Would any sickular Indian or Indian Musllim say this?

[Naina_Marbus]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

A Saudi national has made the following observations about India:
A country that rides elephants | Saudi Gazette
Tuesday, 28 April 2015 - 09 Rajab 1436 H

Khalaf Al-Harbi
Okaz

I am writing to you from India, the land of wonders.

Right now, I am in Mumbai which was once the farthest place
travelers on the Arabian Sea dreamed of reaching.

Huge waves of humans fan out in all directions and fill
the city’s streets. A river of sheepish eyes will look at
you, immediately recognize that you are not a local and
then try to figure out where you are from.

In Mumbai, luxurious building towers neighbor tin slums
and such contradictions are an entertaining game which,
despite the efforts of numerous thinkers, cannot be explained
but only experienced.

In India, there are more than 100 religions and more than
100 languages. Yet, the people live in peace and harmony.
They have all joined hands to build a strong nation that
can produce everything from a sewing needle to the rocket
which is preparing to go to Mars.

I must say that I feel a bit jealous because I come from
a part of the world which has one religion and one language
and yet there is killing everywhere.

No matter how the world speaks about tolerance, India
remains the oldest and most important school to teach
tolerance and peaceful co-existence regardless of the
religious, social, political or ethnical differences.
The stereotypical picture of India in the minds of many
of us is linked to poverty and backwardness.

This is a totally false picture which has nothing to do
with reality.

It is a picture which was created by our extreme judgment
of things. When we were poor before the era of oil, the
picture of India in our minds was linked to richness and
civilization but immediately after our financial conditions
improved, we converted India’s picture to one of poverty
and backwardness.

A country that rides elephants | Saudi Gazette - Linkis.com

 

[Anand Manohar]

Dr Ross

Sorry, I haven't peeping in for some time now. I first presumed that the word 'secular' was mis-spelt
until I got the full import of the word 'sickular' - it looks, anybody who is a Non-Hindu and therefore automatically an
Anti National, fits the definition of a sickular person.

Thanks, I learnt a new word today.

VT

 

[Brahmanyan]

Dear Sri "Naina_Marbus",

There are quite a few scholars from across the border who write about our common heritage. One among them is Mr Salman Rashid, Travel writer and Fellow of Royal Geographical Society from Pakistan. I follow his writings regularly for the beauty of heritage value. Here is a piece from his writing on "India the fertile".

India the fertile
"Just to refresh the readers’ memory: In antiquity, the land of India was essentially the valley of the Sindhu River. That is, it was what is today Pakistan. The Aryans were overwhelmed by its great rivers and sang hymns to them. The Rig Veda, truly the most beautiful composition of poetry ever composed by humans and one which loses none of its magnificence even in translation, celebrates the rivers.

We read of the Sindhu to which its tributaries flow “Like mothers to their calves, like milch-kine with their milk, so, Sindhu, unto you the roaring rivers run/You lead as a warrior king your army’s wings what time you come in the van of these swift streams.” (Rig Veda, Hymn No. 75).

That is not all, however. The nine quatrains of this celestial hymn make the flesh crawl and mist the eye for their exquisite beauty and their celebration of the dharti and her rivers. The Sindhu was the river whose channel through the mountains was cut by none other than the god Varuna so that it “ran on to win the race”. This was the river that flowed, “Like floods of rain that fall in thunder from the cloud, so Sindhu rushed on bellowing like a bull.”

And then, in a paroxysm of emotion, the poet creates the most moving lines, “Flashing and whitely-gleaming in her mightiness, she moves along her ample volumes through the realms/Most active of the active, Sindhu unrestrained, like to a dappled mare, beautiful, fair to see.” This is the most precious tribute ever paid to this greatest of our rivers, whose name has transformed through classical Persian and Greek to become India. So powerful is the original Sanskrit, that its poetic splendour is not diminished even in the English version. The Rig Veda then goes on to celebrate the Ganga, Yamuna, Sutudri (Sutlej), Sarasvati, Asikni (Chenab) and Vitasta (Jhelum) besides several others. But it is the Sindhu that “in might surpasses all the streams that flow”, which captivates the poet of those centuries past. "

Let us go back to our Vedic values '' Lokah samastha sukhino bhavantu '' and look the entire world as one family.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[renuka]

What I cant understand is...why Indians fall for all shades of praise so easily?

