despite my quotes from him about 'the Negroes and Eskimos'. Okay, you want more? I did not want to do this, but you are forcing my hand (remember you yourself edited out part of his quote, saying that would 'offend' a few of us here):

Today, don’t we see many cheats, prostitutes, lepers who are evidently Brahmins? [Kudiarasu, 27-12-1925]
To protect the Arya dharma, the Aryans, who are Brahmins, use their sabhas like Varnashrama dharma Paripalana Sabha and Arya Dharma Paripalana Sabha to maintain and establish that according to Varnashrama dharma they are higher castes and that Sudras are born to prostitutes, and Panchamas (Chandalas) should remain so (as Untouchables), and serve them without any reservations.
They say that it is heaven if a Sudra drinks the water in which a Brahmin has washed his feet. But, the Brahmins wrap their sacred thread around their ear when they talk with us or when they attend nature’s call. [Kudiarasu, 19-12-1926]

Further, as of today if the Brahmin accepts all the divisions, he would not have the sole authority over everything; so now the Brahmins say that in the Kaliyuga there are only two divisions: Brahmins and Sudras. If we see who is a Sudra, we see that a Sudra is the son born to a Brahmin and his concubine, and his only duty is to serve the Brahmin. How can one’s mind accept this? Further, he calls another group of people as Untouchables/ Chandalas and they call the Christians and Muslims as Mlechas. [Kudiarasu, 30-10-1927]

Till a last Brahmin lives in this nation, they will practice the divide and rule policy. As Buddha and Gurunanak have said the Vedas and Sastras are complete falsehood. We, the Dravidar Kazhagam people, alone have the courage to say so.[Viduthalai, 10-1-1947]

If we kill each other, the Brahmin counts how many of us will pay for thethivasam rituals. He will only laugh that the Sudras are killing each other. What else will he do? Even the words, “Oh it is pathetic!” does not exist in his dictionary. [Viduthalai, 20-8-1947]

The Brahmin who eats without toiling and calls himself a high caste is allotting seats for our salvation. Is this justified? His wife will wear an 18-cubit sari and will walk happily like a soldier. Our wives wear a four-cubit sari tightly that leaves them half covered, half naked and they bend and walk. Is this fair? With the money we give, he gambles or drinks or educates his daughter. Without money for education, our son grazes the buffalo. With the milk, curd, butter, we fill the Brahmin’s stomach. [Viduthalai, 22-8-1947]

These Brahmins who came as beggars into India made the hooliganism grow. Should we also cultivate our people with this hooliganism? We have more responsibilities because it is our nation and 97% are our people. That is why we have to preach and teach to our people about morality, self-control and honesty. As the Brahmins have come to our nation for begging they have no feelings for our people or for our nation. So you should not become angry with them. Only the god who created the Brahmins has created me. Without his permission, my mission is to annihilate the Brahmins and the Sudrahood. I campaign only for this. How can I alone act against the rules of god? You go and ask him. Ask God who has created the Brahmins? Why did he create a Ramasamy to annihilate them?
Doing all these atrocities you (Brahmins) claim, “The hand that holds the grass will hold the skies.” What an arrogance all of you have? Is it proper? When will you come out in the open? How long shall we wait for you to come out in the open? The sooner you come, the better for us. Our disrespect will be abolished sooner. We are 97% and you are 3% (of the population). Even if 3 of us are destroyed we have 94% who can lead a life without stigma. If all the 3% of you are destroyed there will be only 0% of you.
Everyday only Brahmins give problems to Dravidians but Dravidians never give any problem to Brahmins— everybody should realize this. Brahmins are plantain leaves and Dravidians are plants with thorn. Whatever the fight is, only the plantain leaves will be destroyed. If you try to clash with us, you will be eradicated from the root. The Brahmins should realize this. Brahmin comrades! Don’t think we are fools and you are all intellectuals! Don’t be destroyed due to arrogance! You say that you treat everyone equally. Then, why do you keep tufts? How long can you rule us by keeping some of us as your stooges? If they slowly come to our side what will be your plight? The black shirt that we wear is not for war; it is a symbol of disgrace. We feel disgraced due to disrespect, we feel sad. We have decided to wipe it off. That is what this black shirt indicates. [Viduthalai, 19-5-1948]

The word ‘Desiyam’ is a fraud since it is of Sanskrit origin. It has introduced the Varnashrama Dharma in our great traditional, honorable life. The Dravidians were made Sudras and the ancient people of our country were made Panchamas; all these are conspiracies of the Brahmins.
[Viduthalai, 20-7-1948]

Abolition of Brahmins
In India there were 562 kings. After Independence they put down their crown and got around Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 and left us. A day came when there were no kings in history. We have changed to such situation. Zamindars have run away! Next, rich people are there. A day will come when we would ask why do you need 1000 or 2000 acres of land? He too will be abandoned. When such changes take place why need for a beggar Brahmin! [Viduthalai, 8-10-1953]

