vyakta

DMK is known for pro LTTE stance. They are under the influence of ill conceived dravidian concepts. They are insisting destruction of Ramsetu against the interest of Hindus. UPA may be under pressure by such an ally.
 

It doesn't look like the government has taken this up. It might comment that it is concerned, just as it is at the freedom with which terrorists operate in our country. Do you think that means anything at all?

Secondly, has Priyanka Gandhi actually said anything that says that she has a soft stand on LTTE?
 

"Tomorrow if US or Israel argue that there is human rights violation in Jammu & Kashmir what would UPA say? How would I support our armed forces in J & K in front of writers like Arundhati Roy?

I think there are two things here:
1. it is not right to compare the situation in j&k with srilanka... what happened in srilanka was due to the genuine grouse of the tamils against the buddhist sinhalese (its another matter that it got hijacked by the christian church), whereas kashmir has been a site of hindu oppression since time immemorial (or at least since the days of sikandar butshikhan).

2. i don't know why you are so concerned about arundhati roy. by you talking about her, you are giving her the credibility she probably is very hungry for and doesn't deserve. how will you justify the claim for rAma janma bhUmi "in front of writers like Arundhati Roy?"
 

I am seeing the momentum building agaisnst Sri Lanka .. I hope others see it too.

I am comparing the magnanimity of Priyanka & Congress.
 

Vathsa,

What are you trying to say here? A buddhist's life any less valuable than Hindu's? Or Its ok if the oppression is recent, but not ok if it is time immemorial? I dont really get it...


I thought I was criticizing. If you think it is increasing her credibility, then please stop reacting to the articles on THE HINDU..
 

"What are you trying to say here? A buddhist's life any less valuable than Hindu's? Or Its ok if the oppression is recent, but not ok if it is time immemorial? I dont really get it..."

buddhist's life? i thought we were talking of tamil people's life against hindu people's life. i had said clearly that what started in shriilanka was due to the genuine grouse of tamils (of discrimination by the sinhalese majority). whereas in india it wasn't the case (the muslims weren't discriminated against in kAshmiira). the "time immemorial" thing was written because i wanted to tell you that kAshmIra has been a site of islamic jihad, meaning that from time immemorial, the muslims have been the oppressors.

I thought I was criticizing. If you think it is increasing her credibility, then please stop reacting to the articles on THE HINDU..

you weren't criticizing. you were saying that the presence of a roy and her ilk in india will weaken your case (in case they take a stand that india has been the oppressor in kAshmiira in the context of US or israel saying that we have been the oppressors). i do react to the articles of the hindu, but i don't make it of consequence when i decide my course of action when it comes to sanAtanii issues. for e.g. i don't care what "the hindu" thinks about my stance on rAma janma bhUmi. please go back and rephrase your sentences if indeed you wanted to mean something else (your words convey such a bhaava, i now think that you might not have wanted to mean what you wrote). we can discuss this on chat if you like.
 

I misread your comment.

When you look at it from a demographic point, your view point is right. But I am trying to put it as a case acceptable in the nation's view point.
 

I truly did not get your 2nd comment .. May be we need to discuss...