Anyone can go to India and write praises and go home to where he/she came from.

I have met people who admire "poverty" cos they feel its simplicity!Sadistic in my opinion but you will surely find some tourist who could have been high on Marijuana writing about the innocence he sees in the eyes of a slum child!

Reality is the slum child need not remain innocently poor to make some marijuana smoking person happy to go home to his country.

There are many losers from other countries who are almost slum dogs back home but becos of currency exchange they can feel like a millionaire for short while when they visit India.

So frankly speaking there is no use falling for words of praise of a tourist who steps his foot in India once in a while.

Reality is never having to fall for praises.

 

[V.Balasubramani]

Dalai Lama Praises India For Secularism Amid Fears Of Growing Religious Intolerance

The Dalai Lama praised India for its culture of secularism amid growing fears of religious intolerance in the country. The Tibetan spiritual leader is pictured here in Basel, Switzerland, Feb. 7, 2015. REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dalai Lama promoted secular government Monday, saying it had produced good results in India, which he argued was far more stable than other countries as a result. The Tibetan spiritual leader’s comments come as India’s minority religious communities fear growing intolerance amid a rising tide of hardline Hindu nationalism.

“Conflicts over religion are taking place. ... We must bring everybody close and develop trust because serious matters cannot be solved through mistrust,” he said in a speech to a democracy conference in New Delhi, the Press Trust of India reported. “Barring a few exceptions, this country is most stable country in comparison to others. … The Constitution of India based on secularism has brought good results here.”

Read more at: http://www.ibtimes.com/dalai-lama-praises-india-secularism-amid-fears-growing-religious-intolerance-1856104http://www.ibtimes.com/dalai-lama-praises-india-secularism-amid-fears-growing-religious-intolerance-1856104

 

[prasad1]

What I fail to understand from the original post, is whether the Indian tolerance should be celebrated or despised?
The heading and particularly the spelled word "sickular" shows the dispise for the Indian tolerance but the quoted article praises the tolerance. Knowing the poster from previous posts it is clear that Religious tolerance is not accepted as a virtue. So why accept the praise, when you do not believe in it?

 

[prasad1]

Dr Ross

Sorry, I haven't peeping in for some time now. I first presumed that the word 'secular' was mis-spelt
until I got the full import of the word 'sickular' - it looks, anybody who is a Non-Hindu and therefore automatically an
Anti National, fits the definition of a sickular person.

Thanks, I learnt a new word today.

VT

Welcome AMji, please keep posting.

 

[sarang]

Sickular is a person who claims to be secular, but anti Hindu and in the Indian context pro christian and pro Muslim. He may belong t9 any religion or a self proclaimed atheist, but will open his mouth to blame Hindus for innocuous silly statements by Hindu outfits, but shut his trap tight when non Hindus commit relatively harsher acts or violence. Hundreds of examples can be given for this selective amnesia by sickular media and individuals and politicians.

 

[sarang]

The title is correct and conveys what it wants. No 'sickular Indian' will write a similar article without blaming Hindus, sangh Parivar or 'Hindu' Hindus.

 

[V.Balasubramani]

Sickular is a person who claims to be secular, but anti Hindu and in the Indian context pro christian and pro Muslim. He may belong t9 any religion or a self proclaimed atheist, but will open his mouth to blame Hindus for innocuous silly statements by Hindu outfits, but shut his trap tight when non Hindus commit relatively harsher acts or violence. Hundreds of examples can be given for this selective amnesia by sickular media and individuals and politicians.

Sir,

That was a nice definition.

 

[Naina_Marbus]

Dr Ross

....'sickular' - it looks, anybody who is a Non-Hindu and therefore automatically an
Anti National, fits the definition of a sickular person.

VT

Correction: ...anybody who is in particular Hindu and pathologically anti-Hindu and anti-national...

