Comments on: “Obhangra”: In pursuit of the desi voter

By: lurker

lurker — Mon, 07 May 2007 19:03:32 +0000

“Hmmmm. I wonder if there will be any cute, politically active, single women at the Obhangra. Balle Balle.” soo cute

By: Avi

Avi — Sun, 06 May 2007 20:11:28 +0000

The site also serves to address current trends in American politics, for example with articles focusing on Bobby Jindal, the Republican senator from Louisiana, Bharat O'Bama(sic) as well as other prominent politicians in the Western world.

In the Wikipedia entry for Sepia Mutiny.

By: south asian who

south asian who — Sun, 06 May 2007 17:27:49 +0000

Kalavai, do not take the anti-hindu bait.

Just look at all the upper caste fuktards who populate SM. \"Upper caste\" scum such as Nehru, Basu, Buddhadeb, all fall in the same category of looters. In contrast the performance of \"lower castes\" such as Modi and Bharati has been more than exemplary.

By: Kalavai Venkat

Kalavai Venkat — Sun, 06 May 2007 17:01:13 +0000

That casteism (and child slave labor etc) continues to be an issue in India is because India is a failed nation-state that is too weak to enforce its laws.

Pathetic. Break India up into egalitarian shudra republics! Reviving Dravdastan I suppose? The fact is that since Mandal it is OBC dullards who have been running the Indian state apparatus. This is why India has made negligible progress on the Human Development Index while demonstrating outstanding private-sector growth. The OBC shudras don’t care for literacy or for the Dalits, its all about filling up their suitcases with as much loot as possible.

By: HMF

HMF — Sun, 06 May 2007 15:37:04 +0000

The goals were the same...free labor...but yes there were philosophical, ideologic differences too and possibly that led to differences in day to day experience (I don't know).

I disagree somewhat. One had assigned a temporary nature towards it, the other did not. The US slave system never acknowledged the humanity of the slave, in any form. But, in the short term, yes, free labor was the goal.

By: avishkar

avishkar — Sun, 06 May 2007 13:29:35 +0000

Didn’t anna call him “Bharat O’Bama” in another post? All those B’s make him dangerously pun-adelic.

By: Rahul

Rahul — Sun, 06 May 2007 11:24:53 +0000

And, if not for those pesky term limits, we would have had:

Chokris for Clinton Jhaadoos for George (you know to sweep all the brush he's cleared)

And, for the first non-candidate who shall be elected as president, we present:

Phillums for Fred

By: Amitabh

Amitabh — Sat, 05 May 2007 22:06:57 +0000

when in fact, they are two different beasts, with different goals. One was to subjugate with absolutely no intention of freedom ever, it was acknowledgement of sub-human status, with the implication that human status would and could never be reached. This is the backdrop. I'm not sure if the Arabic slave trade falls meticulously in the same category.

The goals were the same...free labor...but yes there were philosophical, ideologic differences too and possibly that led to differences in day to day experience (I don't know).

By: siddhartha

siddhartha — Sat, 05 May 2007 19:08:32 +0000

True, HMF, and I think I largely agree with you on that particular point. I’m just pointing out more broadly how easily discussions get twisted by ideology and diverted into sideshows. Sometimes it’s OK to admit that we are facing the unknown.

By: HMF

HMF — Sat, 05 May 2007 18:58:21 +0000

I’ll acquiesce I entered the discusion much after, and really wasn’t making a statement on validity or usefulness of nationstates, rather responding to an often made claim that “Africa had slavery too!” when in fact, they are two different beasts, with different goals. One was to subjugate with absolutely no intention of freedom ever, it was acknowledgement of sub-human status, with the implication that human status would and could never be reached. This is the backdrop. I’m not sure if the Arabic slave trade falls meticulously in the same category.