Ayodhya:Ram Janmabhoomi - Page 11

Originally posted by: souro

Originally posted by: sandya_rao7

world peace but not at the cost of ur religion or the things u have faith in.

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

You hit the nail on the head dude....or is it dudette😕 Still trying to figure out who's who.

No ma'm no dudette here, though I know it's confusing with a name like Soumya.😃

Originally posted by: souro

QT, you say you respect your parents, likewise most of the Hindus respect Ram. If you build a shrine for your parents and then someone comes and says that he doesn't respect your parents and because of that he's going to demolish it and build another shrine of his liking in its place, how will you feel?? How do one show respect to one's parents or forefathers, by not fighting against that tyrant?? You believe Ram wouldn't have liked this to happen, how can you be so sure?? If Ram had not saved Sita and instead said, 'oh forget it, whatever happened is best forgotten, come on Ravan let's be pals', how'd have you reacted?? The whole concept of Hindu-Muslim brotherly love in India is a charade, there was no such thing to begin with. The Muslims constantly violated the Hindu's privacy, and this act on the Hindu's part only shattered the Myth of that brotherly love.

The thing you say about Hinduism being above everything, does that mean we should accept and allow everything. For a change we'll also like to see the people of other religion act like their religion is above all petty issues and allow us to do whatever we want. If they can't allow that then it's their mistake to expect it from us.

What you say about concentrating on development is correct, but without a sense of honour and pride for your country or religion these developments also cannot be achieved. And when other people constantly uses us as a door mat and we don't stand up, sorry then the sense of honour is missing.

Originally posted by: souro

No ma'm no dudette here, though I know it's confusing with a name like Soumya.😃

😆😆 ya, I was a bit confused...have a neice named Soumya back in India. Well, one more dude to nag here....j/k...a little birdie told me these words are required to stay out of trouble😛

Nice to meet you Soumya😊

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

😆😆 ya, I was a bit confused...have a neice named Soumya back in India. Well, one more dude to nag here....j/k...a little birdie told me these words are required to stay out of trouble😛

Nice to meet you Soumya😊

A li'l birdie told you that nagging the dudes is the way to stay out of trouble??😕 I'd like to get hold of that birdie.😡

Now before Tania comes and pulls me up, nice to meet you too Gauri.😃

Originally posted by: souro

Ani mind if I do a 180 degree turn.😛 I don't mind as long as u are not stepping on my toes..😆

OK, there are several reasons posted here as to why it shouldn't have happened, but there are a few why I don't support. I still support that Hindus should stand up for themself, they should get rid of all those politicians playing blatant minority appeasement politics (throw away J.L.Nehru for starter), and Hindus should not take any nonsense from the other religion or their religious heads.

I support that too...especially the ones done by the politicians..like recently one politician suggested that there should be reservations for the muslims as well.....as if the SC/ST ...were not enough...just a way to gather the muslim vote bank....i hope that the people will see through these politicians.🤢

I will still say that muslims are more at fault for Babri masjid than Hindus, because they on their part did nothing to alleviate the distrust between the two communities and instead through various acts increased it. But I will not like to show too much support to the leaders under which Babri masjid happened

Well i would'nt say that...why does the onus of appeasement lie on the people of one religion...it should have been the combined effort of both the muslims and the hindus...but any ways people in power at that time failed us and fanned this and gained temporarily from what happened..🤢

. Time and again we've seen that these leaders are autocratic in nature and if we support them now and they become the dictator tomorrow, who will stop them then. They always talk about Indian culture, but the culture they talk about is the narrow minded medieval culture and not the broad minded ancient culture. The problem with supporting such leaders, they don't know where to draw the line. So, who will draw it for them and will they allow it, most probably they will snub anyone who tries to cross them. If tomorrow I protest any of their policy or their misinterpretation of Indian culture, chances are I'll find my head on their chopping board. Anything going even slightly against their interest (never mind if it's right or wrong) can be termed as supporting of other religion and quickly dealt with. If such becomes the scenario where there will remain only one voice, then there will be noone to reason and without reasoning how can there be any progress. Now the problem is, if I support the act I automatically support the leader, but I'd like to believe that I support the hurt Hindu sentiment that led to this act but not the leadership who grabbed the opportunity and used that sentiment to their benefit.

Soumya...whatever u said about the leaders..agree 100%...i don't know if power corrupts them or they are morally challenged..🤢...and as i said before that if a level headed person is supporting any act of this kind then there must some very valid reason behind it....and i don't necessarily see it as a support to the leadership at that time..😊

Ok, so I have not made a complete 180 degree, make that 120 degree.😛

Was that salsa...😆..anyways whatever degree turn u made ...my toes are saved...😆

Originally posted by: s.priya

There are countless monuments in India which are indeed relics of the past. Every small town you go, you find a monument. Yahan Sita baithi thi, jab wanvaas ke liye nikli thi. Wahan Pandav ne apni Kutir banayi, jab agyaatwaas mein the...

ram janambhoomi is not just another place. i'd say it compares with the kind of places that other religions have built for their their prophets/ gods.

