Re: [IAC++] Anna Hazare is himself his own biggest enemy

Mister

You know nothing about the hisstory of Islam in India. Islam had been in India since 800 AD and very much before the Babar who conqered India in 1500 or so maybe. Even before that for 300 years Muslims kings were ruling the India. since 1200.  Why you had forgoten loddhis, Sayyids, Khaljis, Tughlaqs etc  How about the Mahmoud of Ghori ? You can keep imagineing that Muslims rules in India only starts with Babar. You can keep talking language of your Mahatma Gandhi and  keep it up your ghand-i. Today nation only needs action of banana cutters to solve the curruption problem. Now thanks to Dr. Roy we know where to buy them also.

Mohd Ali Baig
IAC, dist coordinator

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:56 PM, kalyanam sundaresan <ask_maadhyama@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear Mr. Sarbajit Roy, I beg to disagree with you on your references on Religions when we are working how to root out corruption in the country.  I beg to remind you that before Babur came to India or Bharath or Hindustan whatever name you call it, there was only one Religion viz., the HINDU Religion. So, where is the question of "India is always a Secular Country when there was only one Religion viz., the HINDU Religion in the Country at that time.   Of course Hindu Religion divided by various offshoots like Budhdha, Sikh, Jain etc. Babur brought Islam to India and tarnished the Hindu culture/way of life and demolished and looted lot temples and built Mosque thereon. History says how many times Gajini Mohammed waged war against India and looted and demolished the temples and taken away the wealth from India. Then came the Christians  who  colonized the country to the British Monarch. After the Independence, the Framers of the Constitution decided that India should be a Secular Country instead of declaring it as Hindustan.  If it is  Hindustan as claimed by you, India  should be a "Hindu Country" viz., "Non-Secular".  So, your version of "Hindustan" and "Secular" and "India always Secular" is conflicting. India was declared as "Secular Country after Independence and framing the Constitution. In fact, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the first President of the Independent India was in total disagreement with the Framers of the Constitution in declaring India as a "Secular state".    If I am wrong please correct me.  Your reply to Shri Navnith Krishnan is totally unparliamentary and undemocratic.  You must mind your words when you reply.  You cannot become emotional and use unparliamentary words to a very responsible Member of IAC.  It only shows your highhandedness  and autocratic way of functioning of the  IAC National Convenor.  You are most welcome to forcibly put-forth your views in a most democratic  manner/language without offending others feelings.  If am wrong please correct me.  After all, we are all joined together from different part of the country without seeing face to face and knowing each other for a social cause to root out Corruption which is affecting the Political and Economic Developments in the Country for which lakhs of most honest, committed and patriotic citizens are toiling day and night.    During the Freedom struggle. Mahathma Gandhi said, "A War is forced on us and We should fight and Win it without Bloodshed".  Similarly, the War on Corruption started by all Patriotic, Honest and Committed Citizens should be Won without wounding others feelings. People who respond to the call of India Against Corruption are all most respected, experienced in various fields and more matured Citizens.  Some of them may be Senior Citizens.  Each and every individual have their own experience and knowledge of their respective field of working and  different fields also. Mr. Navnith Krishnan is a very Senior Citizen with lot of experience in various fields.    As a National Convenor of of IAC, my humble request to you, whatever may be the provocation of individuals, you should only correct them politely without offending their feelings.  With Best Regards, A.S.KALYANAM