karan
July 15, 2013 at 6:28 am

@Cynical
Who is a “minority” in the present global context? A community may be numerically small relative to the local population, but globally it may in fact be part of the majority that is powerful, assertive and well-funded. Given that India is experiencing a growing influx of global funding, political lobbying, legal action and flow of ideologies, what criteria should we use to classify a group as a “minority”? Should certain groups, now counted as minorities, be reclassified given their enormous worldwide clout, power and resources? If the “minority” concerned has actually merged into an extra-territorial power through ideology (like Maoists) or theology (like many churches and madrassas), through infrastructure investment (like buying large amounts of land, buildings, setting up training centers, etc.), through digital integration and internal governance, then do they not become a powerful tool of intervention representing a larger global force rather than being simply a “minority” in India. Certainly, one would not consider a local franchise of McDonalds in India to be a minor enterprise just because it may employ only a handful of employees with modest revenues locally. It is its global size, presence and clout that are counted and that determine the rules, restrictions and disclosure requirements to which it must adhere. Similarly, nation-states’ presence in the form of consulates is also regulated. But why are foreign religious MNCs exempted from similar requirements of transparency and supervision? (For example: Bishops are appointed by the Vatican, funded by it, and given management doctrine to implement by the Vatican, and yet are not regulated on par with diplomats in consulates representing foreign sovereign states.) Indian security agencies do monitor Chinese influences and interventions into Buddhist monasteries in the northern mountain belt, because such interventions can compromise Indian sovereignty and soft power while boosting China’s clout. Should the same supervision also apply to Christian groups operating under the direction and control of their western headquarters and Islamic organizations funded and/or ideologically influenced by their respective foreign headquarters? What should India do to improve and deliver social justice in order to secure its minorities and wean them away from global nexuses that are often anti-Indian.


http://indianrealist.com/2013/07/14/the-tragedy-of-hindus-in-india/#comments

Another messed up title, Rishi. It should read "Why are Chaddis, Wannabe Chaddis & NRI Patriots insecure about..."

confuzzled dude wrote:Another messed up title, Rishi. It should read "Why are Chaddis, Wannabe Chaddis & NRI Patriots insecure about..."

may be because those groups make up vocal majority of Hindus.

confuzzled dude wrote:Another messed up title, Rishi. It should read "Why are Chaddis, Wannabe Chaddis & NRI Patriots insecure about..."

and all other "hindus" are just sissies who praise the oppressors - past and the present.

Why are they insecure? Because, great Moghul kings like Aurangazeb are not here to eradicate Hindu superstition. Tamils are insecure since the nawab of Arcot is no more. Kannadigas are insecure since Tippu and Bahamani sultans are dead, Telanganites are insecure since Nizam is no longer sucking their blood and Andhras are insecure since they are not learning Hindi.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Another messed up title, Rishi. It should read "Why are Chaddis, Wannabe Chaddis & NRI Patriots insecure about..."

and all other "hindus" are just sissies who praise the oppressors - past and the present.

You have a very poor opinion of Hindus. You think that:

• Some Hindus of the Chaddi, Wannabe-Chaddi and NRI-Patriot persuasions are insecure
  
• All other Hindus are sissies
  

So, in your estimation, every Hindu is either insecure or a sissy. Why do you have such a poor opinion of Hindus?

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Another messed up title, Rishi. It should read "Why are Chaddis, Wannabe Chaddis & NRI Patriots insecure about..."

and all other "hindus" are just sissies who praise the oppressors - past and the present.

You have a very poor opinion of Hindus. You think that:

• Some Hindus of the Chaddi, Wannabe-Chaddi and NRI-Patriot persuasions are insecur
  
  
  
  
  
• All other Hindus are sissies
  
  
  
  
  

So, in your estimation, every Hindu is either insecure or a sissy. Why do you have such a poor opinion of Hindus?

uppusaamy doesn't think any such thing, and you're probably feigning ignorance of his motives for your own reasons. just in case you actually don't know, uppusaamy is goading hindus into harming muslims by saying, "if you do nothing, you are just sissies," and hinting, "you can redeem yourselves by engaging in violence towards muslims, while i live a secure life far from hindu india in the cornfields of kansas." this is standard practice among hindu nationalists.