Hate is poisoning Indian society — and many refuse to see it

[cricketjoshila]

The article is from june. Judgement declaring no proof came few days ago.

It came in cases related to a few in Maharashtra only.

FYI Mumbai HC has jurisdiction only in Maha.

 

[Yossarian]

Good post. Explains why hindus have this chip on their shoulder regarding muslims.

My theory about muslims not liking hindus is because hindus lacked the qualities which muslims appreciate, even in an enemy, like bravery and self respect. Muslims have had fierce battles with Christians, and in the subcontinent, with sikhs, who earned their respect as worthy opponents. While hindus were known for sly nature, the baniya mentality, the chanikya doctrine ( the hindu machiavelli) which the proud and dignified muslims could never respect. Of course, this is only a generalization and there are exceptions.

They don't have the same level of chip on their shoulder in regards to the (white) British. This could partly be explained by the fact that the British rule is fairly recent in historical terms, and the desire to please the white christian sahib ji has not yet completely disappeared from the Hindu psyche, and of course the desire to look like their former masters, as can be seen by the fixation with lighter skin tones and not venturing out into the sun. As mentioned earlier, both the Christians and Muslims have created great empires through conquests, and of course suffered defeats resulting in losing the said empires. ie They've tasted both victories and defeats. They've ruled, and been ruled over.

The Hindus on the other hand, have only ever seen Christians and Muslims as their masters, and never the other way around.

 

[Mesozoic]

They don't have the same level of chip on their shoulder in regards to the (white) British. This could partly be explained by the fact that the British rule is fairly recent in historical terms, and the desire to please the white christian sahib ji has not yet completely disappeared from the Hindu psyche, and of course the desire to look like their former masters, as can be seen by the fixation with lighter skin tones and not venturing out into the sun. As mentioned earlier, both the Christians and Muslims have created great empires through conquests, and of course suffered defeats resulting in losing the said empires. ie They've tasted both victories and defeats. They've ruled, and been ruled over.

Why would anyone carry a chip for what happened centuries ago?

Do pakistanis still carry a chip for the Bangladesh humiliation? Or vice versa? No right? ;Because people move on or have much more important things to do.

And the fixation with light skin is not only limited to Indians, but the whole of the sub continent, Middle East and even East Asia. You're just way too ignorant if you thing otherwise.

 

[Madplayer]

It came in cases related to a few in Maharashtra only.

FYI Mumbai HC has jurisdiction only in Maha.

So the other foreigners will remain blacklisted or is the jury still out on them?

 

[Yossarian]

Why would anyone carry a chip for what happened centuries ago?

Do pakistanis still carry a chip for the Bangladesh humiliation? Or vice versa? No right? ;Because people move on or have much more important things to do.

And the fixation with light skin is not only limited to Indians, but the whole of the sub continent, Middle East and even East Asia. You're just way too ignorant if you thing otherwise.

You 'accidentally' omitted the last line of my post when you quoted it. Here, let me correct the omission for you.

The Hindus on the other hand, have only ever seen Christians and Muslims as their masters, and never the other way around.

 

[CricketCartoons]

They don't have the same level of chip on their shoulder in regards to the (white) British. This could partly be explained by the fact that the British rule is fairly recent in historical terms, and the desire to please the white christian sahib ji has not yet completely disappeared from the Hindu psyche, and of course the desire to look like their former masters, as can be seen by the fixation with lighter skin tones and not venturing out into the sun. As mentioned earlier, both the Christians and Muslims have created great empires through conquests, and of course suffered defeats resulting in losing the said empires. ie They've tasted both victories and defeats. They've ruled, and been ruled over.

The Hindus on the other hand, have only ever seen Christians and Muslims as their masters, and never the other way around.

Your posts explains why christians and muslims, though traditional rivals, don't have a complex regarding each other. As both have ruled and been ruled by each other.

It was only after democracy was introduced in india, which gives equal weight to the brave and the coward, the honest and the sly, the self respecting and the spineless, did hindus get advantage over muslims. Even then they are having problem subjugating muslims, because even though the muslims lack numbers, they don't lack a spine and can give a good fightback. And that is making the hindus hateful. Of course, it does not include all hindus (some are really peaceful).

 

[Greenstorm]

Your posts explains why christians and muslims, though traditional rivals, don't have a complex regarding each other. As both have ruled and been ruled by each other.

It was only after democracy was introduced in india, which gives equal weight to the brave and the coward, the honest and the sly, the self respecting and the spineless, did hindus get advantage over muslims. Even then they are having problem subjugating muslims, because even though the muslims lack numbers, they don't lack a spine and can give a good fightback. And that is making the hindus hateful. Of course, it does not include all hindus (some are really peaceful).

You are right that generally Muslims even when lacking in numbers put up a strong resistance but Indian Muslims are unique in this regard that despite being a sizeable minority (largest in Muslim world), they are being lynched and humiliated by feeble Hindu mobs.

 

[Mesozoic]

You 'accidentally' omitted the last line of my post when you quoted it. Here, let me correct the omission for you.

So you have no response to my question.