Are you saying that the small sample I have given above do not constitute hate speech against our community? Are you, really?

p.s. Whatever may be your opinion of EVR, he was, and still is, a much revered and loved public figure. Yet, you allow all sorts of derogatory invectives to be used against him here. You use some of them yourself. Not that I want to engage in the same kind of hateful speech about some others, but I know if I did, you would moderate even the most innocuous and widely used respectful appellation, because you are worried it may be misunderstood as mocking by the Brahmins. This, I think, is unfair.
Dear brother, as I have said before, show me one hate word uttered by the usual Hindu suspects on your part. I will let them stand if you can show any such venom against any community. Why is that at the face of such a strong evidence of EVR's hate against a particular community, you still keep on saying that he is not?

I will respond to the rest of your comments in my next post, as I have to go now.

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear brother,
My response in 'blue':

Dear brother, he is not one of those worst offenders, but he has the habit of speculating about me, and I find that offensive. I have to tried to reason with him to no avail, I always had to back off.
You are giving him a back handed complement. Tell me where he 'offended'? I have never edited any of his posts. Everyone knows how gentle he is. Even Sri Yamaka Ji said that. Only thing he has criticized is your stand and your ideas. He has every right to do that in a civil language. If he 'speculated', then please direct him properly. We all 'speculate' based on implications. That is part of the conversation. As much as you find such a thing offensive, others here find your 'speculation' about 'Brahminism', calling folks 'hypocrites and week enders' etc. as offensive. It is all in one's perspective, is it not?

For the most recent case, take a look at his speculation as to why I am excerpting EVR, Raghy also cited this. Whether that was a violation or not, it cannot be construed as amicable.
I have already addressed this with Sri Raghy Ji. If you start calling any 'speculating' what you say is not amicable, then each one of us here in the Forum can feel so. I am sorry brother, you, yes even you, speculate sometimes!

I did not use the word "allowed" in the moderation sense. While others are aghast that I am being allowed to excerpt EVR, Raghy is the only one who pointed out that I can say what I want, like Voltaire would do. For that he has been roundly criticized.
Please again, show me where he was specifically 'criticized' for saying that. He was criticized for saying what he said about Sri Ravi Ji.

Well, let it be. Nobody has written anything about the excerpts themselves. All I have seen are like EVR is hater, Nara is his lackey kind of comments. If these are attacks on my ideas, I have a lot to learn.
Again, this is absolutely a wrong statement. I have posted excerpts, even before my last post.

You have been fair to me and I appreciate that.
Thank you!

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS

 

[C RAVI]

Dear brother, he is not one of those worst offenders, but he has the habit of speculating about me, and I find that offensive. I have to tried to reason with him to no avail, I always had to back off.

For the most recent case, take a look at his speculation as to why I am excerpting EVR, Raghy also cited this. Whether that was a violation or not, it cannot be construed as amicable.

I did not use the word "allowed" in the moderation sense. While others are aghast that I am being allowed to excerpt EVR, Raghy is the only one who pointed out that I can say what I want, like Voltaire would do. For that he has been roundly criticized.



Cheers!

Shri Nara,


With all my honestly, what all I have so far expressed about you, are my personal observations and understanding as a member here, about your views, ideas and unconventional projections, in your attempts to substantiate your claims to the best of your honesty.

Every member here would have their own level of observations and understanding about yourself or any other member here. As such, I have my own to the best of my ability.

As far as the misunderstanding here, in this thread is concerned, I certainly have openly expressed my views about your ideas. Whether other members accept with me or not, certainly you reserve the right to question me, if you find my observations speculative/unjustifiable/wrong OR just ignore them as zilch and move on without passing on your comments.

Similarly, Shri Raghy expressed his observations with all his honesty, stating that, he is pained to see you supporting a hypocrite. Isn't it? For me, this remark of Shri Raghy is no different than my own, that you would reject as ridiculous speculation. Isn't it?

When Shir Raghy remarked that you are supporting a hypocrite, like this - "It is painful to see you batting for a hypocrite where as you are a gem yourself.", I attempted to correct him, as a friendly and unsolicited exchange of views with Shri Raghy and as a member here, stating - your ideas are focused on justifying EVR's potent ideologies and revolutionary movements that could successfully snub Brahmin community and defaced them. And that, such revolution could bring about changes among other castes to act against Brahmin community which seem to sound much powerful, authoritative and dominating in administering rules, code of conduct etc.et, holding Vedas. As such you are not considering him as a hypocritical man and admire him for his out of box thinking, his fierce speech, strength of provocations for the betterment of other castes people and his success in making the public to complete his mission satisfactorily. As well you feel that there is no error on EVR's part as his mission was the need of the hour and deserves respect and admiration.

All your admiration are EVR's ideologies that could reform TN society. As such you don't hold a personal opinion that EVR was a hypocrite whose ideas were to work against Brahmin community and protect the interests of upper caste NB's.

