[WikiEN-l] Libertarian rhetoric and India

Mon Nov 10 16:07:30 UTC 2003

--- On Mon 11/10, Poor, Edmund W < Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com > wrote:

> As the administrator of this mailing list, I would like to 
> ask "Libertarian" to cool down his rhetoric. 

Ed, I appreciate your concern and in fact agree with you.
However, what about asking those who use slurs like "Hindu 
Nationalist" and "fascist" to describe Hindus and Indians to
desist from doing so? India is a democracy and it is so only 
because India is Hindu majority. That portion which was made
Muslim majority during partition has become an Islamic theocracy
and ethnically cleansed its minorities. Let us not pretend that 
India is a similar country.

This is a cruel joke. Someone sitting in an Indian Government
run University has the full freedom to post all over the net
that India is not a democracy but a state run like Benito
Mussolini and if his posts were true, shouldn't the Govt have
come down on him?

To give you a perspective, "Hindu Nationalist" is similar to the
slur "White Supremacist" or "White Nationalist" used in the
context of Republican Party.
Recently, Washington Post had an article on India contributing
troops to Iraq and unusually, not once did it use the slur
"Hindu Nationalist" when it wanted cannon fodder from India to
save the fair skinned Caucasians. It used the term "right of
center" which is acceptable. Indians all over noticed and this point 
was made on several bulletin boards and mailing lists.

Why don't you ask those who have gone about posting nonsense using
the word "fascist" to desist from doing so?

I also suggest that you unlock the 2002_Gujarat_violence page or
lock it temporarily in the neutral state, without any information
from MArxist sources. Of all the reports, why should the Marxist
viewpoint be favored? It beats me.

> Comments like these have no place here:
>* You are clearly lying  by pretending that you do not know...
>* You are probably a White skinned American who is brainwashed into 
> believing ...

Agreed, but who do you think started it? I was accused of being
a "Hindu nationalist" and that is why I hit back. Why don't you
ban that slur? Since "Hindu nationalist" is similar to "White
Supremacist" applied in the context of Republicans, either both
are legitimate or both are illegitimate.

>Instead of making personal remarks abourt list members, why not 
> focus on writing some incisive, hard-hitting articles about India's 
> political situation?

I did that. The gang of Marxists keeps deleting the stuff I post.
In one post, one of them even questioned a post I made on Mount
Everest. I added the fact about the person who discovered it. I
was immediately questioned because in their perverted worldview,
no indian should deserve credit.

They've hunted down EVERY ONE of my posts as a gang and indulged in
propaganda of the Marxists. 
They even deleted a couple of points which went against them.

1) A Muslim, Abdul Kalam was the nominee of the "Hindu Nationalist"
and "fascist" party. I added this point and it was promptly deleted
and replaced with a line "However the BJP is considered by many to be a Hindu-fundamentalist or even a Hindu-fascist party."

Amazing how you put up with this! If its candidate was a Muslim
(he won the election and is now the President of India), it tells
you something, doesn't it? Doesn't it tell you something when India's
Defence Minister is a Christian? Doesn't it tell you something about
India when the ruling coalition's two other possible contenders were
a Jew and a Kashmiri Muslim?

2) The second example is when I pointed out that a judge who headed
the self-appointed commission of inquiry was a Marxist. It was 
deleted repeatedly even though he had served as a Minister in a 
Communist Government and was their Presidential candidate.

3) Everything positive about India/Hindus is obfuscated using words
like "alleged". Anything possibly negative even when there is no
proof is made as an assertion.

Why do you think I came here? I thought I'd see some fairness, but
obviously I have a tough time because of the prevailing mindset of
Americans who have internal logic regarding Communists but when it
comes to other countries, they just support the loudest person who
usually happen to be Communist. 

>I would love to hear more about the following points:
>* destruction of Hindu temples (by Muslims)

Sure, but I was sure that the gang comprising of Wik, Jiang, Arvindn,
Boud and VerilyVerily (also posts as VV) will continue harassing
me. That is why I came here first. For example, if you look at the 
posts of Boud, you will see that he has gone about posting anti-India 
stuff all over the place.
In one place, one of them has described some organizations as "been
seen by some people as an informal police force."
This is PURE FANTASY and made up by the member who made the
contribution. Not even the Marxists had the ingenuity to come up
with that description. Notice the part which says "been seen by
some people." In other words, he knows it is fiction but used the
old tactic used by dishonest journalists.

>* descruction of Muslim mosques (by Hindus)

Er, apart from destroying a disused structure built after destroying
a temple, this is not the norm. Maybe, political correct people would
like to equate the two, but Hindus are peaceful people and their
religious ideas preach peace and accept all Gods and it is a religion
which says, "All paths lead to the same goal."
It doesn't say, "Kill the unbelievers and idolators" or "I am the
only God..."

Therein lies the difference. A "fundamentalist Hindu" becomes
withdrawn from the world and becomes more peaceful and unattached
to material things unlike fundamentalists of certain religions
who become more violent.

In short, all religions are NOT EQUAL. Some are more peaceful
in nature. India had a multitude of religions but had peace until
Islam came in (of course, Marxists hunted down two episodes in
history where Hindus destroyed Buddhist centres but what they don't
tell you is that these two Hindus were under the pay of a Muslim
King.). Why deny a fact? Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to
highlight facts and even where interpretations are involved, aren't
they supposed to be based in facts?

>* political affiliations of newspaper editors (especially Marxists)

I shall do all that, but right now I feel harassed with this gang
going after me systematically.

>* India's economic system (socialism, free market, whatever)

Definitely. It is my field.

>* status of women
> Just from skimming your letters from 3 days ago, I can tell that<br>Libertarian has a lot of information -- and possibly a lot of passion!
>-- about these topics.
>Libertarian, I hope you will channel your energy into helping us build a
>set of highly informative articles on India.<br><br>Welcome to the project.
>Ed Poor

Ed, Why do you think I brought all this to the attention of the list?
I was hoping for some fairness. Can we have some totally neutral
people look into the behavior of the Marxists who are misusing a
tool provided for spreading information?
I am not even saying I want my view forced upon others. I am so
confident that my points are the correct ones that I am asking
for an independent investigation to determine who is correct. I am
willing to supply information and let the Marxists do so too.

-libertarian

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com