Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Sensible article on Toilet vs. Place of worship issue

An unexceptionable article by
Joel Rai in Rediff on the lack of sanitary amenities in India - "Secular", Socialist Nehruvian Stalinist India. I feel that NaMo could have taken this line - without making the totally unnecessary
and gratuitous references to Temples. That would have been
practical - in contradistinction to
the idiotic derivation formulated by footsoldiers of the Nehruvian Stalinist party like Jairam Ramesh.

Besides, it would be fair to question the priority accorded to
a certain statue building project in Gujarat, when such a large proportion of the nation's population is compelled to defecate in open air. Perhaps, Gujarat is a toilet surplus state!

If so, I believe we need to inculcate a national perspective about these issues - and encourage toilet building across the country before building massive iron statues of any leader, howsoever great he may have been.

http://m.rediff.com/news/report/toilet-vs-temple-debate-reveals-indias-dirty-picture/20131015.htm



3 comments:

san said...

Cleanliness is next to Godliness. It's rather incongruous that India has more cellphones than toilets. It indicates misplaced priorities, even among the people. Sanitation and plumbing were one of the hallmark inventions of the Roman Empire. That fact that Indians can't even get something basic like sanitation right says something about the country.

Pagan said...

Even Vietnam is building modern sanitation and flood control system. While our taxes go into building Rahul baba's vote bank.

nizhal yoddha said...

two facts:

1. modi said 'devalaya=places of worship', not
'mandir=temples'. so he is being inclusive, indicting all religions

2. temples have traditionally been the centers of village social and economic activity. thus the local temple managed a) water conservation, b) drought and famine relief, c) earthworks and dams etc. during earlier times. temples ceased to be these only because the nehruvians started expropriating their funds and starving them (and the british before them started stealing their lands). thus the racial memory of hindus donating money to temples for social works is quite a correct memory -- before the muslims/christians invaded, temples were safe repositories for wealth, which would be used in times of emergency. invading hindu kings would not attack temples.