India and you

[R K Singh]

Bash here

[R K Singh]

SO here are logs, kerosine and fire ...
To start with, let us discuss India link with terrorism.
Second, rights of different people ?
ANd above all castism ??

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Ravish: ... but I really laughed because I was not expecting this, at least, from Jason.
If you disagree with the content, then you need to explain what exactly you found incorrect. Otherwise you only irritate your opponents.

Everything in that page was exaggerated and were presented in wrong manner. [I am not getting a correct word for "presented in wrong manner"]
where the BJP government in India is seeking to build a Hindu temple on the site where the most revered mosque in India was destroyed by Hindu militants a few years ago.
Hasnot it been exaggerated by saying revered mosque ??
Revered mosque, where no prayed Namaj for more than 50yrs.
AW before I start refuting it, let me tell you, I, myself , is not in the favor of Ram Mandir.
Whom is writer refering as militants ??
It was just a mob which was there to build Mandir, not artillery with AK-57.
BTW Jason, what is the definition of militant ??
This is first time I read something like that

Indian military maneuvers have forced Pakistan to divert troops from the border with Afghanistan to the Line of Control in Kashmir, creating a potential opening for terrorists to escape
I would like to know what writer is trying to say ??
The militants were coming to Kashmir from Afghanistan and some Afghanistanis were trying to go back to Afghanistan and Indian militry was preventing that.
Dont believe me but belive this independent source. [this is the first which I got first. Serach you will get 1000s]
from the link:
Many militant groups in Kashmir have vowed to repulse any U.S. retaliatory attacks on Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden, who the United States believes masterminded the attacks on New York and Washington, is believed to be hiding.
from the Jason's source:

India Today, that the Indian government created the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which the U.S. government has identified as a "terrorist organization."
Do you know which group claimed the assassination of ex-PM Rajiv Gandhi ??
Its like saying US created OBL.

from Jason's link:
While India blames Pakistan for the attack on its Parliament, President Pervez Musharraf says he has evidence that the Indian government itself was responsible.
So Bush knew in advance about the 9/11
and more funny are Pervez evidence.
from Jason's link:
India blew up its own airliner in 1985, killing 329 people, apparently in order to blame Sikhs for the atrocity and create a pretext for more violence against them.
Case against the people behind that air crash is going on Canada, even not in India.
here is truth :
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001029/main2.htm
from Jason's link:
Now the Indian authorities have found a single individual to blame and they are moving to throw the missionary’s widow out of the country.
read this and this is from christian site:
Murdered missionary's widow will continue his work

Go and find some word from the fallacy list.. but I dont have more time to prove wrong what is wrong.

[R K Singh]

So, because "India's National Newspaper" is not pro-BJP, I should not listen to it? I should only listen to sources which are pro-BJP? That wouldn't give me a very clear picture, would it?
following are also National Newspapers
Times of India
Indian Express
Hindustan Times
Dainik Jagran
Deccan Herald
Punjab Kesri
Rashtriya Sahara

I understand that. I guess that's why so many people thought the entire concept of a Constitution Review Committee to be at best a waste of time and at most a dangerous attack on the Cnostitution. Since there are already procedures in place for the amendment of the Constitution, the Constitution Review Committee is unnecessary.
THat commettee is to suggest changes, just suggest.

Dr. A.J.P. Abdul Kalam is the President.
Good, you know this. And he is Muslim.
In India even minority can become President ..

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I haven't noticed anyone bashing India here. What leads to that conclusion?

Oh, I forgot to put smiley there. But smiley is available in very first post of the thread.
Now I do see a thread started out as an attack on US foreign policy, and some people got upset because their country's policies were in turn questioned.
I will be happy if you can question India's policy or its stand in international scenario.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
in fact suggest entirely embracing Buddhism in order to get rid of castes.

After converting to Buddhism, they still want reservation in jobs in the basis of caste .. ..
did you say, they want to abandon casteism ??

[Thomas Paul]

If I started a thread like this about Americans I can just imagine the nasty comments about self-centered Americans!

