PDA

View Full Version : Anti Conversion Law.



Hind-guy
11 Aug 06,, 17:24
Syabas,
I think a few states under the control of BJP has passed anti conversion law to protect Hindus.Is it better if it is made a national law?We should take a cue from Malaysia a model muslim state which has anti conversion law or apostacy law to protect the intreast of muslims for many years.Muslims over there are not allowed to convert to other religions but people from other faith are welcomed to convert to islam.I feel every country should protect its native first.Any opnion? :)

Karthik
11 Aug 06,, 17:56
Hind-guy,

Your name is very illuminating.

As for this anti conversion law, forcible conversion is not acceptable. But for those willing to convert their faith, it is their individual choice.

Tronic
11 Aug 06,, 18:34
BJP are asses... well actually Advani is an ass... why can't Vajpayee head BJP again??? :(

lemontree
12 Aug 06,, 05:43
... why can't Vajpayee head BJP again??? :(
Too old and he has wobbly knees, just like the present chap who has no spine. Ironically the only Indian PM who had balls made of steel was a woman.

LongshotSNN
12 Aug 06,, 05:58
Syabas,
I think a few states under the control of BJP has passed anti conversion law to protect Hindus.Is it better if it is made a national law?We should take a cue from Malaysia a model muslim state which has anti conversion law or apostacy law to protect the intreast of muslims for many years.Muslims over there are not allowed to convert to other religions but people from other faith are welcomed to convert to islam.I feel every country should protect its native first.Any opnion? :)

Protect the interests of Muslims? Or to continue shackling former adherents and unwilling converts? Observe the case of Lina Joy, a former Muslim woman who wishes to change her name and religion. Or "counselling sessions" between religious officers and apostates, for which the approval to remove the apostates' names from the official registers drags on. Overzealous government officials prosecute even non-Muslim couples for holding hands in public parks.

Open professment of their religion is something I have no problem with, granted that it's the official religion of Malaysia and there is freedom to practise other religions.

However.....

Muslims over there may proselytize openly. But even inter-faith dialogues for other religions in private venues are disrupted by mobs who call themselves "protectors of Islam". Building of mosques get priority. But other places of worship get all sorts of restrictions placed which make it virtually impossible to get them built.

"Protect its native" and negative treatment of their own non-Muslim citizenry, who are second-class in all but name, are two different things.

lemontree
12 Aug 06,, 06:30
I feel every country should protect its native first.Any opnion? :)
I am a native but not a hindu. How do you protect me?

Karthik
12 Aug 06,, 07:10
Ironically the only Indian PM who had balls made of steel was a woman.

Captain, yet her brains abandoned her when she released the Pakistani POW without doing a deal on Kashmir.

Karthik
12 Aug 06,, 07:14
I am a native but not a hindu. How do you protect me?

You are protected because you are an Indian. You have co-existed wonderfully with all the other communities and you stand in awe at the tricolour. You are an Indian in all respects. Thats why you are protected.

lemontree
12 Aug 06,, 08:09
Captain, yet her brains abandoned her when she released the Pakistani POW without doing a deal on Kashmir.
Any decisions taken would be refuted by future Pak army generals, just as Bhutto was hanged. They cannot be trusted, since the defeat in 1971 has psyched them from their belief in their military powers/ superiority. They have not over it and will continue supporting terrorism in India untill we do something about it.

lemontree
12 Aug 06,, 08:10
You are protected because you are an Indian. You have co-existed wonderfully with all the other communities and you stand in awe at the tricolour. You are an Indian in all respects. Thats why you are protected.
I know I was just tickling him.

Archer
12 Aug 06,, 12:35
Too old and he has wobbly knees, just like the present chap who has no spine. Ironically the only Indian PM who had balls made of steel was a woman.

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Karthik
12 Aug 06,, 13:07
I know I was just tickling him.

:eek: :biggrin:

SLASH
12 Aug 06,, 14:43
Syabas,
I think a few states under the control of BJP has passed anti conversion law to protect Hindus.Is it better if it is made a national law?We should take a cue from Malaysia a model muslim state which has anti conversion law or apostacy law to protect the intreast of muslims for many years.Muslims over there are not allowed to convert to other religions but people from other faith are welcomed to convert to islam.I feel every country should protect its native first.Any opnion? :)

TROLL ALERTTTTT. :tongue:

Hind-guy
12 Aug 06,, 15:14
Protect the interests of Muslims? Or to continue shackling former adherents and unwilling converts? Observe the case of Lina Joy, a former Muslim woman who wishes to change her name and religion. Or "counselling sessions" between religious officers and apostates, for which the approval to remove the apostates' names from the official registers drags on. Overzealous government officials prosecute even non-Muslim couples for holding hands in public parks.

Open professment of their religion is something I have no problem with, granted that it's the official religion of Malaysia and there is freedom to practise other religions.

However.....

Muslims over there may proselytize openly. But even inter-faith dialogues for other religions in private venues are disrupted by mobs who call themselves "protectors of Islam". Building of mosques get priority. But other places of worship get all sorts of restrictions placed which make it virtually impossible to get them built.