While explaining the above to Shri Raghy, I did point out that - You reject others critical thinking, the critical thinking of not only the members here but majority of Brahmins in TN society, having known who EVR is. You are rejecting that EVR had an agenda to work only towards defacing Brahmin community once for all from TN and at the same time securing the interest of all other upper caste NB's, who all contributed perfectly to make EVR's mission successful, obviously that would fetch them a great deal. You reject outrightly that, the deal game was for a multifold benefits for which dalit upliftment was the potent strategy.

As such, it would not make any sense of Shri Raghy to consider that you are supporting a hypocrite. Now tell me, what was wrong in my attempt and what was the dire need for Shri Ragy to offer me a suggestion of not talking ill of a fellow member, that was hilarious?

Shri Raghy can very well pass on his observations about me to myself, stating, where I am wrong in my observations about your ideas OR how speculative I am in this regard, in a friendly manner. Instead, his remarks were indicating as if I was talking ill of you and I should refrain from doing so, ever in future as well. It not only projected me in a wrong picture here, in this public forum but attempted to create unrest between you and me. As such I expressed my self elaborately and pointed out where Shri Raghy is wrong. As well requested him to keep his suggestions in tact with him so that, it can be offered to a right person, at the right time, if need be, in future and to have a check on himself.

I am thankful to all members here who all could recognize and readily accepted to call a spade, a spade and figured out what is right and what is wrong.

Just because Shri Ragy aded that "You are a gem yourself", while stating that "he is pained to find you batting for EVR", has made you to consider/accept him as a member welcoming you with your views and opinions and others are not.

I know I have no rights and eligibility to make a request to you. But, would still request you not to have an impression that Shri Raghy was been roundly criticized with out any basis. I end up requesting you this ONLY BECAUSE you are accusing other members who all honestly attempted to highlight what was the truth between "ME" and Shri Raghy.

I have nothing against Shri Raghy. I wish that it must be Shri Raghy's lapse in understanding what I am coveying. Long before, when there was a storm between a new member and Shri Kunjuppu and everything got messed up, Shri Raghy intervened to clear the air for the sake of all. And in that bargain, he ended up catching himself between the cross fire and suffered accusations. At that juncture, I did support Shri Raghy and expressed my pain in finding him left with holding the bag. Both of us for sure would enjoy sharing our views and opinions, agreeing or disagreeing or agreeing to disagreeing, in many other threads, under many other topics, in days to come.

Shri Nara,

You have full right as an individual, as a member here to reject all other members knowledge/information/observations about EVR as grossly wrong and unsubstantial. But, majority of Brahmin folks, including myself have utter contempt for EVR, for many obvious reason, which has been extensively explained here, in this thread by other knowledgeable members.

I wish, you could see if I am right or wrong in my critical observations about you, for your support of EVR and whether my impressions about you were speculative (stating, Shri Nara think this, Shri Nara say this, Shri Nara do this etc..etc.), considering the following facts-

1) You express your admiration for EVR and his revolutionary movements. Where as majority of Brahmin folks in TN, who all could willingly accept their tradition/culture/life style etc..etc, were all subjected to harassment, insult and ultimately snubbed for ever.

2) You find no fault with EVR's movement that defaced Brahmin community from TN and keep expressing your heartfelt admiration to him. Where as majority of Brahmin folks were put into miserable social atrocities, discrimination, oppression/suppression and finally made to lose the ground.

3) You keep claiming your quotes, references etc as the only valid stuffs and the rest of the others are wrong, foul, manipulated and fabricated. Whereas the counter presentations by other members are accepted by majority of Brahmin folks in TN who were all been subjected to crooked games.

4) As far as I could believe, you can very well understand that it was EVR's faulty strategy that had messed up with TN society and have left your fellow brahmins stranded in dark, for whom you use to say that you have a sense of love and sympathy as fellow community people. And you know that, "you" as a sympathetic individual can not offer a bright future and better living to each of your fellow poor brahmins, along with the sense of self dignity and cushioning of indiscriminate political/administrative setups.

5) Still you say that you would solute this great revolutionist who could successfully place brahmins in their right place that they deserve and as such TN society is now free from evils of brahmin community and that TN is now an ideal society, having no place for Brahmins.

On above such grounds, I fail to see what sort of speculation I have indulged in about you and seem to have pained you, when I attempted to explain what would be your justification in admiring EVR, ignoring the irreversible damage, his movements caused to Brahmin community?

I believe, the things are black and white between all of us here. It is not that I am substantiating my views about EVR here BUT the point is that, if we wish, we all can honestly agree what is speculative and what is stark honesty in our observations about each other, in this thread.

If you feel that I have made speculative remarks about you, here, in this thread, I would humbly request you to pardon me. And it would be my pleasure, if at all you could consider correcting me with where I was wrong and what was speculative in my observations and comments about your views and ideas, here, in this thread.

Thank you.