 

[prasad1]

Very easy to cloak yourself in Tiranga or Saffron flag and deny the right to others . Who is the the self appointed judge and executioner?
Can a person irrespective of religion be secular without being branded as sickular by these self appointed Judges?
A non Hindu too can be Pro India, without kissing up to these self appointed Arbitrators.
jo khun gira parvat par
vo khun tha hidustani
jo shahid hue hai unki
zara yad karo qurbani

That is the definition of Indian. Not by the religion.

There have been Hindu who are and were Anti-India
There is no religion for criminals and no religion for anti-nationals.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Casteism has taken a heavy toll on Hindus. The result is so much of divisions. Each group and the sub sect within the group seems to be very self centered.

Unless a religious leader, like Swami Vivekananda, brings oneness among Hindus, the onslaught by the 'sickular' fellows will continue.

 

[sarang]

Independence act 1947 of Britain divided the country int two - muslim pakistan and hindu india. Shall we wind back to 1947 - and rethink. Swamy says there are two options - hindu india or redefining secularism with no religion based privileges.

Sickular rain pours but hindus know which is nourishing rain and which is acid rain.

 

[renuka]

Casteism has taken a heavy toll on Hindus. The result is so much of divisions. Each group and the sub sect within the group seems to be very self centered.

Unless a religious leader, like Swami Vivekananda, brings oneness among Hindus, the onslaught by the 'sickular' fellows will continue.

I agree with the first half of your post but I beg to differ with your 2nd half.

The reason is..why do we always have to have an Avatar syndrome and wait for a Swami ji or even God to 'save' the entire Hindu community?

It's the Avatar syndrome that weakens society..a society that awaits a savior eventually do not save themselves.

In fact Swami Vivekananda said "Arise..Awake ..stop not until your goal is reached"

He did not say "Arise..Awake and wait for a someone else to save you"

 

[CHANDRU1849]

I am not talking about Avatar. I want a person like Swami Vivekananda to unite all Hindus and remove castes.

 

[sarang]

Why Is Pakistan More Legitimate than Israel?

Worth reading and imbibing on India's history. There were three jewish states before israel was formed. There never was any country called pakistan before the british divided hindu bharat. There has to be one hindu state and one jewis state. For the full article, link at the end. This article for the american christian senators who oppose israel.

*****
[h=2]By Dennis Prager[/h]Published April 28, 2015

Why Is Pakistan More Legitimate than Israel?

First, of all the 200-plus countries in the world, only Israel's legitimacy is challenged. So mentioning any other country seems strange to a caller.

Second, almost no one outside of India and Pakistan knows anything about the founding of Pakistan.

Only months before the U.N. adopted a proposal to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state in 1947, India was partitioned into a Muslim and a Hindu state. The Hindu state was, of course, India. And the Muslim state became known as Pakistan. It comprises 310,000 square miles, about 40,000 square miles larger than Texas.

In both cases, the declaration of an independent state resulted in violence. As soon as the newly established state of Israel was declared in May 1948, it was invaded by six Arab armies. And the partition of India led to a terrible violence between Muslims and Hindus.

According to the final report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission from Dec. 28, 1949, the 1948 war of Israel's independence created 726,000 Arabs refugees. Many sources put the figure at about 200,000 less. A roughly equal number of Jewish refugees — approximately 700,000 — were created when they were forcibly expelled from the Arab countries where they had lived for countless generations. In addition, approximately 10,000 Arabs were killed in the fighting that ensued after the Arab invasion of Israel.

Now let's turn to the creation of Pakistan. According to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, the creation of Pakistan resulted in 14 million refugees — Hindus fleeing Pakistan and Muslims fleeing India. Assuming a 50-50 split, the creation of Pakistan produced about seven million Hindu refugees — at least 10 times the number of Arab refugees that resulted from the war surrounding Israel's creation. And the Mideast war, it should be recalled, was started by the Arab nations surrounding Israel. Were it not for the Arab rejection of Israel's creation (and existence within any borders) and the subsequent Arab invasion, there would have been no Arab refugees.