As expected. Cheers!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I never said physical violence is welcomed. Inside the legal framework, if some one opposes the marriage between Hindu and Muslims, then he should be allowed to speak same as anyone who supports Hindu and Muslim marriage should be allowed to speak.

I gave the example because, I believe ahmedis should be allow to voice their opinion that they are Muslims while non ahmedi Muslims should be allowed to speak that they are not. But the way people reacts when an ahmedi calls himself Muslims, the hatred that is seen, is much bigger and dangerous than above case.

I haven't read the thread through properly, still catching up today, but was quite surprised to see a thread about hatred in India suddenly switched to Ahmedis in Pakistan, that too by a hindu atheist.

Well ok maybe not that surprised.

Well actually not surprised at all. Carry on.

 

[smkk]

Good post. Explains why hindus have this chip on their shoulder regarding muslims.

My theory about muslims not liking hindus is because hindus lacked the qualities which muslims appreciate, even in an enemy, like bravery and self respect. Muslims have had fierce battles with Christians, and in the subcontinent, with sikhs, who earned their respect as worthy opponents. While hindus were known for sly nature, the baniya mentality, the chanikya doctrine ( the hindu machiavelli) which the proud and dignified muslims could never respect. Of course, this is only a generalization and there are exceptions.

As a muslim, I disagree with you bro. There were many hindus who fought aganist Muslim with bravery and self-respect. Maharana Prathap, Prithviraj Chauhan etc. are the one whom we do see in negative ligth but respect them none the less. And I am sure Muslims of that time, also consider them their equals and respect them as well.

All the attributes they you just describe hindus were (sly nature, spineless etc.), there is only one group of people we found in this world, and never use to consider them to be our equal or opponent. For such huge blunder we paid dearly, and under their conspiracies we lost all our empires. The jews.

But even them deserve tremendous respect, with only a fraction of population of christian and muslim world, one they fully control and another they fully suppresed. Hats off to their intelligence, mind game and their conspiracies.

Fortunately Muslims are starting to recognise them in this generation, and trying counter them through diplomacy and mind game instead of brute force.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

You are right that generally Muslims even when lacking in numbers put up a strong resistance but Indian Muslims are unique in this regard that despite being a sizeable minority (largest in Muslim world), they are being lynched and humiliated by feeble Hindu mobs.

Indian Muslims lack spine because they were converted to Islam from the same spineless Hindus.
Changing religion does not give a new spine.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Indian Muslims lack spine because they were converted to Islam from the same spineless Hindus.
Changing religion does not give a new spine.

Then Islam is no threat in India. Why do Indian diaspora spend so much time debating Islam on discussion forums all around the world?

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Then Islam is no threat in India. Why do Indian diaspora spend so much time debating Islam on discussion forums all around the world?

The spineless can be radicalized and modern tech can be used to cause destruction. Also this is not 16th century where you need bravery and muscle to bully weaklings.

 

[MenInG]

ISLAMABAD: President Dr Arif Alvi on Sunday lashed out at Indian society over-anti Muslim attitude, slamming that only a "retrograde society” like India could encourage the promotion of RSS-inspired extremist and nefarious ideology of Hindutva and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The president said this on Twitter commenting on a tweet by an Indian journalist Rana Ayyub’s tweet who shared an advertisement of a residential apartment available for rent in a posh Mumbai locality with a clear refusal for Muslims and pets.

Read more: PM Imran Khan slams French President Macron, says he 'deliberately provoked' Muslims

The president said even in the 21st century, the Indian state is backing such bigotry.

“Muslims and Pets not allowed. This is one of the poshest addresses in Mumbai, Bandra. This is 20th century India. Remind me we are not a communal nation, tell me this is not apartheid,” commented the journalist who works for The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other international media outlets.

She said she had been house hunting in Bandra for the last three months. Upon reading ‘Shaikh’ as her surname, she got a call from the broker on behalf of the owner with the ‘most obnoxious excuse.’

Ayyub was endorsed by another journalist Vaishna Roy of The Hindu saying that while looking for a house in Chennai, the most common question she was asked whether she was Muslim.

“If I had been (a Muslim), a good percentage of homes would have been unavailable for me. The brokers say, sorry madam, we don't want to ask but the owner told us to,” she said.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The spineless can be radicalized and modern tech can be used to cause destruction. Also this is not 16th century where you need bravery and muscle to bully weaklings.

Agreed. Now a weakling can use anonymity and pilot drones to compensate for their cowardice. One could almost say it is the era of the geedhar.

 

[cricketjoshila]

In last few days,

Hindus should agree to give their daughters to muslims else they are extremist.

Hindus should give up their right to vote who they want but vote according to muslim sentiments else they are extremist.

Hindus have no right to decide who they want to rent out their property to, if they dont give it to muslims they are extremist.

If this is secularism, i dont want this kind of secularism.

 

[cricketjoshila]

ISLAMABAD: President Dr Arif Alvi on Sunday lashed out at Indian society over-anti Muslim attitude, slamming that only a "retrograde society” like India could encourage the promotion of RSS-inspired extremist and nefarious ideology of Hindutva and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The president said this on Twitter commenting on a tweet by an Indian journalist Rana Ayyub’s tweet who shared an advertisement of a residential apartment available for rent in a posh Mumbai locality with a clear refusal for Muslims and pets.

