Well the Pashtunistan part was just to give you an analogy. But i live in India, have had tamils as neighbours, (learnt tamil along with my mother tongue thanks to them) and independently every ethnicity does always feel threatened. That is how humans are. We are communal and communalistic( if there exists such a word). Karunanidhi's comment was hilarious i agree. lol. However these things are bound to not go down well with anybody who has pride. Essentially Sri Lanka was a contiguous part of India a long long time back. But that is another issue. South Indians are Vaishnavites but there are plenty of Shaivaites too. So there is a good mix of everything there. I would equate the Sethusamudram to some Muslims raising questions about the demolition of the mosque at the Holy Makkah. There can be many such prickly issues. For e.g. Villagers not allowing a nuclear power generation plant to come up in a Maharashtra Village. Although no religious figure is involved here, it is a matter of us v/s them. If such situations did not arise, what work would our elected leaders have in any case.
I can't possibly agree that the Ram Setu (using the word to respect your religious sensitivity as a Vaishnavite), can be considered as holy to the Northern faith, as much as Makkah is to the Muslims. Why? Because you said the same about Babri Masjid and we can't keep using the same analogy for all and accept that this is how it works in the Hindu faith with all things being equally as holy as with Makkah.
Secondly, it's not possible for one to impose their religious belief onto those who don't believe it like the Dravidian Tamils.
But, because you're playing the "religion" card, we have to truly wonder how you can find the way to tread this line of "secularism" where there's one group of people, that attack BJP offices, alongside the police, want to connect with their kin in Sri Lanka and undergo development, simultaneously, whilst the other side wants to impose a piece of writing, which paints them as the monkeys who build the Adam's bridge, on them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZajAdXG-Nbo
The Nuclear issue has absolutely nothing analogous to the topic, at hand.
Although, it can definitely have some relevance to Pakistan's future relations with America if they gave us the same deal.
May be then, Pakistanis would be more affectionate (I still like America and Israel, but this is not in reference to a minority opinion).
I can't turn this into a Pan India discussion because there are just too many things going on. I don't think anybody's rights are trampled upon in India. There is no"independence" movement in South india. LOL. Just like sindhis and punjabis do not see eye to eye there is no love lost between Tamils and Kannadigas. India's ethnicities are as pronounced as you have in Pak. No way 4 states can gang up on the Union of India.
This is what you would call the typical North Indian attitude of being dismissive to the sentiments of those who they don't care about or find different. To be Indian, means to be North Indian and Vaishnavite, end of story. You've just confirmed it and it is depressing to note that the culture of North India, which is much more inferior to the one in the South, is being imposed on them, unashamedly.
The influence of the Vaishnavites is not as significant as you'd like to make it seem. This is called projecting. Even if it is, the Iyers are Tamil first, and Brahmin, second.
Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere, in a discussion on the Sethusamudram project being halted, Indians are in a Catch-22. You're caring about one religious group and its sentiments by not making the bridge, project, etc., whilst you're ignoring the right of those who need it built. This is a Tamil cause, not a Hindutva one.
Also, the independence sentiment, that you mock, clearly shows how lowly you think Tamils or South Indians are. This is why your culture and language is always imposed on them.
May be you were lucky enough to have learned it because of your neighbours but it was done in your personal capacity. Generally, the culture of North India is imposed on them and not the other way around. To this, I ask you, why not have the culture of South Indians adopted by all of India?
Why only give them the candy of a dozen ministries in the Cabinet every five years so you can keep going on with the United India facade?
Would you do it? Of course not. If you have the freedom of language and culture, why infringe upon their rights and freedoms to do the same?
In India, Bollywood, which is only 40% of the total films produced there, is forced upon all of India, and not the South Indian movies that are far superior (and the original source of Bollywood movies given that most of them are ripoffs from Tamil movies).
The best education institutions, and other industries that India is known for are based there but why is it that North India is always defining the term India and not the South?
Why use the Sanskrit script and not the Tamil one?
Why have more Brahmin and Hindi-speakers in the Police in Tamil Naad?
Why embarrass and humiliate the community by arresting their aging and senile leader on national television? (Karunanidhi)
Why suppress their views and not let it be heard?
Even here, you don't want us to know the plight of the Tamils.
