[WikiEN-l] Communist paper apologises but Wikipedia endorses the malicious claim!

Tue Nov 11 07:23:09 UTC 2003

--- On Mon 11/10, Ray Saintonge < saintonge at telus.net > wrote:

> http://bjp.org/history.htm I could not have described nationalism 
> better myself.

All political parties all over the world try to describe themselves
as patriotic and nationalistic. There is nothing new in this. We are
discussing the phrase "HINDU nationalist" not nationalist.

> As for Iraq, I can assure you that the American requests to be 
> rescued from their new Vietnam have not just gone out to "brown" 
> countries.

The whole sham was for Indian troops and if BJP had its way, they
would have shamelessly sent the troops in order to curry favor
with the Americans. Fortunately, India has many parties and they
couldn't come to agreement even within the ruling coalition.

> This is a "non-sequitur". India is a democracy, but it does not 
> follow that it is because of its Hindu majority.

Empirical evidence is on my side. In 1947, a portion of India was
chopped off and given to Muslims. It ended up an Islamic theocracy 
and ethnically cleansed whatever minorities it had.
Certain states in North Eastern India which are Christian majority
have already "warned" people to convert to Christianity or else...
The region is in flames. 
It is only because Hindus are a majority that India is democratic. 

> I'm glad to see that the residents of the occupied Portuguese 
> territories are receiving a fair share of representations. He 
> succeeded a Sikh. I guess that the old Hindu kshatriya caste is not 
> as effective as it used to be. I suppose that's the down side to 
> being peaceful.

What do you mean 'downside'? Is this a Western trait to see it as
a downside unless someone from your tribe is not holding all
important positions?
As far as I know, Indians are proud of GeorgeF's efficiency
despite his socialist past.

> Saddam Hussein did not become more tolerable by naming a Christian, 
> Tariq Aziz, as foreign minister.

If you had followed the news in the region, you'd have known that
Saddam Hussein was a secular person and his Govt was not a jihadi
Govt. Is this what Fox TV brainwashed Americans with? I know that
Americans were hoodwinked by massive propaganda into supporting
a war using lies and deception, but I didn't think they were
told that Iraq was an Islamic fundamentalist state.

> It overran Sikkim, and the Portuguese territories

Sikkim joined India and the Sikkim Assembly voted for it since
they knew that they'd be taken over by China otherwise.
Goa was overrun and the Portuguese kicked out liberating the
Goan people. Heard of the Goan Inquisition where barbaric acts 
were committed by the Church?

> Indian Marxists were all home-grown.

Communist Party of India split into two when India went to war
with China over the issue of whether the masters were in Peking
or Moscow.

> At least here in British Columbia we have had a provincial premier, 
> Ujjal Dosanjh, who was born in India.

You're still a xenophobic country in the sense that your Prime
Minister cannot be foreign born. OTOH, we allow foreign born 
people to hold the office of Prime Minister and one such person
could become our Prime Minister anytime. She is the leader of
the opposition now.

> Nothing prevents the views of communists and democrats from 
> coinciding on given issues.

If a view was morally correct, I'd support the view too. I wouldn't
oppose it just because the Communists support it.
On this issue, it so happens that they cooked up lots of stuff.
I am willing to discuss the issue point by point. The problem is
that others who contributed to it acted in an arrogant manner and
refused to do so.
I'll give this to you - my style is not correct and I may tend to
use hyperboles and am open to correction. However, the substance
I contribute will be accurate and to the point. If you look at
my contributions, I have taken the effort to explain my position
and give links and at the same time I have removed lines which
were hyperboles and attribution of motives which I should not have
done.
All I am asking is that others not attribute motives without basis
(the only valid basis would be either an oral or written statement
which is documented).

> As the saying goes, yours is a case of the pot calling the kettle 
> brown. :-)

There you go again, refusing to distinguish between a riot and a
state sponsored genocide.

> There are some very selective omissions from this. Iyer was a 
> minister in a state government in 1957, not the federal government. 

Selective ommission? You're attributing motives to me by making that 
statement. I didn't mention it because it didn't even strike me. Even 
if he was just a village level Marxist, he is a Marxist!
If you knew about Indian politics, you'd have known that Communists
never formed a Govt (except as part of a coalition) at the Centre
and there are only 3 states where they routinely form the Govt.

Again, you miss the whole point. Why should a self appointed
commission run by a Marxist get precedence over many other self
appointed commissions of inquiry? By arguing on where you are a
Minister, you assume that we are in agreement over the Marxist
commission getting precedence over all other commissions of
inquiry.

> The 1987 presidential vote was a matter of all the parties working 
> together to oppose the Congress(I) candidate. It seems that even 
> the BJP voted for the Communist candidate.

I remember this election vividly. BJP voted against him and held
a grudge it had extending back to 30 years. I am not sure where you
get your news from or whether you start googling after I make a
post here on the list. If that is the case, I am sorry to say you
are on the wrong track. This was given as an example of why not to
make enemies in politics and how it comes back to bite them.

-libertarian

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