Bhartiya Janta Party is a communalist party

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his round 3 argument. This is his own fault; rjayx8 is known to play with the argument deadline on a regular basis. Although he attributes this to “excessive schoolwork”, the risk was his very own to take, and he has held himself accountable in his communications with me.After some discussion, Pro and myself have arrived at an agreement regarding the issue. I would like the judges to take careful note of the following: -Pro has posted his round 3 argument in the comments section. It is to be considered valid. -All aspects of the argument, including grammar, sources, conduct etc. must be taken into consideration. -Pro’s forfeiture shall NOT be forgotten. Pro has agreed that he’s guilty of disorderly conduct, and is fine with losing points over it. Judges are free to deduct points for the same as they see fit.Pro has agreed to all the above details, and I request the judges to do the same. I shall now proceed with my round 3 argument.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Rebuttals____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Pro claimed in round 1, that:Golwalkar is one most respected figures in the BJPFurthermore, in his rd3 (comments), he has said:Golwalkar has a place in something bigger, in the ideology and roots of the BJP and BJS.I refuted this in round 2. A.B. Vajpayee, one of the BJP's foremost stalwarts, has been quoted as saying "weh unke apne vichar the" (those were his own views). He further went on to dismiss Golwalkar's views, saying the BJP never approved.Pro also cites:Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India"s former Prime Minister, almost never used to sit on a chair when he was in the presence of "Guruji" Golwalkar in a room...In the RSS, Golwalkar was known for much more than his views.He preached the vedas, explained sanyas, gave guidance to the fledglings, worked for tribal welfare etc. No wonder the organization respected him.This DOES NOT mean that everyone agreed with his fascist views.Though almost no one agreed with his genocidal objectives, even Hitler was respected for his many other qualities by his contemporaries.Golwalkar's case isn't very different; only those that were close to him knew the other aspects of the man's life, and, as a result, ended up respecting him.----------------------Pro's statements regarding Vivekananda's influence in the RSS:Judges this is a rather preposterous claim...... the man was just a preacher of Hinduism, trying to spread the message of Hinduism, if my opponent says the RSS was influenced by Vivekananda, he in turn is saying, the RSS" ideology is that of a hindu nation, he has managed to prove what I argued...Not very sportsmanlike. I see 3 possibilities here:1) & 2) Pro either failed to notice (unlikely), or completely ignored, my ostentatious explanation of the words "Hindu" and "Hindutva" in round 2.3) Pro is resorting to semantics to prove his point, by choosing the popular interpretation of "Hindu" over the original one (which, by the way, also happens to be the one used by the BJP).All cases seem quite distasteful.In case someone didn't notice, I'll reiterate: The Hindu nation is the one that lies to the east of the Indus river i.e. the modern-day India, and NOT a country dominated and ruled by followers of the Hindu religion. This has been explained in ornate detail in my rd2 argument.----------------------Pro's remarks on my claim of media undermining BJP:Come on, my opponent has resorted to churlish means, especially when the media has been so sympathetic to BJP......it has projected its leader Modi as the champion of the people, and Congress as a corrupt organization.The poor punctuation aside, I think it is pretty obvious why the media jumped to the BJP's ship from the Congress' : the Congress' ship was sinking.In the wake of MULTIPLE scams related to corruption, it was obvious that the media stood to gain more from supporting Modi rather than perform damage control for the UPA government.-----Reference for UPA's scams:http://www.raftaarlive.com...-----Pro further states,Just because of a single scam, my opponent made a claim that the integrity of Indian media, whether electronic or print is compromised since time immemorial.Well, I didn't imply "time immemorial", but I also didn't say there was only a "single scam". Here are a few:1) The media gave little coverage to the death of Madhavrao Scindia (mainly, just the funeral), who were seen as major obstacles in Sonia Gandhi's path to power. He died in a helicopter crash. Rajesh Pilot's case is similar.2) Sonia Gandhi wasted nearly half an hour in then-PM Indira Gandhi's treatment after she was shot. This may well have cost Indira Gandhi her life. However, Sonia's irresponsible actions were never made known to the people at large.3) Subramanian Swamy's letter to erstwhile president APJ Abdul Kalam, which ultimately resulted in Manmohan Singh's appointment as Prime Minister, was never given any mainstream coverage.The letter, which pointed out that Gandhi is Italian, destroyed her claim to the PM's seat.