You think that you can oppress them with ease because your fellow Sanskrit-using, Indo-Aryan Sinhala are also suppressing them on the other side of the Adam's Bridge, and Pakistanis or other neighbours don't know or care about them.
In the age of information and technology, you can think their voices will not be heard and you can continue to suppress them?
Stupid, much?
We can't sit idle whilst the worst tragedy of systematic oppression against the superior culture of Tamils is ongoing.
This goes against the lessons we were taught by our Quaid who spoke for the rights of all oppressed minority communities of India and not just Muslims.
If he was only a Muslim leader, he would never have sympathized with the Dalits and Dravidians as in the picture, above, and the Sikhs, Assamese and others, in different situations.
And sure, the people of Kannada, Telegu-speakers, Malayalam speakers and Tamils are not identical in their cultures but are much closer, being Dravidians and have much more in common than they do with those of the North. Also, the North Indians, as the MUFC (Modi United Fan Club) trolls like yourself would know, are Gujaratis (like you), Marathis, and then, there are the Hindi-speakers from UP/Bihar and Bengalis. All of these communities have much less in common with each other than do the South Indian ones.
There have been no cases where people like Raj Thackeray would've said that no Bihari can come do their worship in Maharashtra, in the South.
As shown in the original post, the independent, sovereign state of Dravidistan would have been equally welcome to all minorities, linguistic groups and ethnicities. If the same was being offered in the North Indian state, there would be no need for such lobbying and political agitation by the other communities who have clearly united as can be seen in the picture.
You also wanted the division of the lands to happen because if it didn't happen, the minority communities would have united and allowed equal representation and rights to all. But if that had happened, you wouldn't have the country to yourselves, like you do now, imposing the worst systematic discrimination in the name of "religious" sensitivities.
Also, the Sri Lankan Tamils need freedom and I've discussed and explained this to your other trolling friend on this site. I will copy-paste that here to avoid feeling the sensation of Deja Vu:
"How can Tamil Eelam be free? The Sinhala have taken over and there's no going back from this. No LTTE 2.0 can happen, now. India will have to grow ties with the Sinhala lest China and Pakistan move in. So, how do the Tamils of Eelam gain freedom?
Their cause is legitimate and even the doubters now agree that there were abuses that had justified the Tamil "cause" to start off with. We see them forcing Muslims to lose the "halal" label, despite it being available the world over in every country including the West. You can have it in every restaurant, flight, everywhere. It is a 500 billion $ industry, yet they don't allow it.
Even worse is when you see players have to convert into Buddhism to be even considered into the team. T.M. Dilshan used to be Muslim and there was another player who was Muslim in the A-team and converted to Buddhism within days just before entering the national team (he was already selected and the news broke with his real name). Their only player Farveez Maharoof was allowed because his father was an American scientist for NASA (ironically, America accepts Muslims more than Sri Lanka). It's even worse when you realize that the Muslims sided with the Buddhists, against the Tamil Tigers.
Therefore, there is definitely a bigoted mindset among the monks and the Eelam Tamils did suffer. Now, it's the Muslims' turn. Tamil Eelam will not only be a refuge for Tamils but also bilingual Muslims (Moors, Memons and Tamils).
In short, how can this freedom be achieved, if not for getting Tamil Nadu to free itself, first? Tamil Nadu's police is Brahmin/Hindi-speaking so there's a concern on "colonialism" because of this.
Asking only Eelam to be freed is like saying Northern Ireland is free whilst Ireland remains under occupation."
Coming to your personal remarks. The bibi part of it is part of who this person was. I was inspired by this 'Chand bibi'. And if i wanted to flirt, there are better options available to me. lol. You should not grudge others their little flings. So what if you don't like it that way? IMO its Charisma that can make more of an impact than intelligence.
Which is why you would be failing your fellow women by falling for charismatic and dishonourable charlatans (like myself) over educated, intelligent and, "content" men on honour.
So much for not being exploited, ladies (clap)
If you look at all the goddess images, you will see they are so beautiful and yet very strong and pure looking. Symbolism is quite pronounced in the pagan faith. South India has the matrilineal system and so does some part of east india. Meghalaya in particular. I read an article recently about these khasi tribes and the men are actually planning on getting justice for themselves. A woman can start a war, at the same time she can turn the tide too. I think there are some references to women bringing change in the world. I can't recall where i read that.
