From: godura@dobie.cis.udel.edu (Ruchir Godura)
Subject: Re: godura rabble :)
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:23:11 GMT

In article <1hj2inINN4ff@phakt.usc.edu> fafat@usc.edu (Vijay Fafat) writes:
>	too much.The cowmpletely incongruous use of "servile" indicates 
Oh, I know the use of servile, all right.

>	You're droll when you ask me to interpret your position correctly when
>	you fail to do it in return. 
Well, you began the hindu fanatic bit.
I only pointed out your worma-bashing .. something that made you infer I
was some kind of communalist. By the same logic, did worma-bashing,
(since Varma is a vocal defender of Hinduism), make you a Muslim fanatic ?
> 
>
> 	You're a fool to think I would have read or saved your rantings. It 
                                            ^^^^^
It figures that you can make statements about me that are such blatant
misinterpretations of what I think...   you haven't even read what I
wrote.

>	was when you so pompously asked me to take a stand against the Muslims
> 	for the destruction of the temples that this started. You failed, in

1) I did not ASK anyone to take any stand against muslims, let alone you.
2) I simply reacted to the knee-jerk reaction of everyone on the net to
condemn all and everyone, and express shame, etc., at Hinduism.
   There was a footnote in the posting that asked all the "ashamed"
   people to "spare a few words" for the hindus killed in other
   countries. Does that sound like a fanatic to you ?

> 	a typical Godura fashion, to see that I did'nt give a damn to the
> 	mosques and the temples. What were more imp. were the innocent peepuls
> 	(both Hindu and Muslim) who were getting killed. If your foolhardy
> 	intelligence says that's "kiss-ass pseudo-secularism", then I can only

Maybe I went too far in my choice of words. But with all your snide
remarks about "Ram" and "bhakt", which, you thought made you look chic,
what did you expect to be called. 

> 	pity you. I don't give a rodent's behind as to what your views are on 
I happen to have the same thoughts about your views, and I never asked
you to accept mine.
>	this issue since they're unlikely to have an intellectual content any
>	different from your jejune and noisome brayings. 
>
> 
> >Your earlier limericks were even funny, but the malice and personal
> >inective in the later posts show that
> >bloody no-job idlers like you don't have the balls or the stomach to
> >digest jokes directed at themselves .. 
> 
> 	Ha! so when the limericks were written against Doki or Worma, they
> 	were funny and as soon as they were directed against Ruchira darling,

I meant the initial limericks with which you responded to mine. I wasn't
even aware of any such stuff you wrote about doki.

> 	they had "malice" and "invective", eh? Shows how many atrophied balls 
>	and stomachs *you* have. And fancy calling your initial stone a 
>	"joke", when you tried to act a high-handed net.policeman, a moral 
>	asshole of a guardian of sci, and stop the Worma-FFT "talk". Take up
Oh, so asking someone to carry their personal battles to email is
against nettiquette ? And feeling free to poke personalised humor at any
and everyone that doesn't agree with you is perfectly OK ?

> >
> >My religion is my personl matter, and I have kept it so. Show me one
> >line from my earlier postings that might prove I am not an atheist, let
> >alone a devotee of some god.
>
>
> 	The fact that you throw around "pseudo-secular" at the drop of your
  
  Ridiculing a particular religion is not my idea of secularism. Hence
  the pseudo. Does that pinch you a lot ?

> 	hat without knowing a shit about what's going on and poke your stinking
> 	nose in discussions which don't concern you is enough reason to brand

Look who's talking about nose poking. You have one that's probably a
million times longer than the appendage you might call little Fafat, and
it manages to find its smelly way into almost every conceivable thread
on SCI. Only it has little Dokiesque one-liners. 
(Thank God for little mercies).

> 
> 
> >As for your absolutely sick and humorless pseudo-rhymes, Mustafa Ibrahim
> >could do better. I have more important things to do than obviously you
> >have.            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 	still having that same "halo" mentality... You fool yourself.
> 	Under your garb of faked piety, you're just as naked. And I'm glad

Piety, me ? I'll take that as a compliment :-) :-)

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason why the demolition of the
mosque should have been condemned is that people would die as a result
of such an action.
The Govt. cannot be blamed for this .. it was the responsibility of the
state government to ensure law and order. Thus it was meaningless to
send pious letters of protest to the Indian government.
The BMAC is as much to blame as is the RSS/VHP combine. It doesn't
matter a shit to me what kind of structure stands at Ayodhya, because,
obviously it cannot be proved that Ram (if he ever existed in the way
hindus depict him) was born there.
In religious matters, one cannot expect an entire body of people to go
by scientific logic. There are probably 200 million people that will
swear that Ram was born there. And another 500 million that would be
happy to see the Temple come up at the spot. So what it boils down to is
that it is a sacred place as viewed by the MAJORITY of the people in
India. The educated, literate, cosmopolitan, class of Indians that
understand secular values are NOT the majority.
The BMAC demands a supreme court settlement. The supreme court obeys the
constitution. The constitution's secularism was shown to be a farce when
it was amended to pander to the mullahs. If the supreme court ruled in
favour of the BMAC, is there anything to prevent a future BJP government
from amending the constitution in its favour ? Would demolition of the
mosque be OK then ?
The point is that a single act of accomodation on the part of the BMAC,
(i.e., agreeing to the shifting of the mosque to a nearby site),would have
done more to puncture the growth of hindu fundamentalism in India than
could any amount of sanctimonious preaching done on this net,
Doordarshan, or otherwise. The fantastic growth of communal parties like
BJP in the last decade, when they jumped from a measly 2 seats in
parliament to being the official leaders of the opposition, can only be
attributed to a reaction to minority appeasement, growth in prominence  
of minority hardliners, and a feeling of indignity at the increasing
persecution of hindus in parts of the country where they are in a
minority. These are not my feelings, but those of the millions of hindus
in the cow belt ( as I see it ).
The secular parties were gradually seen as having failed in their duty
to mete out even justice to the majority community, and BJP & Co were
seen as potential saviours of the community.
Rebuilding the mosque or arresting Advani etc., will NOT solve the
problem. These efforts seem almost childish. In a democracy like India,
where even the constitution is not sacred, the only right is very
unfortunately, might. Letting this matter drift, or trying to enforce a
solution unacceptable to the hindus, is going to only give a filip to
hindu fundamentalism, which will be far more difficult to handle than
muslim fundamentalism. It is not unimaginable that (shudder) a communal
party like BJP come to power by arousing religious passions and change
the constitution to their convenience. 
It is in the best interest of all to avoid knee-jerk rections of piety
and protest when something catastrophic happens. The riots did not
happen all of a sudden just after the demolition. It had been building
up to that for a long time.
A long term solution is needed and banning people and accusing all and
everyone will make it only more difficult to do so.
Unfortunately, a long term solution can only be one that is acceptable
to the hindus. These are ground realities, and not what one would want
should happen, hence the use of the word unfortunately.
Ruchir.> 
> 
> 
> 
>

-- 
Ruchir Godura | godura@cis.udel.edu | (302) 731-4123 (H) (302) 831-1949 (W)