[Axel Janssen]

you've asked:
There is talk about increased Hindu agression against muslims. I've read in a book that there were mob riots in Indian cities against muslims.
I don't know about global situation of relationship between muslims and hindus in India. It can't be all hate, because here are indians with muslim names (Sameer) posting peacefully with Indians with hindi name (Ravish).
Caste system can be easily criticized. Lot of indians seems to pov that caste system "is thing of the past, but I am influenced and in village its very, very real".
Even if you say, that in western societies children of richer families tend to have better start position than those of poorer. I think its fact that there was more own-effort-based social mobility in western societies than in India in last 500 years. This might change with new heartless, global capitalism.
India seems to have quite a free press, especially in comparasion with other asian countries.
India allways had good universities for technical studies. I know 50 year old english guy who studied math in India (long time ago).
India opened to world market 10 years ago and seems to be quite successfull with that.
India is a democracy for lots of year. Lots of politicians are quite corrupt (you said). If you take MD as a source, India seems to be democratic society, because indians are discussing political issues with quite personal, non-stereotype povs.
There seems to be respect for the rule of the law, but I think that rich guy is much better protected by law than poor guy.
There are a lot of people in India living under such poor conditions I can't imagine.
European political correct people tend to heavily accuse such social imbalances, but I know from Chile (where are also really poor people) that you can't critizice middle class, because they don't think whole day about problem of the poor. And its not all exploitation.
I don't know much about India. I only worked for a week with indians on a project. They were highly professional, hard working and friendly. But that was years ago.
In India its 1:10 in the night. Indians better go to bed:
regards Axel
[ February 12, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

There is talk about increased Hindu agression against muslims. I've read in a book that there were mob riots in Indian cities against muslims.
I don't know about global situation of relationship between muslims and hindus in India. It can't be all hate, because here are indians with muslim names (Sameer) posting peacefully with Indians with hindi name (Ravish).

Hindu-Muslim communal riots have always been part of post-1947 India. What has happened in almost all these riots is that the people (substitute mob) get incited by some people with ulterior motives. Politicians on either side of the religious divide have tried to exploit this with varying degrees of success. But most of these riots have been very small and confined to a very small place. The most recent riots in Gujarat was also because of hate-mongering by ultra-radicals on both sides. A very prominent and popular hindu temple was attacked by muslims (I believe they were terrorists) and then the attack on the innocents muslims was a backlash incited by hindu hate-mongers. Please don't believe that these words of mine are meant to condone either the muslims actions or those of the hindus. This is just presenting the facts that I know (& remember) them .

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

Caste system can be easily criticized. Lot of indians seems to pov that caste system "is thing of the past, but I am influenced and in village its very, very real".

I don't think that any Indian especially here on MD will disagree with you on that. But keep in mind that casteism as it was practiced has been abolished on the books of law. It is illegal, much like racism here in US, is illegal. The problem with casteism, as it is with racism, is that it is not a political problem which can be solved with a political solution. It is a social anathema, and with each new generation it is losing its hold on the people. It will take time, especially in the remote villages in the country where education is still an undreamt of dream.

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

Even if you say, that in western societies children of richer families tend to have better start position than those of poorer. I think its fact that there was more own-effort-based social mobility in western societies than in India in last 500 years. This might change with new heartless, global capitalism.

Let me see, JFK was own-effort, JFK jr was own effort. All joking aside, I know (can speak only of US about this) for every JFK there are a 100 John Edwards (who rose from poverty with own-effort) and for every JFK jr there are 10 Oprahs. I don't understand what you mean by the social mobility in the last 500 yrs. In the pre-1947 India, (from about 1757 onwards) India was a slave country of GB. Before that, India was a conglomerate of kings & kingdoms of various sizes and wealth. The north suffered heavily in the hands of invasions from various sources from 1000 AD owards. During the British occupation, the Indians could do nothing other than do what the rulers told them to or oppose them. Compared to US, GB, France & some of the other western European nations, democratic India is still a fledgeling. And learning. And growing.

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

India seems to have quite a free press, especially in comparasion with other asian countries.

Free speech is a fundamental right under the Indian constitution.

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

India allways had good universities for technical studies. I know 50 year old english guy who studied math in India (long time ago).

I personlly believe (not because of my Indian origin) that Indian course work in schools uptil the Bachelors degree in one of the best. However, IMO, the best Masters programmes are in US.