"Protect its native" and negative treatment of their own non-Muslim citizenry, who are second-class in all but name, are two different things.

Well i could not believe it when you say such negative things about Malaysia.The other day i saw in the magazine " Truely asia and the melting pot of asia where different cultures and races live in harmony and peace"
I have also seen in the international ranking on religious freedom on malaysia.It is not bad either compare to other countries like arabia,iran or even china.I am abit confused here......
Infact they are placed alongside countries which are quiet liberal and tolerant. :confused:

raj
12 Aug 06,, 15:47
Too old and he has wobbly knees, just like the present chap who has no spine. Ironically the only Indian PM who had balls made of steel was a woman.
LT i may not accept many of your arguments but this is the onethat i too endorse. She had balls of steel but she did bring the political systems to its nadir where it is right now, she encouraged sycophancy in her party and thats where the fall of indian political system started and now we all see how worst the politicians are. BTW did you guys read how the congress MP's were falling head over heals for bringing sonia madamji a dosa

Archer
12 Aug 06,, 16:11
BTW did you guys read how the congress MP's were falling head over heals for bringing sonia madamji a dosa

Dosa, whats wrong with them bringing her a dosa? Dosas are yum!:P
Now if they were bringing her idlis, that would be bad! :D

Tronic
12 Aug 06,, 17:21
oh, is there anyone here who didn't like Sonia Gandhi as PM??? If you ask me, I don't see any problem on her heading the nation... or is there???

Karthik
12 Aug 06,, 17:40
She was never the PM of India.

She'll never be upto it and it'll divide the country bitterly.

I absolutely loathe dynasty politics.

SLASH
12 Aug 06,, 17:58
oh, is there anyone here who didn't like Sonia Gandhi as PM??? If you ask me, I don't see any problem on her heading the nation... or is there???

I don't have any problem with her as long she learns to speak Hindi or any other regional languge.She's one tough Bi tch ;) .

Tronic
12 Aug 06,, 19:39
she already knows Hindi... and Karthik yea, she wasn't sworn in but almost... ;)

SLASH
12 Aug 06,, 21:14
she already knows Hindi... and Karthik yea, she wasn't sworn in but almost... ;)

No she doesnt.She has to glance at her speech like 5 times for every sentence.Some say her speech is actually written in English. I know many of our southern leader don't know Hindi but atleast they speak there regional language.I think MMS has done a pretty good job.He's taking care of the office and Sonia is taking care of politics.

Future looks good in the hands of Rahul Gandhi and many other (thats one of the +ve about Congress,encouraging the youth).

Tronic
12 Aug 06,, 21:29
He's taking care of the office and Sonia is taking care of politics.
maybe... we don't know that for sure... thats just a speculation...


Future looks good in the hands of Rahul Gandhi and many other (thats one of the +ve about Congress,encouraging the youth).
yea, defenitely agree, we need more youths in Politics... but do you think Rahul Gandhi is even ready to handle the nation???

Tronic
12 Aug 06,, 21:34
Too old and he has wobbly knees, just like the present chap who has no spine. Ironically the only Indian PM who had balls made of steel was a woman.
I agree... but she didn't fare too well with Punjab... she payed the ultimate price I guess... and even the 1971 war; I would give more credit to Sam Manekshaw then Indira Gandhi...

SLASH
13 Aug 06,, 11:10
yea, defenitely agree, we need more youths in Politics... but do you think Rahul Gandhi is even ready to handle the nation???

No not yet.He needs to be groomed a little more under other Congress leaders(the clean ones).He needs to be made part of the cabinet in next elections and if he does well for the PM post the one after that(if th UPA is in power).

Tronic
13 Aug 06,, 16:53
yea... lets just hope he manages to really represent the people...

lemontree
14 Aug 06,, 05:16
LT i may not accept many of your arguments but this is the onethat i too endorse.
We are diverse, we don't agree to certain POVs either due to our knowledge variations or perception of issues. But this does'nt handicap our nationalism and effort to keep the tricolour held high. That is what is important.

She had balls of steel but she did bring the political systems to its nadir where it is right now, she encouraged sycophancy in her party and thats where the fall of indian political system started and now we all see how worst the politicians are.
That's a result of a particular deficiency in our constitution. A PMs' or CMs' term must be limited to 2 tenures only. The desperation to hold on to power has led to issues like the creation of the Bindranwala fiasco.

Dynastic rule will die its own death, if the above constitutional amendment is made.

I agree... but she didn't fare too well with Punjab... she payed the ultimate price I guess... and even the 1971 war; I would give more credit to Sam Manekshaw then Indira Gandhi...
Tronic that goes without saying, but don't deny her the courage to go to war and she had the good sense to listen to her generals.

lemontree
14 Aug 06,, 05:26
oh, is there anyone here who didn't like Sonia Gandhi as PM??? If you ask me, I don't see any problem on her heading the nation... or is there???
She does not have the acceptability factor due to her Italian birth, besides she does not have the administrative acumen to head the nation, she is at best a cohisive element in uniting the Congress Party.