And let the third wave feminism, begin. (clap)
You're a polytheist so might not be able to answer this question as it does not apply to you but may be you can still answer as to why if "god" is a female, the devil is not?
Why use the feminine pronoun for "God" but not for the devil? God is "she" but devil is "he"?
Does this new wave of feminism, that wants to have it all, give equal rights or at least think fairly?
Also, why are we stuck with trying to find the greatness of women in caricatures of goddesses stepping on the chests of males and not in traditional, middle-class women who raise great children and men like Jinnah, Ambedkar, Periyar?
Why are feminists so restricted in finding greatness for their womanhood in those things that are characteristically masculine in nature?
Aren't you indirectly, accepting that greatness is inherent in being male, which is something you are attempting to fight against, so painstakingly?
It would make more sense if you had found pride in the characteristics, society has already attributed to women and consider that as a source of pride?
No wonder feminism failed :lol:
The failed feminist mothers are trying to fulfill their concocted ideology through their daughters who can be seen loving men and hate their mothers.
They're rebelling against the original "rebels" who teach them to spin everything into favouring women but when it comes to their personal instincts, women rebel against their female friends and mothers to show "weakness" to that one guy they "had always wanted". At this pace, lesbians will be the only feminists left in this world.
This is an unfortunate culture the feminists have created, themselves.
Now, although, their daughters believe "men are dogs", they just don't know why they can't stop "dying" over them and hate their mothers so much?
So much for vaginal solidarity. [hilar]
It's women, as most feminists have clearly and accurately pointed out, that are the worst enemies of women and not men, in that they get jealous of them and try to attribute their intelligence and competence to their perceived manipulation in "sleeping their way to the top".
There's no unity amongst the women except for maybe the synchronization of periods if they live together, long enough.
Like India, women only unite in their opposition to one foe, which is man (in our Indian analogy, this man would be Pakistan (bigsmile)).
Being a feminist, would you still take offense in having your nation being called a combination of women and Pakistan being called a man?
Polyandry is an interesting concept too. I mean i can imagine what it might mean to be a bone of contention between two or more men. LOL. Goes against the male instinct of possession and possessiveness. Polygamy may have religious sanction but again it is a personal choice people make, even where their religion will not permit them.
Also goes against biology in that it's not possible to find out who the father is unlike polygamy where both parents can be found, easily and without paternal tests. In polyandry, how can one find the father?
Polygamy is more common in India than you would like to think but this is not a debate on the ease with which Indian men are able to juggle their lives between more than one woman, now, is it?
Men are not as possessive as women, who are biologically more possessive in that they "possess" an external being for 9-months, deliver it to the world and have it suckle on her for a couple years.
But yes, men feel possessive of their women and their children, which is why they give them their last names. By your logic, your spouse is your owner unless you showed your "empowerment" vis-a-vis men, by continuing to keep the last name of your father. [hilar]
Why take one man's last name and not the other's? Do the feminists know? No.
Here's feminism for you. (clap)
Why would someone come up with alternate system like the Nikah mutah in Iran?
Cleverly trying to create sectarianism in response to supposed underlying sectarianism being promoted in India with the threads I've been posting?
I would disallow you to do this, unless, of course, it reaches the same heights among the Vaishnavites and the Shaivites, as it has in Pakistan. Then, may be, you can fan these flames. Till then, let us do it ;)
On a more serious note, the answers I got about what is otherwise called "temporary marriage" was that it is not something majority of them do and most Shiites distance themselves from this and the practice. You would already know the feelings of the Iranian-moderates on this topic so I won't discuss that.
Also, temporary marriage, which I disagree with, in principle (and you would too being a feminist) is not a replacement for polygamy as you were trying to show. It is nonsensical to assume that it is, but its not like you knew what it was, anyway.
You just threw a simplified anti-Pakistan, flamebaiting talking point taught to you by the so-called Hindutva polemecists. Nothing was achieved, though as I am very cautious of Indians, subconsciously tricking us into diverting the topic on India.
I am still sticking to Tamil rights, as preached by Periyar. ;)
I like lulu land better than lala land. Gender discrimination perhaps. HAHAHA.
To me it seems you're discriminating from the wrong side. La la sounds like a very flowery, eloquent and pretty thing (and it is;)) whilst lulu sounds rough, aggressive and warrior-like (like the Zulus) [hilar]