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

India opened to world market 10 years ago and seems to be quite successfull with that.

True. But the gap between the haves & the have-nots is increasing; as it is doing in the developed world (but at a more rapid rate in India).

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

India is a democracy for lots of year. Lots of politicians are quite corrupt (you said). If you take MD as a source, India seems to be democratic society, because indians are discussing political issues with quite personal, non-stereotype povs.

India is a democratic republic. Much as I don't like generalizations, I'd say this - politicians the world over tend to be corrupt. Corruption in India is IMO primarily due to the economic conditions. One can always extrapolate and say the the economic conditions are like this because of the population & so on. Poverty, just as power, has the power to make even the seemingly incorruptible corrupt. That is not to say that everyone is corrupt.
Indians have the right to free speech, have freedom of religion, can assemble whereever they want, can criticize the government as much as they want, pretty much the fundamental human rights, one can go to court for redress etc. Now, when it comes to practice, it could be different than the letter.

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

There seems to be respect for the rule of the law, but I think that rich guy is much better protected by law than poor guy.

True enough. But just in the last 10 yrs I've seen a difference in the strength of the Indian judiciary. They are no longer the weak limb of the governing machine of the past. They are not afraid to flex their muscles. And there are more socially responsible groups cropping up (like consumers groups, women's rights groups) etc. All these bode good for the Indian masses and the Indian democracy.

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

There are a lot of people in India living under such poor conditions I can't imagine.
European political correct people tend to heavily accuse such social imbalances, but I know from Chile (where are also really poor people) that you can't critizice middle class, because they don't think whole day about problem of the poor. And its not all exploitation.

In India you will see 5-star hotels next to slums. You could also see slum dwellers (especially in Mumbai) owning television sets, VCRs etc at a time when even the middle class families could not afford a TV. This doesn't mean that all those who live in slums in India are wealthy. Far from it. This is just to point out the difficulty in generalization and to point out the vast contradictions that permeate the Indian society.
There is a lot of poverty in India. And there is a lot of wealth too. I remember reading about this - in 1999 the Delhi state govt. issued some very stringent anti-pollution laws which were finally upheld by the high court; as the due date approached, most car manufacturers could not meet the anti-pollution laws's requirements; apparently only Mercedez Benz did; in Delhi, on one sunday alone 60 Mercedez's were sold. That is a lot of wealth. The problem is the distribution of wealth.
I personally believe that Indians tend not to think about strangers & their sufferings. This could be because the majority of them (during the times that I lived in India) could think only of making ends meet. Perhaps this has changed now that more Indians seem to be getting more prosperous than they were even 10 yrs ago.

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

I don't know much about India. I only worked for a week with indians on a project. They were highly professional, hard working and friendly. But that was years ago.
[ February 12, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

They still are professional, hard-working & friendly, especially those who were professional, hardworking & friendly then.
[ February 12, 2004: Message edited by: Sadanand Murthy ]
[ February 12, 2004: Message edited by: Sadanand Murthy ]

[Joe Pluta]

Interesting. the the other thread, I just quoted the Indian Express, who, together with the Deccan Herald (and in fact most of the sources I could find) decry the Freedom of Religion Act, in which the minority Muslim and Christian religions can only perform conversions if approved by a magistrate. Here's an example:
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/aug26/edst.asp
If I'm not mistaken, this act was engineered by the BJP, correct?
Joe

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Interesting. the the other thread, I just quoted the Indian Express, who, together with the Deccan Herald (and in fact most of the sources I could find) decry the Freedom of Religion Act, in which the minority Muslim and Christian religions can only perform conversions if approved by a magistrate.

Doh! You shouldn't have gone there Joe.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
If I'm not mistaken, this act was engineered by the BJP, correct?

No, it was done by Amma ji of AIADMK Party .
And BJP had no alliance at that time with them.(if I am not wrong)
AW conversion has been already discussed in great length here.

