an example of subtle bias on wikipedia

I’ll jump right into it. Check out the following article on Wikipedia I have recently come across

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambuka

Then, check out the “discussions” tab and the “history” in each of those. For the latter, I noticed two anti-Hindu websites were being linked to, as proponents of “Dalit rights” groups. Also, the wording of the second article made it seem like Shri Ram, a kshatriya (warrior), had it in for Shambuka and killed him because he was from a lower “caste” yet performed a religious ritual reserved for a Brahmin. Now as a Hindu I am totally against casteism in all its evil forms, however for the Dalit websites in question to 1. pin this on Ram as a caste thing, when in the time of the Ramayana there was no “caste” as we see it today (rather there was “jati”) and 2. pin this as a blackspot on Hinduism when there was no such religion is ridiculous.

Is being angry bad?

Generally, anger is categorized as quite a negative emotion. Not only is it “bad” physiologically (high blood pressure, hormonal release, etc.) but psychologically the phenomenon of anger invites a host of less desireable afflictions. Why, then would one want to blog about being angry, that too injecting the “Hindu” tag? Isn’t Hinduism associated with peace, love, and the Beatles?

Right on, brothers and sisters. But sometimes anger is a good thing. Sometimes it can be channeled into a useful force- a force for change. Be it Arjun on Kurukshetra, Gandhi in South Africa or King in Alabama, the visceral rise in emotion was followed closely by action. Positive, sustained, well-thought action.

This, then, is a call to action. The words you read and hopefully the dialogue that ensues may make your blood boil, it may increase your heart rate, it may release noradrenaline into your blood stream.

Good. Now what are you going to do about it?