What was Ayodhya.. the present day Ayodhya? A temple or a monument to represent the place where Lord Ram was once born. If the temple is built today, will people go to pray to Lord Ram or go to see the monument, which is built "on the Babri Masjid". Will it be a place of worship or a monument to be included in the Tour Map of India as a Must See monument.

what is present-day jerusalem? it is what we make it out to be. i dont see people from these other religions doing away with such sites just because they draw a large number of tourists, many from different religions. for sure, there is some worshipping that goes on, but the big draw is also tourists.

in fact, precisely because we dont care too much that our sites end up only as must see monuments.

Like someone wrote above, Ayodhya was possibly waiting to happen... But will I blame the tolerant Hindu - I dont know. I would lean towards the Politicians (they are a soft target anyways 😉 ) for bringing situations to this stage.

disagree a bit. this is like saying the marketing guy can sell any product. it side-steps the fact that somewhere the product has to resonate with the consumers for it to be a hit. politicians dont rise from nowhere. they are somewhere giving voice to the aspirations of people. sort of pointless to pass the buck on to them because the fault if any lies with the people.

Where will one start the Blame Game - No idea. Was it Babar who invaded and started the loot? Was it Alexander? Was it the first Christian Missionary who landed on the shores of India and slowly and steadily propagated the teachings of Bible amongst the illiterate?

no blame here. just an attempt to reclaim what is ours. same as the Jews and the Muslims who are still fighting over the piece of desert somewhere in the middle east.

fwiw, we can slowly start ceding territory every time that's needed to appease others. but like some authors in the west recognize, the new war is more a clash of values and civilizations. are we sure we would feel comfortable and be able to enjoy the"way of life" and "philosophy" we feel so proud of once we are in the minority? history does not teach us that. in good times, we want to appease so that we can lead our own comfortable lives. in bad times, we get slaughtered and converted. we can figure out what will happen in the future.

This morning while driving to work, stuck in a bit of traffic on a road where half of the road was occupied by refugees from neighbouring countries. The squatters have built themselves tin houses on the Pavement, their washroom is the open pavement on the other side, their cupboards are their protection and outer walls of their house, they enjoy electricity stolen from the neighbouring Municipal Hospital (which had problems with their equipments due to shortage of electricity), children are like pests, they just seem to keep coming every year, a shack of about 5 x 5 sq feet (possibly size of a small bathroom in a gym or something) houses a family of 10 people. Why are they pampered so much. Because the madarrasa which they go tells them who to vote for. The madarrassa also tells them how much they can expect per election and per vote and manages their funds.

Will an average Hindu do it? Maybe not. He is way too educated and opinionated to follow the diktats of a religious head.

Recently, the Jagadguru Shankaracharya of the Kamakshi Peeth (one of the four Peeths established by Adi Shankaracharya) was accused of murdering a temple employee. He is facing trial before a Magistrate's court after being denied even bail. If this were done by any other "religious head" what would happen? Will this matter ever reach the news? Possibly Not. But why is it that something done by a Hindu is not tolerated while same by a non hindu is tolerated as much. Is it just the tolerant Hindu at play. At the first blush, it might even appear to be so, but more often than not, a Political party would be standing to benefit by the divide amongst the Hindus, they stand to benefit if the confused Indian does not vote enmasse for a Party and instead that Majority chunk of votes are split amongst different anonymous entites allowing them to "capture" the block voting.

The issue is burning. Ayodhya is an example of what can happen. If the situation continues, wonder how many more Ayodhyas will be sacrified on the alter of "securalism"

wonder if the taliban could also find a place in our thriving secularism. lots of folks who would want to appease them and not invite trouble.

fwiw, i wholeheartedly applaud the underlying question here. sab kuch chalta hai and all values/ systems/ methodologies are to be tolerated/ appeased in our confused society. to the point that it is not even clear what it is we are trying to hold on to anymore. ask two hindus about sati and you'll get different answers. ask two indians about burka and they wont be able to figure out whether the woman should be allowed to gain education or stay hidden at home.

Originally posted by: mermaid_QT

The truth is I am not sure how many of the majority Hindus are happy India being a secular state 😳.. Makes me wonder..

Oh, believe me I was a complete supporter of India being a secular state and believed in State and religion should be different. But words should be backed by actions and secularism should not remain on paper only. If the state blatantly discriminates based on religion and shows favouritism towards the minorities, what's the use. It's better to have a state with a religion than a pseudo-secular state.