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Interesting. the the other thread, I just quoted the Indian Express, who, together with the Deccan Herald (and in fact most of the sources I could find) decry the Freedom of Religion Act, in which the minority Muslim and Christian religions can only perform conversions if approved by a magistrate. Here's an example:
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/aug26/edst.asp
If I'm not mistaken, this act was engineered by the BJP, correct?
Joe

I don't know about TN. But I believe this did happen under BJP govt. in Gujarat; and IMO it is shameful. I don't know (didn't try to research) if this was challenged in the Supreme Court or not. I believe that this is inherently against the Indian Constitution. So, a challenge in the Supreme Ct. would most likely have invalidated it as unconstitutional.
I also believe that if this was engineered by BJP (which I'm 99% positive) then it is definitely political because traditionally muslims & christians have voted for Congress party in India (much like Blacks & Latinos have voted for dems here in US). Perhaps BJP fears that there will be enough hindus converting to Islam or Christianity to tilt the power structure back in the favor of Congress . That would be ludicrous.
I think some hindus feel that they and their religion/way of life is under attack by the christian missionaries. This law could be the backlash.
There is definitely a backlash amongst hindus in India with an upsurge in hindu militancy. The only parallel I can draw here between what is happening in US & India (albeit a rather weak one) is that of Catholics/Christians. Today they are fair game in US for all kinds of attacks. Sooner or later there will be enough anger & resentment amongst them that there will be some kind of backlash/retaliation (most likely not the type that we see happening in India today). This has happened in India and is taking, to some extent, an ugly shape.

[Joe Pluta]

Wait a second. The BJP has been in power for five years now, right? And the laws were put in place last year. So why is this not part of the BJP? Are Tamil Nadu and Gujarat not part of India? In fact, the chief minister of Gujarat is Narendra Modi, who heads the BJP, which runs the federal government.
Am I missing something here?
Heck, even India's Supreme Court doesn't trust Modi regarding anti-Muslim violence:

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice V.N. Khare slammed state Chief Minister Narendra Modi and described as an "eyewash" the legal steps he had taken against the killers.
"I have no faith left in the prosecution and the Gujarat government. You have to protect people and punish the guilty," Khare said.

So I guess I'm confused as to whether or not the Freedom of Religion Act is officially policy of the BJP and the Sangh Parivar. As far as I understand, the current invocation of the Freedom of Religion Act is only enforceable on conversions to Muslim and Christian faiths, not Hindu faiths. That seems to me to be very discriminatory. If you were worried about people "buying" conversions, shouldn't you require the same permission for EVERY religion? Or is it okay to buy conversion to Hindu religions, but not non-Hindu?
Very bizarre.
Joe

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
If you were worried about people "buying" conversions, shouldn't you require the same permission for EVERY religion? Or is it okay to buy conversion to Hindu religions, but not non-Hindu?
Very bizarre.
Joe[/QB]

The vital fact you are missing here, Joe, is Hindu is a religion to which no one can convert to. You are either born a Hindu or never a Hindu. There are newly formed rituals by "Arya-Samaj" called conversion but these are primarily reconversion rituals for those who want to return to Hinduism. Secondly a Hindu convert will never be accepted in society.
An answer to another question of yours is that states are allowed to create and enforce laws independent of the center. Therefore, TN and Gujarat have laws which other states dont.
Having said the above, I'll also say I do not support the anti-conversion laws.

[Joe Pluta]

Interesting. I just looked through that thread, and noticed this:
RKS: You should learn from great people like B R Ambedkar, who became what he wanted to became that is also without conversion and in that age when there WAS castesism.
And yet, just now:
RKS: AW I specially love these two hate sites: http://www.ambedkar.org/
Why do you consider the site devoted to Dr. Ambedkar a hate site?
Joe
[ February 12, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]

[R K Singh]

Are Tamil Nadu and Gujarat not part of India?
They are two different states. And every state his own ruling party, not necessarely the party which is ruling in center.
In fact, the chief minister of Gujarat is Narendra Modi,
Right now governing party in Gujrat is BJP.
Heck, even India's Supreme Court doesn't trust Modi regarding anti-Muslim violence:
no one is above Law, even not a CM of a state.
Anyone can file a PIL (Public Interest Litigation), in just 25 Paisa (0.00625$).

As far as I understand, the current invocation of the Freedom of Religion Act is only enforceable on conversions to Muslim and Christian faiths, not Hindu faiths.
To understand that first you have to understand how these conversion take place and what is "home coming".

