Double stand on Tolerance vs Intolerance in India!

 News is news, why should channels decide what to show and not show. Then they are biased. Malda should also be covered as was Dadri.

Jincy Aby wrote:

When communal clashes occurred in Malda and Purnia, media and other news channels turned their eyes to avoid more problems even if some political parties have tried to build it up. According to media these places are crime-prone areas and so they didn't feel it was important to give too much publicity to this news. That was a conscious policy of the channel. 

Like politicians are doing selective secularism, media is also showing selective news. Media has given focus on Dadri, but not on Malda or Purnia. One reason Dadri is near to Delhi and Malda is far distant place. Many students from various communities in many universities have committed suicide, but our media has only focused on Hyderabad because of TRP. Both our politicians and media have gone to their lowest level.

It is wrong to accuse media of going to their lowest levels. Your comments are a bit confusing. Media covers all cases of suicide but all cannot get same attention. Suicides by students in Kota are also highlighted but they do not involve any caste or religion bias and thus do not get added attention. Malda was covered by many channels and I saw it myself. BJP rightly raised the issue which TMC will naturally play down. It is the Dalit angle and the interference by Ministers that makes Hyderabad suicide get more attention. Why are you against politicians raising issues by visiting or otherwise. It is their job. 

You need to understand that the left liberals control the media all over the world. It is not just an issue in India but in UK, USA and Australia too. If you go through the American media you will understand that there Christians are mocked and targeted for even smaller issues and the Muslim extremism is justified for American white guilt. Recently in Germany when 1000 men from the MiddleEast and African origin molested german women on new years eve it was totally blacked out and covered up in the media for the sake of not highlighting the issue related to radical Islam. The feminists who jump on every small conclusion of men being bad but kept quiet for innocent german girls being hounded by radical Muslims on the new years night eve. So guys chill if you feel that Hindus are only been targeted. This is a pattern which is being followed in the entire world where native religion is mocked and jihad atrocities are justified for the sake of them being minorities. Hindus need not worry because Muslims ruled for 1000 years and Christians ruled for more than 200 years but could not convert entire India into their religion. These issues based on religion are brought in media to divert from important issues like economic policies and other development obstacles.

No force under the Sun can take away the sanctity of this great religion Hinduism. Hinduism is not religion but 5+ Millenniums of rich cultural heritage of all Indians. Of course there were several attempts to take away Hinduism's greatness by the invaders like Muslims and British. Criticisms by the opposition parties and their hired goons or press cannot make any dent on Hinduism. Artificially created crisis created by the erstwhile rulers, can simply be dismissed as mere hogwash.

rambabu wrote:

No force under the Sun can take away the sanctity of this great religion Hinduism. Hinduism is not religion but 5+ Millenniums of rich cultural heritage of all Indians. Of course there were several attempts to take away Hinduism's greatness by the invaders like Muslims and British. Criticisms by the opposition parties and their hired goons or press cannot make any dent on Hinduism. Artificially created crisis created by the erstwhile rulers, can simply be dismissed as mere hogwash.

This looks funny. Nobody ever invaded India to destroy Hinduism. Many from far off places invaded for territorial and imperialist ambitions and not for destroying Hinduism. The wars were between kings and religion played no role. The Muslim rulers had Hindu generals and ministers whereas many Hindu rulers had Muslim soldiers and ministers. Even during war between Rana Pratap and Akbar, there was man Singh in akbar's army  and some Muslim general in Pratap's army. Apparently, the saffron brigade attempts to rewrite history in a tainted communal way. The British never attempted to destroy Hindu religion and establish Christianity. They rather always tried not to disturb Hindu rituals even if inhuman. Even Sati system was abolished only at insistence of Hindu social reformer Raja ram Mohan Roy. 

 

Harm to Hinduism cannot come from outsiders but comes from within due to caste system, dowry system, child marriages, temple entry issues, treatment of women. It is these which should be tackled on war footing. The Muslims are taking care of themselves by eliminating each other. 

One thing which Gulshan Kumar says is correct. The British and even the Muslims never wanted to destroy hinduism. They only , (particularly the Muslims) practiced discrimination. If Muslims wanted they could have converted entire India to Muslim faith, this is a fact. Muslims wanted only to be rulers and have royal life. they were helped by the "Ji Huzoori" attitude of Hindu masses.

So should we blame Muslims or strengthen our religion?

MG Singh wrote:

One thing which Gulshan Kumar says is correct. The British and even the Muslims never wanted to destroy hinduism. They only , (particularly the Muslims) practiced discrimination. If Muslims wanted they could have converted entire India to Muslim faith, this is a fact. Muslims wanted only to be rulers and have royal life. they were helped by the "Ji Huzoori" attitude of Hindu masses.

I agree with that, even today one can notice this subservient attitude in Indians when they suck up to Westerners and look down upon Blacks ..I have seen this happening and feel we have to blame ourselves for what happened and how easy a target we were for the ruthless Mughals and the cunning British ! We as a nation still continue to be the same even now ..

vijay wrote:

So should we blame Muslims or strengthen our religion?

Strengthen our religion to such an extent that none can take Hinduism for granted. We  committed this mistake of being tolerant earlier. But we learned the lessons.

We were not tolerant but were disunited and did not change our hateful attitude towards bulk of Hindus the lower castes something we practice today also. Upper cast in minority Hindus do not want beef to be eaten by majority lower cast Hindus. Our rigidity is Hinduism's weakness. Who wull strengthen it, the one's who want Vedic practices or the ones who want winds of change to blow across Hinduism?

No amount of wind or gales or Blizzard can change the Vedas and Vedic practices of Hinduism. It has survived for centuries and continue to survive for ever in this land Hindus.

Among the beef eaters in India the majority are Muslims , almost 40 -50% of the Muslim population and then come the Christians and Hindus are next. Only 2% of Hindus eat beef although going by the numbers they may be more than Christians , so the argument that majority of the low caste Hindus eat beef is not true..There are more beef eaters among the Scheduled caste than in any other group/

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/RhPVLUFmclIDWRIiSoTC7N/Who-are-the-beef-eaters-in-India.html

More than 8 crore Indians eat beef, why should they be deprived of it and beef will be exported for non Indians to eat. Can there be a better example of denying proteins to fellow Indians and feeding non Indians. Vedic practices of Hinduism are not under attack, the rigid attitude of many Indians are. They run to Vedas for cover instead of rational arguments.

Can you say with a proof that vedas are irrational ? I expressed my opinion like it or leave it

At no point have I ever said that Vedas are irrational. Those are your words. I maintain that Vedas cannot be superimposed directly in today's times. They are not rigid. They promote dialog and discussion to arrive at rational conclusions. Opinions expressed in public can be challenged. Otherwise it is merely a point generating activity.

Religion is a man made institution that evolved because of certain societal needs and has now become more a menace, than a boon...But one cannot wish it away and one can see that many customs and traditions too are connected to religion, so whether one believes or not religion does play a very important role in our lives . If people can be tolerant and also be analytical rather than blindly following something that has been passed down to them, there would be awareness and tolerance since religion loses its undue importance!

The common people are usually tolerant. It is only the politicians and some persons with agenda who periodically whip up religious issues to make easy gains by polarising the masses. 

I agree. People in general are tolerant. But unfortunately, these very people are electing intolerant representatives and sending them to the Parliament.