|
|
|
General Forum: Current 'Affairs' | | Kanchi Shankaracharya VS Mohammed Naseeruddin | |
| Who is this Md. Naseeruddin? EmA katha?
Posted by: Bahud♥♥rapu Baatasaari At: 17, Nov 2004 12:58:23 PM IST
/*All we have been stating on this forum is whether Jayendra saraswati should be treated differently because he is a hindu religious head...*/
Sapna, I don't think that any person in this DB said like that. None said that he has to be treated differently. What we(yes including me) say is why can't all are treated equally? Why does a particular govt need to show different opinion and take different course of action against an accused who belongs to a minority group? This is the question what we are raising here, not asking to treat Jayendra differently. Please don't mistake us.
Posted by: Bahud♥♥rapu Baatasaari At: 17, Nov 2004 12:56:51 PM IST
Now can we discuss about Mohammed Naseerudding... for a change.
Posted by: Mr. Raj K At: 17, Nov 2004 12:49:09 PM IST
Swapna, the reason for asking your phone number is... if i make a call to you and if something goes wrong with me or you after the call, does it mean that either i or you is involved in whatever happens? Unless the phone line is tapped and they have taped the conversation, nothing is proved just by making a call to someone or receiving a call from someone. Hope you understand this point. Thanks
Posted by: Mr. Raj K At: 17, Nov 2004 12:45:14 PM IST
I think Mrs Anupama has hit the nail on the head.
Malakpet rowdy, I am aware of RSS Pracharaks. Their job is to get more people to join the RSS. It cannot be compared to social service.
I guess I did a mistake bring up the name of Mother Teresa. Ok I will compare to someone like vinayak (www.parivaar.org). He has sacrificed his career ( IIT+IIM) to put up homes for underprivileged children. OK. R u happy now?
Why are so many people upset whenever dalits are mentioned? Caste is a reality in India. Those of you who have been to Srisailam will know that in the Karivena Satram Bhrahmins and Non-Brahmins are made to sit separately. Yet the same Brahmins are at the forefront of any anti-conversion movement. Why?
All we have been stating on this forum is whether Jayendra saraswati should be treated differently because he is a hindu religious head. To which our argument is that he is NOT the head of hindus. he is the head of an organization of some hindus. consequently we cannot treat him as the head of all hindus. (Unlike roman catholics to whom the pope is the head).
Now, if you are bringing up the issue of india's occupation for 800 years, and blaming the division among hindus for it, i can only ask you to pl read the history books again. And i ask you, what are these divisions among hindus caused by? Is it not majorly caste? As long as a section of hindus treats another section of hindus as 'lower', 'untouchable' how do you expect them to be together. You want to keep dalits out of temples, you don't want to sit next to them, you don't want to marry them. But when 'hinduism' is at stake you wan't them. you don't want them to convert. why? why r u bothered about them?
In my village as kids we were not allowed to go 10 feet near the 'harijans'. fortunately they were allowed into the temple, though only at a certain specified time.
How do you expect them to come up without reservations? I am hurt by the reservations. But look at it from their perspective. Who made them what they are today? Is it not our forefathers? This is the price we pay.
Posted by: Ms. sapna endurthi At: 17, Nov 2004 12:42:31 PM IST
Hi Swapna, can i have your phone number? I have a reason to call you.
Posted by: Mr. Raj K At: 17, Nov 2004 12:39:03 PM IST
1)Prakash Sharan Mahat, Nepal's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, said the Nepalese government had no news about the Shankaracharya's plan to flee to the Himalayan kingdom.
2)KANCHI: The police on Monday interrogated top functionaries of the Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt and their staff in connection with a murder case involving the Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati.
Those questioned include Neelakanta Iyer (administrative head of the Mutt), N Sundareshan Iyer (Mutt manager), Viswanathan (manager of the Kamakshi temple), Ramu (the Mutt’s official photographer), a typist, a clerk and a cashier employed by the Mutt. Police sources said the interrogation would continue on Monday night.
The police are now working on the theory that the murder of temple manager Sankararaman was not the first time that hired killers had allegedly been used to silence opponents or meddlers in Mutt affairs.
Police sources said on Monday that they have picked up two Chennai-based men, Bhoominathan and Lakshmanan, who they said belonged to a gang of criminals operating out of Chennai.
Sources said the two were among the bunch that grievously assaulted Radhakrishnan, a former Mutt employee, and his wife, in Chennai in September 2002.
Radhakrishnan, who was earlier sacked from the Mutt after he fell out with its authorities, was hacked and stabbed at his Chennai home. His wife, who came in the way, was also set upon. Both, however, survived.
The investigation into that case had reached nowhere until the police apparently decided to have a go at it after the Shankaracharya’s arrest. The special police team investigating the seer’s case was on Monday asked to take over this one as well.
‘‘We now have evidence that the same gang led by Kuppuswami, a Chennai-based don, which was hired to eliminate Sankararaman, had been used in this attack as well,’’ a top police source said.
Police said Kuppuswami has since vanished, but claimed to have ‘‘substantive proof’’ of his links with the Mutt. Police teams that searched the homes of Pashupati, president of the Mutt-run NGO, Jan Kalyan, and Ramu, the Mutt’s official photographer, on Sunday had taken away a bunch of photographs of the Kanchi Shankaracharya with various people.
Police sources added that they were also looking closely at a third similar attack, for possible links to these two. The victim in this case was Madhavan, a temple priest. He was assaulted in similar fashion, in rather similar circumstances.
Tempers ran high in the Mutt premises on Monday, besieged by the media corps and curious locals. Mutt functionaries led by A Shanmugham, the Mutt’s lawyer, took on the police in a slanging match in front of TV cameras, protesting the frisking of those going in or out of the Mutt.
‘‘This is clearly an interference in our right to worship. We are going to take this up in the court tomorrow (Tuesday),’’ Shanmugham said.
The lawyer clamed that the police had not passed on a copy of the petition that they filed at the Judicial Magistrate’s court on Monday, seeking police custody of the Shankaracharya.
‘‘They don’t have a fig leaf of evidence to cover their charges. This is a big frame-up’’ he claimed. The Kancheepuram court will hear the petition on Tuesday.
Mutt officials, meanwhile, denied reports that Vijayendra Saraswati, the junior pontiff, had asked for a CBI inquiry into the issue in his letter to the Union Home Minister. Mutt manager Sundareshan Iyer said the Mutt had no reason to think along that direction.
Posted by: Mr. Surya Pudipeddi At: 17, Nov 2004 12:16:32 PM IST
Thanks for the correction annay! Anyways, I'm just concerned about the essence of it, not about the writer. ;)
Posted by: Bahud♥♥rapu Baatasaari At: 17, Nov 2004 12:13:50 PM IST
adEdO vEmana padyamundi chUSArU malak ... chEri mUrkhuni manasu ranjimparAdu anTU... adi kAsta chepparU?
Posted by: Bahud♥♥rapu Baatasaari At: 17, Nov 2004 12:00:22 PM IST
Vachaspati garu u refer to Hindu and someone else may come out with a reference to the RSS's Organizer or Shiv Sena's Saamna .. how do u establish a base line?
U may call Hindu - the National news paper and I may call it Anti-Hindu and Anti National "Views" paper :P or a 22 page editorial
Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 17, Nov 2004 11:49:55 AM IST
| |
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