[Joe Pluta]

You are either born a Hindu or never a Hindu.
But you can convert to Buddhism, correct? And conversion to Buddhism is not covered under the anti-conversion laws, only conversion to Christian or Muslim faiths, so the law is stil discriminatory.
And if you can convert to Buddhism, then why does the law consider Buddhism an "offshoot" of Hinduism? That would seem to conflict with your statement that you cannot convert to Hinduism. It seems that Buddhism is only an offshoot of Hinduism for the purposes of this law.
It really seems that the law has less to do with religion than with politics.
Joe

[R K Singh]

Why do you consider the site devoted to Dr. Ambedkar a hate site?
Its not devoted to Dr B R Ambedkar. Its a exploitation of his philosphy.
Did you ever click on http://www.whitehouse.com ?
Does this site has to do anything with whitehouse.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
It seems that Buddhism is only an offshoot of Hinduism for the purposes of this law.

If you know Buddhism, then you must be knowing that its offshoot of Hindu.
AW now you are getting in to the complexities of India. If I say you wont understand that then please dont mind.
I will suggest you to choose 3-4 different news paper to read on net, read it for 1-2 yrs. Initially you wont understand anything or more than everything, but when you understand what is going on then I am sure I will help you to understand what is India.
Right now if I tell you anything then it would be like teaching you swiming in air.

[Joe Pluta]

RKS: Its not devoted to Dr B R Ambedkar. Its a exploitation of his philosphy.
Thanks! I was wondering.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

If I say you wont understand that then please dont mind.
Actually, I do mind. America is every bit as diverse and complex as India, if not moreso because of its history of immigration. Our democratic institutions have been in place four times as long as yours, and are that much more complex and at times convoluted. I consider myself like you an intelligent a member of this forum. Thus, if you can understand American policies and comment on them, then I can understand Indian policies and comment in return.
So, please, explain to me the things I don't understand. Like how the man who spearheaded the Freedom of Religion Act heads the BJP, yet the BJP is not affiliated with the Freedom of Religion Act.
Or how states like TN and Gujarat can pass laws that conflict with the Constitution of India. Remember we have states in America with the power to pass their own laws, but the Supreme Court can strike these laws down if they conflict with the Constitution.
Or maybe you consider the FoRA to be constitutional. Is that the case?
Joe

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
AW now you are getting in to the complexities of India. If I say you wont understand that then please dont mind.

So if next time you complain about the US and we say that it is the complexities of the USA and you won't understand then please don't mind.

[Ranga Sreenivasan]

Or how states like TN and Gujarat can pass laws that conflict with the Constitution of India. Remember we have states in America with the power to pass their own laws, but the Supreme Court can strike these laws down if they conflict with the Constitution.

Where do you get this? The TN law is not in conflict with the Indian Constitution. Its a law to stop "forcible conversion" from one religion to another. Now, What forcible conversion means depends on the specific case.
You are still free to practice ANY religion you want as per the Indian constitution.

[R K Singh]

Our democratic institutions have been in place four times as long as yours, and are that much more complex and at times convoluted.

You are right..
And you can say that everything is in place more or less in US.
ANd India is in transition state. You are seeing a stable US.
Thus, if you can understand American policies and comment on them, then I can understand Indian policies and comment in return.
I can understand US policies because I read US novel, I listen US news, I watch hollywood movies, I discuss with you people etc.
Look, out of four, 3 is missing for you.
Actually whatever I tell you will be my views. Dont conclude anything from my views.
I am bad man as per Indian society. Who drinks, smoke, eat non-veg (specially beef and pork) and does lot of things which is not considered good.
I think you should talk to some people who can represent India. I dont represent India.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So if next time you complain about the US and we say that it is the complexities of the USA and you won't understand then please don't mind.

First of all, I dont think I have ever said anything about US internal matters [except 2 mother-3 father theory ]
And seriously I dont have any answer for following.

And if you can convert to Buddhism, then why does the law consider Buddhism an "offshoot" of Hinduism? That would seem to conflict with your statement that you cannot convert to Hinduism. It seems that Buddhism is only an offshoot of Hinduism for the purposes of this law.

