[WikiEN-l] Communist paper apologises but Wikipedia endorses the malicious claim!

[Ray Saintonge]

libertarian wrote:

>>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.
>>
>
>This phrase is not common in India. It is used only by the West.
>Even these racists know it is not true and used the phrase "right
>of center Govt" when they wanted Brown human shields so that the
>Whites could get back from Iraq.
>
The sentence "They have never had any doubt that the organisation is 
wedded to national unity, national integrity, national identity and 
national strength through individual character and national character. " 
is taken directly from the web page of the BJP 
http://bjp.org/history.htm  I could not have described nationalism 
better myself.

As for Iraq, I can assure you that the American requests to be rescued 
from their new Vietnam have not just gone out to "brown" countries.

>>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.
>>
>This is complete rubbish because India is a DEMOCRACY. Clearly you are
>ignorant if you do not know this and have no business contributing to
>an encyclopedia.
>India is a democracy because it is Hindu majority. 
>
This is a "non-sequitur".  India is a democracy, but it does not follow 
that it is because of its Hindu majority.

>You're denying the FACT that India is a democracy. India's President
>is a Muslim as is the richest person. India's Defence Minister is
>a Christian. 
>
I'm glad to see that the residents of the occupied Portuguese 
territories are receiving a fair share of representations.  He succeeded 
a Sikh.  I guess that the old Hindu kshatriya caste is not as effective 
as it used to be.  I suppose that's the down side to being peaceful.

Saddam Hussein did not become more tolerable by naming a Christian, 
Tariq Aziz, as foreign minister.

>Stop spewing hatred and spreading canards. You imply that only Whites
>are tolerant by making such remarks. Of all nations on Earth, India
>has been the most peaceful and unique in the sense that it has not
>attacked anyone. 
>
It overran Sikkim, and the Portuguese territories

>It has also been unique in the sense that it has been
>raped by all sorts of lunatics - Islamic fundamentalists, Christian
>evangelists who brought in their armies. Colonialism and Marxists.
>
Indian Marxists were all home-grown.

>>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.
>>
>
>You don't teach indians about respect and tolerance. You could learn
>a lot from India. You never had any minority President so far, did
>you? 
>
At least here in British Columbia we have had a provincial premier, 
Ujjal Dosanjh, who was born in India.

>>But your attack is on an objective or democratic point of view, not 
>>on a communist point of view.
>>
>Mine is the objective and democratic point of view. 
>
Nothing prevents the views of communists and democrats from coinciding 
on given issues.

>I am not surprised that a Westerner supports Communists when it comes
>to Brown countries. Jealousy perhaps? Or maybe a feeling of guilt
>for the mass murder your race carried out and a need to portray
>others as evil? 
>
As the saying goes, yours is a case of the pot calling the kettle brown. 
:-)

The second example is when I pointed out that a judge who headed
the self-appointed commission of inquiry was a Marxist. It was 
deleted repeatedly even though he had served as a Minister in a 
Communist Government and was their Presidential candidate.

There are some very selective omissions from this.  Iyer was a minister 
in a state government in 1957, not the federal government.  The 1987 
presidential vote was a matter of all the parties working together to 
oppose the Congress(I) candidate.  It seems that even the BJP voted for 
the Communist candidate.

Ec