And regarding deaths, the highest estimate of Arab deaths during the 1948 war following the partition of Palestine is 10,000. The number of deaths that resulted from the creation of Pakistan is around one million.

In addition, according to the Indian government, at least 86,000 women were raped. Most historians believe the number to be far higher. The number of women raped when Israel was established is close to zero. From all evidence I could find, the highest estimate was 12.

Given the spectacularly larger number of refugees and deaths caused by the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan, why does no one ever question the legitimacy of Pakistan's existence?

This question is particularly valid given another fact: Never before in history was there a Pakistan. It was a completely new nation. Moreover, its creation was made possible solely because of Muslim invasion. It was Muslims who invaded India, and killed about 60 million Hindus during the thousand-year Muslim rule of India. The area now known as Pakistan was Hindu until the Muslims invaded it in the year 711.

On the other and, modern Israel is the third Jewish state in the geographic area known as Palestine. The first was destroyed in 586 Before the Common Era., the second in the year 70. And there was never a non-Jewish sovereign state in Palestine.

So, given all these facts, why is Israel's legitimacy challenged, while the legitimacy of Pakistan, a state that had never before existed and whose creation resulted in the largest mass migration in recorded history, is never challenged?

The answer is so obvious that only those who graduated from college, and especially from graduate school, need to be told: Israel is the one Jewish state in the world. So, while there are 49 Muslim-majority countries and 22 Arab states, much of the world questions or outright only rejects the right of the one Jewish state, the size of New Jersey, to exist.

“ask your professor why Pakistan is legitimate and Israel isn't.
They won't have a good answer. Their opposition to Israel isn't based on moral considerations.

Why Is Pakistan More Legitimate than Israel? - Dennis Prager

 

[renuka]

I am not talking about Avatar. I want a person like Swami Vivekananda to unite all Hindus and remove castes.

dear Chandru,

Why do you want a person like Swami Vivek to unite all Hindus and remove caste?

Humans will always find ways to classify themselves even if caste did not exists....even those who are dumb are classified as dumb,dumber and dumbest!LOL

The existence of other castes that are different from each other should not bother anyone in anyway as long are are seen equally by the constitution of the country.

At the end of the day..we all exist in a very individualized way..that is its our own life finally..whether the person who stands beside me is a not from my caste does not make a difference to me cos I came alone and will go alone too.

Uniting all humans under one umbrella is even superhumanly not possible..differences are not meant to be a curse..its meant to be diverse as a part of existence.

At the end of the day renunciation is the name of the game..so finally there is only Self and that Self is no different from anything else...till then all of us have differences.

 

[vgane]

In case the current dispensation at the Center continues we will have more support for Hindu way of life & Hindus in particular...The other dispensation is considered as anti Hindu and we will see only divide among the Hindus like the way Britishers divided the country as Hindu/Muslim or Brahmin/Non Brahmin

 

[prasad1]

You can paint any picture, but the aim of people opposed to Secular principle is to deny basic civil liberties to a section of the people. They will vehemently protest at any curtailment of so called rights to their selected group, but turn around and deny the same right to others who do not belong to this chosen group on that day.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

dear Chandru,

Why do you want a person like Swami Vivek to unite all Hindus and remove caste?

Humans will always find ways to classify themselves even if caste did not exists....even those who are dumb are classified as dumb,dumber and dumbest!LOL

The existence of other castes that are different from each other should not bother anyone in anyway as long are are seen equally by the constitution of the country.

At the end of the day..we all exist in a very individualized way..that is its our own life finally..whether the person who stands beside me is a not from my caste does not make a difference to me cos I came alone and will go alone too.

Uniting all humans under one umbrella is even superhumanly not possible..differences are not meant to be a curse..its meant to be diverse as a part of existence.

At the end of the day renunciation is the name of the game..so finally there is only Self and that Self is no different from anything else...till then all of us have differences.

Madam,

It is a known factor that if an individual who is able to unite people for common cause is always welcome. We have come across so many leaders with such abilities - Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Fidel Castro etc.

Individualistic thinking is always welcome. For achieving common cause - in this case unity among Hindus - a leader of proven ability is the need of the hour.