I cant explain him why Budhism is considered offshoot of Hinduism and still you cant convert to Hinduism though you can convert to Budhism.
For that he should know mythologies of Hindu and their association with "Gautam" then only I can proceed.
AW but following things obviously can be explained:
but the Supreme Court can strike these laws down if they conflict with the Constitution.
Yes, same here but for that someone has to file a litigation against that law.
You know, that news came and gone and no one remembers that now. Neither lawmaker, nor lawbreaker.
And I dont see any problem in informing to District Magistrate before conversion. Even when one born, his parents are suppose to inform Govt.
And how come it stops you to practising what ever religion you want.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
But you can convert to Buddhism, correct? And conversion to Buddhism is not covered under the anti-conversion laws, only conversion to Christian or Muslim faiths, so the law is stil discriminatory.
And if you can convert to Buddhism, then why does the law consider Buddhism an "offshoot" of Hinduism? That would seem to conflict with your statement that you cannot convert to Hinduism. It seems that Buddhism is only an offshoot of Hinduism for the purposes of this law.
It really seems that the law has less to do with religion than with politics.
Joe[/QB]

Like I said earlier, I dont like that law and you are quite possibly right that the law was done to appease voters and doesnt really have much to do with law.
However I will tell you that I have come in contact with some of these missionaries who work in India and ,at least, I felt that they went a little too far. Its not like what you might imagine. A westerner doesnt go into India and look for converts merely for spirituality, the modus operandi is more complex. A westerner or a western religious charity organization sets up base in India and recruits some of the local christians. These chrisitans are then drilled for a month or two about the importance of their work and are promised indirect rewards if they can convert many people. When I say indirect rewards it is something like a transfer to a western country where they can possibly settle down in the future.
These recruits then employ a lot of pressure tactics to gain converts. Those tactics did not work on me or my friends because we come from very well to do families and we know what exactly their intentions are. But the same cannot be said about the lower segment of the Indian population. They are definetly more gullible and this is why a law was introduced against "forcible conversions".
Dont misconstrue the above to be a sign of anything against christianity. I have more christian friends than hindu and I definetly see many things in Christianity that I wish Hinduism had. I dont dislike missionaries either but I am merely trying to explain to you that the way missionaries work in India is very different from the way they do so in the west.

[Joe Pluta]

RKS: You know, that news came and gone and no one remembers that now. Neither lawmaker, nor lawbreaker.
From what I understood, the law had still not been implemented as recently as last month, according the India Times. And in the same article, I notice that Minister Modi claims the act as "one of the main �achievements� of his government's one year in office".

RKS: And I dont see any problem in informing to District Magistrate before conversion. Even when one born, his parents are suppose to inform Govt.
Yipes. Here in the US, we find it absolutely unconstitutional to have to register your religion with the state. In fact, it's illegal to require someone to state their religion for any reason.
Not only that, in the unlikely event that any law such as the Freedom of Religion Act which discriminates against one or more religions was passed, it would immediately be cast down as unconstitutional. I guess America's definition of religious freedom is a little different than India's.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

PM: They are definetly more gullible and this is why a law was introduced against "forcible conversions".
Here's what I don't like about this - it seems to imply that only the gullible will convert to Christianity. I'm not going to start a discussion of the relative merits of different religions, but this assumption that India's people are too stupid to choose their own religion is a little bizarre. If someone wants to convert to Christianity for WHATEVER reason, what business is it of the state to stop them?
Joe

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
However I will tell you that I have come in contact with some of these missionaries who work in India and ,at least, I felt that they went a little too far.

If someone converts for money or a job it just shows that they are smarter than the missionary. Give me $500 and I'll become a Buddhist. And then next week I'll take another $500 to become a Baptist.

[Ranga Sreenivasan]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
If someone wants to convert to Christianity for WHATEVER reason, what business is it of the state to stop them?

I'm completely against conversion if the (WHATEVER) includes coersion, fear, money and the likes. :roll:

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
PM: They are definetly more gullible and this is why a law was introduced against "forcible conversions".
Here's what I don't like about this - it seems to imply that only the gullible will convert to Christianity. I'm not going to start a discussion of the relative merits of different religions, but this assumption that India's people are too stupid to choose their own religion is a little bizarre. If someone wants to convert to Christianity for WHATEVER reason, what business is it of the state to stop them?
Joe

My apologies. It was a poor choice of words on my part. "Gullible" should have been replaced with "needy". The missionaries promise jobs and wealth for those who convert.

