Talk:Kancha Ilaiah

The following account was deleted from "Discussion". I restore it.

Ilaiah's true colours

Every religion has serious limitations. Brahmanism/Hinduism no doubt has institutionalized caste and took in its fold everyone but never exterminated races/tribes/languages, in short, human diversity. Extermination of human diversity is exactly what Semitic religions did, for whom Ilaiah is a great advocate. Examples abound: Red Indians of North America, Aborigines of Australia, Mayan, Incan and other civilizations in South america. All this was done with Sword in one hand and a cross in the other. Europeans colonized Americas and shipped Africans like cattle to slave for them. Racism in USA is all pervading even today in spite of Lincoln and King. Ilaiah wants the same religion in India in the name of Dalit emanicipation.

Survival of thousand and one primitive tribes in India till today with their languages intact is an example of Hindu tolerance and all-encompassing accomodation. Semetic religions are destroying their identity, culture, traditions, livelihood and languages in India since the advent of British. They succeeded in North East, Bastar, Orissa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu etc. It is matter of few decades that all these tribes and their languages, which survived for millennia vanish.

What is needed is reform. Post-independent India has taken provides constitutional safeguards and affirmative actions, which everyone supports. Caste is slowly crumbling down. The change in Hindu mindset is all pervasive. Opposition in mind and soul does persist but it will evaporate with time. It certainly takes time. Inspite of all this, if someone wants to change his millennia old culture, customs, way of living, traditions, food habits, nomenclature, language etc., he is welcome to do so in free India. But one must refrain from heaping hatred and scorn over ancestral roots.

Hatred towards one's own mother simply because she looks ugly is what Ilaiah does. He must avoid that.

Bold textAll the links seem to be anti-Hindu.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs) . Holy---+---Warrior 09:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes The person is against hindu philosophy and cast system.Holy---+---Warrior 09:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

{deleted}

Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu vs anti-Brahmin

While Ilaiah is definitely anti-Brahmin, he has said explicitly that he "hates Hinduism" and has made polemical attacks on the religion. Thus, he is an anti-Hindu. Hatred of an entire race/religion carries precedence over hatred of a specific subgroup of a society (Brahmins). Thus, anti-Hindu is an entirely proper definition.Hkelkar 10:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ilaiah has defined what he means by anti-brahminism,besides he uses the term Hinduism as synonym for Brahminism .His fight is against Brahminism not Hindus.Read well the citations.Holy|Warrior 10:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is original research on your part. If you can provide a quote saying that Ilaiah opposes only Brahminism, then put in a sentence where he explicitly refutes that he is an anti-Hindu and that he actlually only hates brahmins. If he equates Brahminism with Hinduism, then he has a false negative perception of Hinduism, which is the very definition of anti-Hindu, eergo he is an anti-Hindu.Hkelkar 10:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Plz refrain from using defamatory and lebelious words against a living person .This may lead to your blockage.Holy|Warrior 10:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No I think Hkelkar is right. You have not proven otherwise. Vandalism may lead to your blockage. You may also want to keep a hold on the veiled threats, because the admin noticeboard is no place for petty disputes as I hope you learned in the RfC Hate attack you filed against me (which was unsuccessful).Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No defamation. I have quoted him directly. This will be handled by a third party.Hkelkar 10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view, per Hw's request for block review. Holywarrior does seem to have a point that the quotations were chosen selectively to give the article a partisan bias: if the man did say "I hate Hinduism", it is certainly fair to report that, however, you should allow for other quotes that put his position into some context. Also, his position should be discussed, as opposed to presenting a list of out-of-context quotes (wikiquote is for that). I agree that this is a matter of a content dispute, and not straightforward defamation per WP:BLP, so that reverts should not be considered 3RR-exempt. However, both parties are obliged to seek for a compromise acceptable to all good-faith editors, within WP policy. Editors that happen to be in a majority (and thus able to win revert wars) are charged in particular with making a good faith effort towards compromise. (ᛎ) qɐp 13:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a third party. Now we need a fourth party. Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

May I assume good faith that Baka has gone through WP:AGF.Holywarrior 06:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)