As for Rahul Gandhi - the less said the better.

Tronic
14 Aug 06,, 08:18
Tronic that goes without saying, but don't deny her the courage to go to war and she had the good sense to listen to her generals.
errmm... yea, I guess... Indira Gandhi did have this great aura to her... She really had this thunderous personality... hardliner you can say... she can defentiely be granted that... and I think even Shastri was a great PM... in terms of listening to his generals and all... and keeping much of politics out of the '65 war...


As for Rahul Gandhi - the less said the better.
yea... I have the same stance on him... I remember not long ago he boasted during an interview with some magazine journalists that if he wanted, he could've become the PM at the age of 25... but also when he made his remarks that Bihar was one state that we could consider it didn't have a government... and then Laloo came out all fuming... hehe... now that was a golden remark...

Ray
14 Aug 06,, 08:31
All political parties and politicians are bums.

One is no better than the other, be it political parties or politicians!

Ray
14 Aug 06,, 08:34
Rahul Gandhi is a chocolate cream soldier like of a character.

He could have become a PM even in the womb. 25 would be the time for his retirement!

Sonia Gandhi's speech is possibly in Italian because she merely howls in a shrill tenor with a touch of shrieks and then it turn out to be Greek to the ears!

Advani has a frog in his throat.

Others are fit for the Great Indian Laughter show!

Latest on the show are the Nut on a War and the "hurt" Bullfrog Somnath Chatterjee, with immense respect for Vajpayee, more than what the BJP can give Vajpayee!

The Parliament is the Great Indian Circus!

Karthik
14 Aug 06,, 08:37
Well Rahul Gandhi was telling us how intelligent he is then.

No one can become a PM in India at the age of 25. That's simply because the PM, as the head of the Council of Ministers, is a member of both houses of Parliament.

And to be a member of the Rajya Sabha, or the House of Elders as it sometimes called, one has to be at least 30 years of age.

How could this fact elude someone who's entire family's been in the business of politics?

Or was he hinting at a possible amendment of the Constitution to tweak the rules! :eek:

I wouldn't put it beyond the Congress to do such a thing even if it means amending the Constitution for the sake of one bugger!

Karthik
14 Aug 06,, 08:42
Sonia Gandhi's speech is possibly in Italian because she merely howls in a shrill tenor with a touch of shrieks and then it turn out to be Greek to the ears!

Yeah, no one can forget her famous ' thu-sayven-thi-thu' mini speech outside Rashtrapthi Bhavan! :biggrin:

SLASH
14 Aug 06,, 08:51
Even after three decades she calls Congress "KANGRESSS" :biggrin: .

Ray
14 Aug 06,, 08:57
"Kangress" is the female for "Kangaroo

The babies are carried in the pouch of the Congress Party, all ready to jump out into the Parliament!

Karthik
14 Aug 06,, 09:14
:biggrin:

Hind-guy
14 Aug 06,, 16:21
I am a native but not a hindu. How do you protect me?

Maybe you should convert to hindu.....lol.I did abit reserch and found out that the natives in malaysia especially in east malaysia which is lagerly a christian state during the 60's has become a muslim state at present under the islamzation policy of Dr. Mahathir.The result is muslim chief ministers.The native and chinese leaders are manipulated with economic rewards.
I THINK THE NATIVES IN INDIA ARE LUCKY UNDER BJP RULE. :)

raj
14 Aug 06,, 16:24
Maybe you should convert to hindu.....lol.I did abit reserch and found out that the natives in malaysia especially in east malaysia which is lagerly a christian state during the 60's has become a muslim state at present under the islamzation policy of Dr. Mahathir.The result is muslim chief ministers.The native and chinese leaders are manipulated with economic rewards.
I THINK THE NATIVES IN INDIA ARE LUCKY UNDER BJP RULE. :)

were you in coma for last twop years or what????????????????

Ray
14 Aug 06,, 16:44
HInd guy,

Arrived from the Moon (Hilal)? ;)

Here's some Malaysian history for you.

The earliest recorded Malay kingdoms grew from coastal city-ports established in the 10th century AD. These include Langkasuka and Lembah Bujang in Kedah, as well as Beruas and Gangga Negara in Perak and Pan Pan in Kelantan. It is thought that originally these were Hindu or Buddhist nations. The first evidence of Islam in the Malay peninsula dates from the 14th century in Terengganu, but according to the Kedah Annals, the 9th Maharaja Derbar Raja (1136-1179 AD) of Sultanate of Kedah converted to Islam and changed his name to Sultan Muzaffar Shah. Since then there have been 27 Sultans who ruled Kedah.

There were numerous Malay kingdoms in the 2nd and 3rd century A.D., as many as 30 according to Chinese sources. Kedah – known as Kedaram or Kataha, in ancient Pallava or Sanskrit – was in the direct route of invasions of Indian traders and kings. Rajendra Chola, who is now thought to have laid Kota Gelanggi to waste, put Kedah to heel in 1025 but his successor, Vir Rajendra Chola, had to put down a Kedah rebellion to overthrow the invaders.

