Kirby Urner posted Dec 5, 2012 2:03 AM: > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:45 PM, GS Chandy > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > And we in India have had a sizable number of these > conflicts between > > Hindus and Muslims (to our eternal shame) - and we > have also suffered other > > 'multi-cultural conflicts'. Lately, there has been > some burning of > > churches by certain fascist groups amongst Hindus. > > > What's shameful is that Hindus and Muslims got > suckered into developing > nuclear weaponry thereby losing much of their moral > authority and > respectability. > To an extent, you are right - but only to an extent. There are in fact MUCH more shameful things going on in India: e.g. 42% of our children are malnourished; women are raped (with little fear of punishment for the rapist); we still have the hanging penalty on our books (though I must admit it is rather rarely implemented); etc; etc; etc. By the way, India is a 'secular republic' and is NOT a Hindu state. > > There's some thought among Pakistanis that it's time > to follow South Africa > in renouncing the nuke weapons and joining up with > Iran in calling for a > nuclear free Middle East as a first step towards a > nuclear weapons free world. > The call to renounce nukes has much resonance in India. In fact, I believe the movement against nukes is very significantly stronger here than it is in Pakistan. > > Muslims are testing the idea that they could lead the > way forward while thumbing their noses at those > hypocritical Christians and Hindus who invest > in satanic technology. Muslims want only peaceful > uses of nuclear technology -- that's the evolving PR. > Christians, on the other hand, cling > to their nukes as only true cowards and moral > imbeciles would. An interesting rhetoric, lets see > where it goes. > Well, maybe (just maybe) your claims above are justified - though I think you are mistaken. I personally (as a 'passionate agnostic') have grave doubts about whether the followers of almost ANY religion (be it Christianity; Islam; Hinduism; whatever) can really be truly 'peaceful' - with or without nukes! (Buddhism SHOULD be - in principle - more peaceful. But see what has been happening lately in the Rakhine area of Burma (Myanmar), for instance! As you noted elsewhere, humans have a long history of being a stupid and violent species - we have a long road to tread before we can call ourselves 'civilised', etc. > > Hindus who developed a nuclear arsenal completely > went against Gandhi who > can no longer be claimed as their spiritual mentor. > Indians (not just 'Hindus') gave up on Gandhi as a spiritual mentor long, LONG ago! In fact, I don't believe it can be said that he ever was our spiritual mentor (except in theory; and perhaps on the annual day or two when we celebrate him as the 'Father of the Nation'). > > This is how India > became a morally degraded country, another > metaphysical slob. What a shameful development. > I agree that it is a shameful development; but you are grievously wrong in ascribing the 'moral degradation' to the act/policy developing nuclear weaponry. We became morally degraded when we accepted, without compunction, that it is 'OK' for us to have 42% of our children malnourished in the midst of plenty. Of course, there is the fact that we do (willingly or unwillingly) spend billions of our financial resources (and huge intellectual and other resources as well) towards developing nuclear weaponry rather than to put some effort into seeking practical means to ensure nourishment for all our children: THAT is TRULY degraded - but 'economics', that dismal 'non-science', also enters into this. Check out the OPMS as a practical means whereby we can fight (AND surely win) the war against nukes - fight (and perhaps win) the war to become 'civilised'. > > You'd think a great civilization like India's > wouldn't be that shallow and stupid. > 'Great civilisations' do NOT have 40% of their children malnourished! We did seem to have invented the 'idea of zero' - that was (perhaps) the last when we could claim to be a 'great civilisation'. Yes, Gandhi was an Indian - and he did develop 'satyagraha' as a practical, political tool (and that could be a great 'civilisational development'); but few (if any) of us properly appreciate the underlying power of this tool, alas; and in any case we have not not learnt how to apply it in practice on a mass scale. (There are huge philosophical issues to be explored on this issue. But practically, we just need to understand our personal and group priorities - and then work to accomplish them. One would want to believe this is a relatively simple task - but this belief is seemingly mistaken. Anyhow, do check out the OPMS approach).