BJP now defines Secularism as equal respect for all religions. This can not be reconciled with the notion of attacking Church being a good thing.
Mr Kalladka also says that his only agenda is Hindutva.
This is the primary cause for this double confusion. First is regarding law. Any Constitutional disturbance can not serve the cause of law, and democracy does provide for lawful protest and handling of grievances.
The second is regarding the nature of Dharma itself. Defending our dharma is not the same as attacking another dharma. Any such attack per our Sanatana Dharma is also adharma.
The task is surely made difficult because Christian zealots consider religious conversion as their basic right and deploy devious means to do so. However, one wrong can not set right by another wrong, atleast not in the sphere of Dharma.
Mr Kalladka one can be reasonable sure, would be a good man of impeccable integrity and sound ethics. Else, he could not have risen to his present stature. He is clearly responding the complex realities in face of which good people become hapless. He knows, it is not enough to have the voice of reason and voice of sentiments to prevail. The voice of shakti is also necessary to overcome roughshod tactics.
Time perhaps is opportune for Bharatiyata to become the principle for guidance such that both secular law prevails and Dharma can proceed unhindered with its continuous process of internal reforms and emancipation.
Re: WOuld you vote for a party ....
by venkat g on May 03, 2009 07:53 PM
of course because if the community does not respect another religion and releases book to defame it.
Re: WOuld you vote for a party ....
by Fluffy Kumar on May 03, 2009 08:50 PM
Ok, go feed some cows, you get good Karma, instead of feeding on their flesh.