The Buddhist kingdom of Ligor took control of Kedah shortly after, and its King Chandrabhanu used it as a base to attack Sri Lanka in the 11the century, an event noted in a stone inscription in Nagapattinum in Tamil Nadu and in the Sri Lankan epic, Mahavamsa. During the first millennium, the people of the Malay peninsula adopted Hinduism and Buddhism and the use of the Sanskrit language until they were eventually converted to Islam. But not before Hinduism, Buddhisim and Sanskrit became embedded into the Malay worldview.

We can still see traces of this in political ideas, social structure, rituals, language, arts and cultural practices. To this day, when a Malay considers anything important, he looks for a Sanskrit word to describe it: It is the Sanskrit pradana mantri (the Malay perdana mentri) here while in another Malay land, it is Penghulu ng Pilipina for its president. The Proton car model names are from Sanskrit whilst the Perodua resorts to Malay names.

There are reports of other areas older than Kedah – the ancient kingdom of Ganganegara, around Bruas in Perak, for instance – that pushes Malaysian history even further into antiquity. If that is not enough, a Tamil poem, Pattinapillai, of the second century A.D., describes goods from Kadaram heaped in the broad streets of the Chola capital; a seventh century Sanskrit drama, Kaumudhimahotsva, refers to Kedah as Kataha-nagari. The Agnipurana also mentions a territory known Anda-Kataha with one of its boundaries delineated by a peak, which scholars believe is Gunong Jerai. Stories from the Katasaritasagaram describe the life of elegance of life in Kataha.

All this is revealed after earlier archaeological and historical inquiry. Kota Gelanggi does not, it would appear, reveal more than the details of that long India, Hindu, Buddhist, Chola presence, the fitting of a historical jig-saw of a land that has a rich and enviable history long before the advent of Islam. We have been constrained by a mental block of not wanting to look beyond the Sejarah Melayu for our historical past. Malaysia's first prime minister, and a scion of the Kedah royal family, wanted independent Malaya to be know as Langkasuka, a kingdom that a millennium ago dominated north Malaya and southern Thailand, but he gave up the idea when he discovered that its capital was in Thailand. And the present contretemps between Malaysia and Thailand over the southern Thai Malays is also caught in this cultural time-warp.

In the early 15th century, the Sultanate of Malacca was established under a dynasty founded by Parameswara, a prince from Palembang, who fled from the island Temasek (now Singapore). Parameswara decided to establish his kingdom in Malacca after witnessing an astonishing incident where a white mouse deer kicked one of his hunting dogs. With Malacca as its capital, the sultanate controlled the areas which are now Peninsula Malaysia, southern Thailand (Patani), and the eastern coast of Sumatra. It existed for more than a century, and within that time period Islam spread to most of the Malay Archipelago. Malacca was the foremost trading port at the time in Southeast Asia.

In 1511, Malacca was conquered by Portugal, which established a colony there. The sons of the last sultan of Malacca established two sultanates elsewhere in the peninsula - the Sultanate of Perak to the north, and the Sultanate of Johor (originally a continuation of the old Malacca sultanate) to the south. After the fall of Malacca, three nations struggled for the control of Malacca Strait: the Portuguese (in Malacca), the Sultanate of Johor, and the Sultanate of Aceh. This conflict went on till 1641, when the Dutch (allied to the Sultanate of Johor) gained control of Malacca.

Britain established its first colony in the Malay peninsula in 1786, with the granting of the island of Penang to the British East India Company by the Sultan of Kedah. In 1824, the British took control of Malacca following the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 which divided the Malaya archipelago between Britain and the Netherlands, with Malaya in the British zone. In 1826, Britain established the crown colony of the Straits Settlements, uniting its three possessions in Malaya: Penang, Malacca and Singapore. The Straits Settlements were administered under the East India Company in Calcutta until 1867, when they were transferred to the Colonial Office in London.
Sultan Abdul Samad Building in Kuala Lumpur houses the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur and the Trade Court. Kuala Lumpur was the capital of the Federated Malay States and is the current Malaysian capital.
Enlarge
Sultan Abdul Samad Building in Kuala Lumpur houses the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur and the Trade Court. Kuala Lumpur was the capital of the Federated Malay States and is the current Malaysian capital.
Kuala Lumpur, the capital and largest city of Malaysia
Enlarge
Kuala Lumpur, the capital and largest city of Malaysia

During the late 19th century, many Malay states decided to obtain British help in settling their internal conflicts. The commercial importance of tin mining in the Malay states to merchants in the Straits Settlements led to British government intervention in the tin-producing states in the Malay Peninsula. British gunboat diplomacy was employed to bring about a peaceful resolution to civil disturbances caused by Chinese gangsters, and the Pangkor Treaty of 1874 paved the way for the expansion of British influence in Malaya. By the turn of the 20th century the states of Pahang, Selangor, Perak, and Negeri Sembilan, known together as the Federated Malay States (not to be confused with the Federation of Malaya), were under the de facto control of British Residents appointed to advise the Malay rulers. The British were "advisers" by name but in reality they were the puppet masters behind the Malay rulers.