[Joe Pluta]

Ranga: I'm completely against conversion if the (WHATEVER) includes coersion, fear, money and the likes.
Forced conversion through fear of harm is repugnant, and I agree with that sentiment. But if I want to convert to Whooskerdom because the High Whooskerdingy promises me a new car, then that's my business, not anybody else's.
Nobody has any right to "help" me choose the right religion. If my decision is based on cash, then so be it! What gives someone the right to stop me?
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

My apologies. It was a poor choice of words on my part. "Gullible" should have been replaced with "needy". The missionaries promise jobs and wealth for those who convert.
And why is this bad? And why doesn't the state instead provide those jobs? Why doesn't the state provide education so that these poor gullible souls don't get taken? Why do they need laws?
Joe

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
And why is this bad? And why doesn't the state instead provide those jobs? Why doesn't the state provide education so that these poor gullible souls don't get taken? Why do they need laws?

Joe, I dont have the answers to all your questions. I know only so much and I have told you as much as you know. I stated in the very nbeginning that I dont like the law.. now can I do anything about it. Yes! If someone converts without the permission of a magistrate I am not going to report it to the authorities because I agree its his or her wish. Can I do anything more than that.. I dont think so. Perhaps I could convince a few other Indians to think my way and thus influence the vote.
But maybe you should also think about this point : None of the attacks on missionaries have been carried out by people like me or Ravish or Sadanand etc. However some of these attacks have been carried out by converts themselves. Why? go figure..

[Joe Pluta]

None of the attacks on missionaries have been carried out by people like me or Ravish or Sadanand etc.
Well, I guarantee not one attack on Indian nationals has been carried out by people like me!
Joe

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
And why is this bad? And why doesn't the state instead provide those jobs? Why doesn't the state provide education so that these poor gullible souls don't get taken? Why do they need laws?
Joe

Why not these missionaries donate money to "state fund" so that education can be provided to all, not to only those are vulnerable to conversion ??
Why dont these missionaries open/create shop/job and give it to state and allows state to give it to any person regardless of its religion ??

[Richard Hawkes]

I don't understand: do missionaries actually give money and jobs to people who convert to Christianity? How can they afford to do that? Or do they just promise jobs and wealth but never deliver?
Anyway I'm learning some more about India here

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Yipes. Here in the US, we find it absolutely unconstitutional to have to register your religion with the state. In fact, it's illegal to require someone to state their religion for any reason.

If I am not wrong, sometime back debate was going on whether student should specify the race in the form of college/school ???
In India no one talks about your race?? Nobody cares what is your race. There is no form which will ask your race.
we find it absolutely unconstitutional to have to register your religion with the state.
Obviously its unconsititutional to register your religion for NO reason.
But you are suppose to register inform DM for change of religion. Say for the ease of census.
You wont be arrested if you change your religion.
Not only that, in the unlikely event that any law such as the Freedom of Religion Act which discriminates against one or more religions was passed, it would immediately be cast down as unconstitutional.
discrimination .....
Though I dont see any discrimination in India.. for you, registring while "changing" religion might be discrimination but I dont see anything wrong in that.
But dont you wonder why any of these missionaries did not file any law suit , if they find it discriminating.??
Because they know what they were doing was wrong.
I wanted to say something about discrimination against muslims at US airports. But I think let us discuss only India.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
If someone wants to convert to Christianity for WHATEVER reason, what business is it of the state to stop them?

US democray might be 4 times older than Indian democracy.
But India continent is 10 times older than US. Initially(more than 5000yrs back) the binding thing was "way of life", which people now call Hinduatva, and still its Hinduatva which binds India. Hinduatva is not religion, its just a way of life. And Islam and Christianity are different in India than all over world. As I mentioned long back , here Mother Marry wears Sari (and thats also in Ulta Pallu), people perform Aarti infornt of Jesus and Dargah is open for all.
India is different ..