-----Respective sources numbered 1 to 3:1: http://gulfnews.com...2: http://missionsecrets.blogspot.in...3: http://satyabhashnam.blogspot.in...-----I'm sorry, Mr. Pro; it is not a single scam, but MANY, that point out to the media's affinity to Sonia Gandhi and the INC.----------------------Pro on my statement about BJP refraining from appeasing the media:Nice joke, now sir would you dispute the fact that the BJP doesn"t appease the Hindus.Well, Pro has misunderstood me. I round 2 was referring to the BJP's no-appeasement policy in the context of THE MEDIA. I think it was pretty clear from my language.Now either Pro has been victim to a slight misunderstanding, or he's resorting to semantics (possibly for a second time).I never said that BJP doesn't appease the Hindus. If a party doesn't appease the largest ethnic group in the nation, how can it even think of winning the elections?As a matter of fact, BJP appeased everyone in the nation, not just Hindus. Be it Hindu or Muslim, most of the nation voted for them and now they're in power with an overwhelming majority.Pro "asks":My question is simple were a day to come where the BJP had to decide between a policy favourable for Muslims or favourable for Hindus it is no secret they would opt for the latter...I see neither the question nor the question mark; but that aside, what sort of policy is it which, when passed, is favourable for Hindus, and when rejected, is favourable for Muslims?Now, THAT is a question.----------------------Pro's response to my statement pointing out the Liberhan commission's leak:Again sir, you are not questioning the media here, you are questioning the integrity of the Indian judiciary, an independent wing which is bereft of any influence from the executive or legislature.No, I'm not questioning the judiciary. The judiciary wasn't responsible for the LEAKING the report. The media was.The commissions" full report is available on the internet, read it...Again, I'm talking about the LEAK of the report. It was conveniently leaked at a time when the UPA government was under severe criticism in the parliament.The objective, clearly, was to shift focus away from the UPA's debacles, and towards speculation over BJP's role in the riots.I offered multiple sources regarding the same. I would advise my opponent to go through my round 2 argument once more.----------------------Pro's quotation of my statement:My opponent cleverly states, "BJP has never been against Muslims as a whole"I believe that is enough to say it all, what does he mean? Is the BJP against the Muslims selectively?No, I meant that certain individuals in the BJP MIGHT be against the Muslims. But that does not matter, since the BJP, as a whole, is not against the Muslims; it's not allied only to the Hindus either. It is allied to India.Referring to my Hindutva argument in round 2, this becomes clear.What it means in the big picture, is that the BJP is not communalist.----------------------Pro's closing statements:Sir your Hindustan argument is ridiculous, what the BJP actually says that the minority should accept the majority"s supremacy or should be exiled of what is Hindu-sthan...How can it be ridiculous when I gave you the actual etymology of Hindustan?It seems that Pro simply didn't get my explanation regarding the meaning of Hindustan.Yes, it refers to India.Yes, it means "land of the Hindus".NO, it does not mean that Christians and Muslims are not welcome.I reiterate: the original word "Hindu" is NOT bound by religion, but by territory. PLEASE go through my rd2 again.And it is THIS meaning of Hindu that the BJP has always considered. The BJP considers every Indian as a Hindu, not just the worshippers of Krishna and Shiva.BJP claims that the forefathers and the ancestors of this land were Hindu...Yes, they were, according to BJP's adopted (and the original) definition of Hindu....therefore the son of this soil should be a hindu, not a Christian, Muslim or Parsi.No, it shouldn't. Thee BJP doesn't believe in this. Hindustan was once occupied by Mughals. Even they come under the original definition of Hindu.----------------------Nationalist is euphemism for hindu nationalism....And Hindu nationalism preaches secularism and religious tolerance, because "Hindu" is nothing but "Indian", as I explained earlier in round 2.That will be all for now. I believe I have convincingly refuted my opponent's arguments as well as his rebuttals to my arguments. I await Pro's final word in round 4.