--- On Sun 11/09, Fred Bauder < fredbaud@ctelco.net > wrote:

...

Ok on 2 and 3, but 1 is just not factually established. Additionally I think the article needs to mention the ambient political athmosphere that produced 2 and 3 (regardless of the cause of 1). Adequately describing that athmosphere involves discussion of the Hindu Nationalist government of Gujurat and the climate of polarization which exists.

Notice your biases here.

a) (1) has been factually established. but you deny it.

It is a fact that it was widely reported and is believed by many people that a Muslim mob firebombed the train. Not that a Muslim mob firebombed the train.

b) "Hindu nationalist" is a loaded and factually incorrect term. It smacks of hatred because those who are branded Hindu nationalists by the West (this term is absent in India!) ask for EQUALITY and removal of UNEQUAL LAWS.

This is rather similar to the discussion we had here as to whether communist movements and states could fairly be characterized as totalitarian. Our apologists for communism thought it was very unfair. Here's what it comes down to: There is a pattern of behavior; we use words which define and describe the activity; The words we use to define nationalism fit the pattern of activity and adequately describe the recent rise in Hindu Nationalism in India. When you attack this characterization you attack language, the very notion that well defined words can be used to describe a pattern of activity. As to hate, you do adequately describe my emotional reaction both to Hindu nationalism and certain political tendencies in America which are oppressive. Now we get down to the gist of the problem. Hindus are the dominant majority in India. They are in the same position as White Christians are in the United States and rather than oppressing the rest of society (in a fascist way), if they are wise, will accommodate and protect the rights and security of others. For two basic reasons, first, it is right to respect others, second, it is necessary for the progress and stability of the State. The alternative is to attempt to rule over an oppressed people.

c) (b) leading to points (2) and (3) in my earlier post can never be factually established as they are not events but inferences made after analysis. Yet, you show your double standard by claiming that the firebombing did not lead to the riots and is not a factual statement.

There is no question that the train incident triggered the riots, as a match might trigger a fire, but the inflammatory situation is generated by Nationalist agitation.

I hope Wikipedia does not endorse your racist statements.

It doesn't work that way, Wikipedia strives for a Neutral Point of View; that means that articles on the issues we are discussing will need to accommodate both the Hindu Nationalist perspective and the Muslim perspective and well as an objective perspective.

One other point. How come you use the racist phrase "Hindu nationalist" (this is similar to branding Republican Party as White Nationalist) but refuse to allow me to use the word Communist which is an existing fact?

-libertarian

I use the term "Hindu nationism" because it is in use in the English language, Google returns 10,100 hits on those words including these:

http://www.mbeaw.org/resources/violence/hindunationalism.html

http://www.hindubooks.org/HinduPhe/hindu_nationalism/page1.htm

http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/6652.html

http://www.alternatives.ca/article231.html

http://www.questia.com/popularSearches/hindu_nationalism.jsp

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:je0SVDBD_4UJ:www.nottingham.ac.uk/iaps/... stigatingHinduNationalism.pdf++%22hindu+nationalism%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.vedamsbooks.com/no14883.htm

This last site is for a book published in India: BJP and the Evolution of Hindu Nationalism : From Periphery to Centre/Partha S. Ghosh. 1999, 460 p., ISBN 81-7304-253-5. So your claim that the usage of the term Hindu nationalism is somehow something others are making up and is not used in India is demonstrably false.

As to your allusions to communism, of course the communist movement in India is eagerly trying to use these issues and you might appropriately say so in the proper context in a Wikipedia article. But your attack is on an objective or democratic point of view, not on a communist point of view.

Fred