Talk:Bineshwar Brahma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[1] refers to Brahma as a MLA and former AASU leader. However I can't find anything at www.eci.gov.in to back that up. Any idea? --Soman 14:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu Martyrs?

I, which is clear from recent edit history, disagree with categorization of Brahma as a 'Hindu Martyr'. Nor does the recently added link give any more light on the issue. Martyrdom, as a religious concept, goes beyond just belonging to a community and being killed by political opponents hailing from another community, even if religious or communal identities contributed to the motivation behind the killing.

If the the death of Brahma is introduced into religious practice, say if a shire was erected in his honour, annual prayers were held on the date of his death, then it could be possible to categorize him as a 'Hindu martyr', since his death would then have been given a religious significance. --Soman 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been provided to assert his religious preferences, and other users have seemed to agree with me rather than a user bent on emptying references to Hinduism from pages on wikipedia. They murdered Brahma precisely because he was the most outspoken Hindu leader among the Bodos and for allegedly being close to the allegedly "Hindu nationalist" BJP. A martyr by definition is a "person who is put to death or endures suffering because of a belief, principle or cause". His principle was devanagari, his belief was Hinduism, both earned him the hatred of terrorists, and he was murdered.Bakaman 19:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You might feel, and that is a legitimate feeling, that Brahma in fact is a martyr. But that feeling, even if shared by columnists and published journalists on line, is not ground for encyclopediatic categorization. If we were to follow that example any mujahedin killed in Kashmir would be categorized as an Islamic martyr based on a column by Jamaat follower in a Pak newspaper.

A differentiation needs to be made here. If martyrs are to be categorized by religion, then there only logical delimitation is that of religious practice. Thus 'Hindu martyr' is not the same as 'Hindu'+'martyr'. Martyrdom is never an objective criteria, it is always a postconstruct. It is not the issue on which grounds someone was killed, but in which ways he/she is remembered by the survivors.

Pavel Morozov comes to mind here. It is highly disputable regarding the actual reason behind his killing. That however, did not stop Soviet authorities to launch massive campaigns around his martyrdom. Streets and schools were named after Pavel throughout the Soviet Union, commemorative artwork and articles published in his honour, statues erected, etc.. Pavel became a martyr, not by the conditions of his actual death, but through the way political forces choiced to project the conditions of his death. Pavel's death became introduced in political practice, through commemorations etc.. What is needed for inclusion in a martyrs category on religious basis is any source given that the death of a person is introduced in religious practice. --Soman 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing martyrdom with martyr. Martyrdom is the act of reverence for a martyr, a martyr need not be commemorated. Also, reliable sources to back up assertions have been provided time and time again. It seems the only solution you will accept is all references to Hinduism removed and the whole cat deleted, since you dont take issues with martyrs in christianity or even bhindranwale. You have merely proved here that you are unwilling to compromise and that discussion with you will not come to fruition.Bakaman 19:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2006_December_31#Category:Hindu_martyrs and [2]. The Christian martyrs page needs a gross rewrite from bottom to top, to rid it from gross pov issues. I just don't know were to start with that one. --Soman 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So cleansing the Hindu cat first right, is that the secular thing to do? At least these are backed up by reliable sources, actions speak louder than words, your professed "impartiality" is quite contrary to your actions.Bakaman 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its all part of a giant, international conspiracy. --Soman 20:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)