The remaining five states in the peninsula, known as the Unfederated Malay States, while not directly under rule from London, also accepted British advisors around the turn of the 20th century. Of these, the four northern states of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu had previously under Siamese control.

On the island of Borneo, Sabah was governed as the crown colony of British North Borneo, while Sarawak was acquired from Brunei as the personal kingdom of the Brooke family, who ruled as white rajahs. As part of its history, the Sultanate of Sulu was granted the territory as a prize for helping the Sultan of Brunei against his enemies and from then on that part of Borneo is recognized as part of the Sultan of Sulu's sovereignty. In 1878, Baron Von Overbeck, an Austrian partner representing The British North Borneo Co. and his partner British Alfred Dent, leased the territory known as "Sabah" - roughly translated as "the land beneath the winds". In return the company will provide arms to the Sultan to resist the Spaniards and 5,000 Malaysian ringgits annual rental based on the Mexican dollars value at that time or its equivalent in gold. This lease have been continued until the independence and formation of the Malaysian federation in 1963 together with Singapore, Sarawak and Malaysia. Up to these days, the Malaysians have been continuing the rental payment of 5,300 Malaysian Ringgit - a 300 Ringgit increased from original rent.


Following the Japanese occupation of Malaya (1942-1945) during World War II, popular support for independence grew. Post-war British plans to unite the administration of Malaya under a single crown colony called the Malayan Union foundered on strong opposition from the Malays, who opposed the emasculation of the Malay rulers and the granting of citizenship to the ethnic Chinese. The Malayan Union, established in 1946 and consisting of all the British possessions in Malaya with the exception of Singapore, was dissolved in 1948 and replaced by the Federation of Malaya, which restored the autonomy of the rulers of the Malay states under British protection.

During this time, rebels under the leadership of the Communist Party of Malaya, who were mostly Chinese, launched guerrilla operations designed to force the British out of Malaya. The Malayan Emergency, as it was known, lasted from 1948 to 1960, and involved a long anti-insurgency campaign by Commonwealth troops in Malaya. Against this backdrop, independence for the Federation within the Commonwealth was granted on 31 August 1957 (see Hari Merdeka).

In 1963 the Federation was expanded with the admission of the then-British crown colonies of Singapore, Sabah (British North Borneo) and Sarawak, and renamed Malaysia. The Sultanate of Brunei, though initially expressing interest in joining the Federation, withdrew from the planned merger due to opposition from certain segments of the population as well as arguments over the payment of oil royalties.

The early years of independence were marred by conflict with Indonesia (Konfrontasi) over the formation of Malaysia, Singapore's eventual exit in 1965, and racial strife in the form of racial riots in 1969 (popularly known as the "May 13" riots). The Philippines also made an active claim on Sabah in that period based upon the Sultanate of Brunei's cession of its north-east territories to the Sultanate of Sulu in 1704. The claim is still ongoing.

After the May 13 racial riots of 1969, the controversial New Economic Policy - intended to increase the share of the economic pie owned by the bumiputeras as opposed to other ethnic groups - was launched by Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak. Malaysia has since maintained a delicate ethno-political balance, with a system of government that has attempted to combine overall economic development with political and economic policies that favour Bumiputras, which includes the majority Malays, but not always the indigenous population.

Between the 1980s and the early 1990s, Malaysia experienced significant economic growth under the premiership of Tun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad. The period saw a shift from an agriculture-based economy to one based on manufacturing and industry in areas such as computers and consumer electronics. It was during this period, too, that the physical landscape of Malaysia has changed with the emergence of numerous mega-projects. The most notable of these projects are the Petronas Twin Towers (at the time the tallest building in the world), KL International Airport (KLIA), the Sepang F1 Circuit, the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC), the Bakun hydroelectric dam and Putrajaya, a new federal administrative capital.

In the late 1990s, Malaysia was shaken by the Asian financial crisis as well as political unrest caused by the sacking of the deputy prime minister Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim. In 2003, Dr Mahathir, Malaysia's longest serving prime minister, retired in favour of his deputy, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, commonly known as Pak Lah.

Tronic
14 Aug 06,, 17:19
Maybe you should convert to hindu.....lol.I did abit reserch and found out that the natives in malaysia especially in east malaysia which is lagerly a christian state during the 60's has become a muslim state at present under the islamzation policy of Dr. Mahathir.The result is muslim chief ministers.The native and chinese leaders are manipulated with economic rewards.
I THINK THE NATIVES IN INDIA ARE LUCKY UNDER BJP RULE. :)
get a life...

