Comments by "nrusimha11" (@nrusimha11) on "Reality Check | Political Groundbreaking In Ayodhya?" video.

  1. All the learned members of this panel and the distinguished anchor, many of whom I am sure look up to America as a model democracy, should start writing alarmed letters in the American press every time they see the American president lighting a Christmas tree in his residence, or when president, senators and all show up at the church to hear the National sermon from the pastor.
    5
  2. The sooner 'Indian secularism' dies, the better. In its place, may true secularism flourish, based on Sanatan Dharma ethos which welcomes all comers asking only in return that they live and let others live.
    1
  3. ​ @seemabkarbelkar3920  (It looks like my reply got deleted, apologies if you are seeing it twice). I am sorry you feel that way. Indian constitution guarantees equal rights to people of all religions, including Hindus. This is a case that has been running for 4 decades (or 5 centuries depending on how you count), and a temple is being built now after the Supreme Court gave a verdict in favour of the Hindus. This was based on extensive archaeological evidence in support of a large pre-existing temple under the Babri structure, millenia old itihaasa record of Ayodhya and Sarayu, and over five centuries old historical record of Hindu worship at the Ram Janma Bhoomi, not to mention extensive supporting evidence around the world and India of how Turkish conquerors created symbols of power in new lands they entered. If none of these satisfied you, it is unlikely that any evidence will. I won't respond further but would suggest you do this self-assessment for yourself. What is the form of evidence that would have convinced you that the verdict should have gone in favour of the Hindus? How would you have reacted if the verdict went in favour of the Muslims?
    1
  4.  sagnik Mukherjee  Appreciate your comment. But we all have to continue talking. We can't afford to disengage from each other.
    1
  5. Weakening the prestige of India's Supreme Court by suggestion, innuendo, and unsupported allegations of bias (actually, smoothly jumping from allegation to conclusion without so much as a pause), does not really suit a distinguished panel such as this.
    1