SLASH
14 Aug 06,, 18:43
Maybe you should convert to hindu.....lol.I did abit reserch and found out that the natives in malaysia especially in east malaysia which is lagerly a christian state during the 60's has become a muslim state at present under the islamzation policy of Dr. Mahathir.The result is muslim chief ministers.The native and chinese leaders are manipulated with economic rewards.
I THINK THE NATIVES IN INDIA ARE LUCKY UNDER BJP RULE. :)

What natives are you talking about???HomoSapiens???All our ancestors no matter which religion are from this land.We might practice different religion but we've lived together for centuries with peace.Why should a few corrupt politician be allowed destroy that legacy?

Hind-guy
15 Aug 06,, 17:06
What natives are you talking about???HomoSapiens???All our ancestors no matter which religion are from this land.We might practice different religion but we've lived together for centuries with peace.Why should a few corrupt politician be allowed destroy that legacy?
I am talking about the natives in states like Manipur,nagaland,tripura or even kashmir.Well for members like Ray thanks for the long malayan history(but i think it is irrelvent to my tread)
All i am saying is the congress or BJP(painted as a Hindu extemist party by the outside world )is not as bad as other countries treating the mniorities. A fine example is malaysia.I uderstand the UMNO (malay party) during the time of Dr Mahathir has not only mistreated the indians and chinese but has converted large number of christian natives like the dayaks and kadazans into muslims.Today we have muslim chief ministers in this state.Nothing much has change today.We are lucky such things do not happen in india. ;)

Tronic
15 Aug 06,, 18:42
I am talking about the natives in states like Manipur,nagaland,tripura or even kashmir.
wtf... dude... EVERYONE is a frikkin native!!!! Every state has its own culture, traditions and language... Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura and Kashmir are no different... why not add Rajasthan, Punjab, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Assam and any other state because they are equally different from each other in terms of cultures and traditions (ok, excluding some cosmopolitan cities...). That is what makes India; India... Every frikkin state you go to in India will have their own culture, traditions, language... that is why we have over 18 official languages... its called diversity...



All i am saying is the congress or BJP(painted as a Hindu extemist party by the outside world )is not as bad as other countries treating the mniorities.
who said BJP is bad??? or Hindu extremists??? Vajpayee was a Hindu extremist??? :tongue:


A fine example is malaysia.I uderstand the UMNO (malay party) during the time of Dr Mahathir has not only mistreated the indians and chinese but has converted large number of christian natives like the dayaks and kadazans into muslims.Today we have muslim chief ministers in this state.Nothing much has change today.We are lucky such things do not happen in india. ;)
lmao... you're comparing India to Malaysia??? India is a country where the minority exploits the majority... lol... like the low-caste quotas and such...

Ray
15 Aug 06,, 20:46
Hind,

Regarding what you have written about Malaysia, there is a grain of truth.

It was a tolerant country, but Mahatir changed the scene and it is getting worse because of the march of resurgent Islam of Saudi Arabian origin.

The more Islam is being hammered by the world, the more strident are the Wahhabis getting.

lemontree
16 Aug 06,, 05:21
Maybe you should convert to hindu.....lol.I did abit reserch and found out that the natives in malaysia especially in east malaysia which is lagerly a christian state during the 60's has become a muslim state at present under the islamzation policy of Dr. Mahathir.The result is muslim chief ministers.The native and chinese leaders are manipulated with economic rewards.

Fortunately, India is much better than Malaysia in that respect. Religion in India does not matter, irrespective of what a few facist ideological groups preach.

BTW the Malaysian christian population in around 27% and is spread out, this figure has remained the same throughout. Majority are found in the peninsular region.

Hind-guy
16 Aug 06,, 16:41
Hind,

Regarding what you have written about Malaysia, there is a grain of truth.

It was a tolerant country, but Mahatir changed the scene and it is getting worse because of the march of resurgent Islam of Saudi Arabian origin.

The more Islam is being hammered by the world, the more strident are the Wahhabis getting.
I am worried for the Hindus who are a small minirioty,only 6.3% person according to Wkepedia.Will they become extinct after a few generation?
In malaysia i see islam is a one way traffic.You can get in but you cant get out.,unless you migrate. :frown:

gilgamesh
17 Aug 06,, 08:01
Here's what Mahatma had to say on conversions...What a bigot he must have been! :rolleyes:

Sister Sonia, he wanted a total ban on conversions!

S Gurumurthy

“The Congress party's views on this are well known,” Sonia says. ‘This’ means laws banning forcible religious conversions. She goes on: “They are enactments passed by state legislatures where the Congress is in opposition.” She adds, “The Congress party has opposed (them) strongly in the assembly and through demonstrations.” She made these profound remarks in a letter she wrote to Dr John Dayal. Who is he? He has a respectable visiting card, as member of the National Integration Council. But he has other visiting cards too like President of All India Catholic Union, Secretary General of All India Christian Council, President of United Christian Action, and Member of Justice and Peace commission Archdiocese of Delhi.

But these cards do not exhaust his definition. In the assessment of a responsible Christian scholar, PN Benjamin, who runs the Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue, “John Dayal opens his mouth and wields his pen only to spew venom on the Hindu community.” This completes his profile. He had written to Sonia complaining about the laws banning religious conversions in different states. To which she replied implying that the BJP is the author of anti-conversion laws.

But is that - that is, it is the BJP, not the Congress, which passed the anti-conversion laws and the Congress had actually opposed them - a fact? Only a novice in political history post freedom would say something like what Sonia says. On the contrary, it was the Congress Party, which had still some traces of the Mahatma Gandhi left in it, that had passed the anti-conversion laws.

That Congress, which still had some respect for the Mahatma, took his words on religious conversions seriously. Mahatma Gandhi had written extensively against conversions by Christians. He wrote, “I hold that proselytisation under the cloak of human work is unhealthy to say the least.” This was in Young India on April 23, 1931. Later, he went one step further and wrote, “If I had the power to legislate, I should stop all proselytisation work” (Young India 5.11.1935). He told the missionaries, “He is ashamed of them” (Young India 8.8.1925), disputed their claim that theirs “is the only true religion” (Harijan 3.6.1937), warned that “conversion should not mean denationalisation” (8.8.1925), and pointed out that it means just that, as many converts are “ashamed of their birth” and of their ancestry (20.8.1925).

Gandhiji's ideas were still influencing the Congress when the Madhya Pradesh government constituted the Neogi Committee to study missionary activities in tribal areas. This was in 1954. S.K George, ‘a devout Christian and a nationalist belonging to the oldest church in India - the Syrian Christian Church' was a member of the Committee. The Committee exposed the massive, fraudulent conversions of tribal people and recommended that a law be enacted to ban such fraudulent practices. The MP government, led by the Congress Party, enacted the Neogi-recommended law banning conversions in the year 1968. The Orissa government, again a Congress-led government, did so even earlier in 1967. And Arunachal Pradesh under the central rule of the government headed by another Gandhi, unrelated to the Mahatma, Indira Gandhi, also passed a similar law.

This is the origin and history of anti-conversion laws in India. So these laws owe their origin in Mahatma Gandhi's wish. He actually wanted a ban on all religious conversions. These laws fall far short of his wish. But she would not know that Gandhiji wanted a total, not partial, ban on conversions. She would not know that it was the Congress in which Gandhi's views were respected which passed these laws first. One can also dismiss her ignorance of the history of a country she is totally unfamiliar as natural. But the tragedy is that, by design, not by accident, this nation itself has kept its people and polity so ignorant of the views of that Gandhi that many today think that this Gandhi's views are also that Gandhi's views!

His statues in lakhs are all over the country from small village panchayat offices to Parliament. Roads running to hundreds of thousands of miles bear his name in every small town. His name is alive through his statues and roads but his ideas are nowhere. That is why the later Gandhis saw the political gain in appropriating his name but rejecting his ideas. Just like the name Gandhi is all over but his ideas are nowhere, the name Congress is all over but Gandhi's ideas are nowhere in the Congress. So, while Mahatma Gandhi had commended a ban on conversions, the Congress led by Sonia Gandhi is opposing even a ban on fraudulent conversions. The difference between the two Congresses is as much as the difference between the two Gandhis - today's Sonia Gandhi and yesterday's Mahatma Gandhi.

Comment:gurumurthy@epmltd.com

http://www.newindpress.com/Column.asp?ID=IE620060810110955

Ray
17 Aug 06,, 20:32
Hind,

It is the aim of the govt to wipe out all religions except Islam.

The Chinese, who control their economy are Christians. So, they have a hope in hell.

Money speaks or else Malaysia would have been Moslem long back. Mahathir is the pig and his little piglets are following.

The population are still cool.

Even the Moslems in Malaysia are very modern in their dress and attributes. More modern than Indian! But then Malaysia has the "moral" police. So, these Moslems, take off their headgear and scarf and have a ball with alcohol and hep life till the moral police arrives.

I was nabbed by this police, heaven knows why I looked more of a Moslem than my daughter and my son in law were not nabbed when the latter looked more of a Moslem.

It took a whole lot of hassle to prove that I was a foreigner and not a Malaysian.

I of course refused to indicate through the "litmus test" since no officer of any army would like to have his pants down! I don't care if they were disappointed.

gilgamesh
18 Aug 06,, 03:53
Hind,

It is the aim of the govt to wipe out all religions except Islam.

The Chinese, who control their economy are Christians. So, they have a hope in hell.

Money speaks or else Malaysia would have been Moslem long back. Mahathir is the pig and his little piglets are following.

The population are still cool.

Even the Moslems in Malaysia are very modern in their dress and attributes. More modern than Indian! But then Malaysia has the "moral" police. So, these Moslems, take off their headgear and scarf and have a ball with alcohol and hep life till the moral police arrives.

I was nabbed by this police, heaven knows why I looked more of a Moslem than my daughter and my son in law were not nabbed when the latter looked more of a Moslem.

It took a whole lot of hassle to prove that I was a foreigner and not a Malaysian.

I of course refused to indicate through the "litmus test" since no officer of any army would like to have his pants down! I don't care if they were disappointed.

Nothern Malaysia,Southern Thailand and parts of Philippines have a certain Moslem sect(in large numbers) that is extremely conservative, the kind that would make wahhabis look like atheists.

Hind-guy
19 Aug 06,, 16:30
Here's what Mahatma had to say on conversions...What a bigot he must have been! :rolleyes:

Sister Sonia, he wanted a total ban on conversions!

S Gurumurthy

“The Congress party's views on this are well known,” Sonia says. ‘This’ means laws banning forcible religious conversions. She goes on: “They are enactments passed by state legislatures where the Congress is in opposition.” She adds, “The Congress party has opposed (them) strongly in the assembly and through demonstrations.” She made these profound remarks in a letter she wrote to Dr John Dayal. Who is he? He has a respectable visiting card, as member of the National Integration Council. But he has other visiting cards too like President of All India Catholic Union, Secretary General of All India Christian Council, President of United Christian Action, and Member of Justice and Peace commission Archdiocese of Delhi.

But these cards do not exhaust his definition. In the assessment of a responsible Christian scholar, PN Benjamin, who runs the Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue, “John Dayal opens his mouth and wields his pen only to spew venom on the Hindu community.” This completes his profile. He had written to Sonia complaining about the laws banning religious conversions in different states. To which she replied implying that the BJP is the author of anti-conversion laws.

But is that - that is, it is the BJP, not the Congress, which passed the anti-conversion laws and the Congress had actually opposed them - a fact? Only a novice in political history post freedom would say something like what Sonia says. On the contrary, it was the Congress Party, which had still some traces of the Mahatma Gandhi left in it, that had passed the anti-conversion laws.

That Congress, which still had some respect for the Mahatma, took his words on religious conversions seriously. Mahatma Gandhi had written extensively against conversions by Christians. He wrote, “I hold that proselytisation under the cloak of human work is unhealthy to say the least.” This was in Young India on April 23, 1931. Later, he went one step further and wrote, “If I had the power to legislate, I should stop all proselytisation work” (Young India 5.11.1935). He told the missionaries, “He is ashamed of them” (Young India 8.8.1925), disputed their claim that theirs “is the only true religion” (Harijan 3.6.1937), warned that “conversion should not mean denationalisation” (8.8.1925), and pointed out that it means just that, as many converts are “ashamed of their birth” and of their ancestry (20.8.1925).

Gandhiji's ideas were still influencing the Congress when the Madhya Pradesh government constituted the Neogi Committee to study missionary activities in tribal areas. This was in 1954. S.K George, ‘a devout Christian and a nationalist belonging to the oldest church in India - the Syrian Christian Church' was a member of the Committee. The Committee exposed the massive, fraudulent conversions of tribal people and recommended that a law be enacted to ban such fraudulent practices. The MP government, led by the Congress Party, enacted the Neogi-recommended law banning conversions in the year 1968. The Orissa government, again a Congress-led government, did so even earlier in 1967. And Arunachal Pradesh under the central rule of the government headed by another Gandhi, unrelated to the Mahatma, Indira Gandhi, also passed a similar law.

This is the origin and history of anti-conversion laws in India. So these laws owe their origin in Mahatma Gandhi's wish. He actually wanted a ban on all religious conversions. These laws fall far short of his wish. But she would not know that Gandhiji wanted a total, not partial, ban on conversions. She would not know that it was the Congress in which Gandhi's views were respected which passed these laws first. One can also dismiss her ignorance of the history of a country she is totally unfamiliar as natural. But the tragedy is that, by design, not by accident, this nation itself has kept its people and polity so ignorant of the views of that Gandhi that many today think that this Gandhi's views are also that Gandhi's views!

His statues in lakhs are all over the country from small village panchayat offices to Parliament. Roads running to hundreds of thousands of miles bear his name in every small town. His name is alive through his statues and roads but his ideas are nowhere. That is why the later Gandhis saw the political gain in appropriating his name but rejecting his ideas. Just like the name Gandhi is all over but his ideas are nowhere, the name Congress is all over but Gandhi's ideas are nowhere in the Congress. So, while Mahatma Gandhi had commended a ban on conversions, the Congress led by Sonia Gandhi is opposing even a ban on fraudulent conversions. The difference between the two Congresses is as much as the difference between the two Gandhis - today's Sonia Gandhi and yesterday's Mahatma Gandhi.

Comment:gurumurthy@epmltd.com

http://www.newindpress.com/Column.asp?ID=IE620060810110955
I think' banning forcible religious conversions' and restricting a individual from a particuar race or religious group to choose a religion of his choise are two different things.The former is meant to benefit everyone while the latter might benefit only a particular race or religion.
Banning forcible religious conversion is a postive step if applied equally to all religions.While in the latter case like malaysia where muslims are banned from converting and at in the same breath people from other religions are encouraged to convert to become muslims are prejudice in nature
Mr John Dayal prefers which.......? :)