Read more: PM Imran Khan slams French President Macron, says he 'deliberately provoked' Muslims

The president said even in the 21st century, the Indian state is backing such bigotry.

“Muslims and Pets not allowed. This is one of the poshest addresses in Mumbai, Bandra. This is 20th century India. Remind me we are not a communal nation, tell me this is not apartheid,” commented the journalist who works for The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other international media outlets.

She said she had been house hunting in Bandra for the last three months. Upon reading ‘Shaikh’ as her surname, she got a call from the broker on behalf of the owner with the ‘most obnoxious excuse.’

Ayyub was endorsed by another journalist Vaishna Roy of The Hindu saying that while looking for a house in Chennai, the most common question she was asked whether she was Muslim.

“If I had been (a Muslim), a good percentage of homes would have been unavailable for me. The brokers say, sorry madam, we don't want to ask but the owner told us to,” she said.

Hindus reserve the right to decide who they rent out their property. Most hindus Jains Sikhs wont rent out to Muslims because of beef eating issues and on top of that vacacting a property from a unwilling muslim tenant is far more difficult than a non muslim one.

Just because Ayub wants no one will give up their rights.

Is Arif Alvi not concerned about his own minorities?

 

[BreadPakoda]

In last few days,

Hindus should agree to give their daughters to muslims else they are extremist.

Hindus should give up their right to vote who they want but vote according to muslim sentiments else they are extremist.

Hindus have no right to decide who they want to rent out their property to, if they dont give it to muslims they are extremist.

If this is secularism, i dont want this kind of secularism.

Few questions.

1) What do you mean by “giving their daughters” to Muslims? Do Hindu parents own their daughters and decide their fate or are the daughters not free to chose who they want to marry?

2) So you are saying it’s ok not to rent out your property to someone only because of their religion? Do you consider such an act discrimination (and you’re fine with being discriminatory) or do you feel this isn’t discrimination at all?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

In last few days,

Hindus should agree to give their daughters to muslims else they are extremist.

Hindus should give up their right to vote who they want but vote according to muslim sentiments else they are extremist.

Hindus have no right to decide who they want to rent out their property to, if they dont give it to muslims they are extremist.

If this is secularism, i dont want this kind of secularism.

1. The modern world has moved on so that the concepts of families disagreeing to their kids getting married is now extremist. Leaving the hindu/muslim side, nowadays if w child expresses their desire to marry someone of their choice and the parents clamp down on it, its seen as extremist. The concept of 'giving' daughters is also seen as outdated. Fwiw its something Its a sentiment that I agree with as I would prefer my family members married only muslims....but yeah its seen as extreme by wider society.


2. Hindus can vote for who they want but if they vote for extreme parties they will get called extremists.

3. Do you not think its wrong to discriminate based on religion? I mean refusing to rent a property to someone just because they are a different religion is pretty extreme.


Why dont you just admit you want hindu style nationalism? Its quite clear you have a visceral dislike towards muslims.

 

[CricketCartoons]

1. The modern world has moved on so that the concepts of families disagreeing to their kids getting married is now extremist. Leaving the hindu/muslim side, nowadays if w child expresses their desire to marry someone of their choice and the parents clamp down on it, its seen as extremist. The concept of 'giving' daughters is also seen as outdated. Fwiw its something Its a sentiment that I agree with as I would prefer my family members married only muslims....but yeah its seen as extreme by wider society.


2. Hindus can vote for who they want but if they vote for extreme parties they will get called extremists.

3. Do you not think its wrong to discriminate based on religion? I mean refusing to rent a property to someone just because they are a different religion is pretty extreme.


Why dont you just admit you want hindu style nationalism? Its quite clear you have a visceral dislike towards muslims.

1 is not extremism. it is conservatism. Maybe in the woke culture everything that they dislike has to be called extremist, fascist or nazi like.

3. It may be wrong for someone and right for someone. Discrimination is everywhere. If a community is endogamous, that is discrimination against other communities, but is totally OK. If you own private resources, it is your right to discriminate on sharing those resources. The govt should not discriminate, because its resources are public, not private.

 

[CricketCartoons]

2) So you are saying it’s ok not to rent out your property to someone only because of their religion? Do you consider such an act discrimination (and you’re fine with being discriminatory) or do you feel this isn’t discrimination at all?

If a landlord has no pets policy, isn't that discrimination against pet owners?
If a landlord wants only a family, isn't that discrimination against bachelors?
Discrimination doesn't mean hatred. it means distinguishing between available choices. and as a private property owner, the landlord is well within his rights to distinguish.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

In last few days,

Hindus should agree to give their daughters to muslims else they are extremist.

Hindus should give up their right to vote who they want but vote according to muslim sentiments else they are extremist.

Hindus have no right to decide who they want to rent out their property to, if they dont give it to muslims they are extremist.

If this is secularism, i dont want this kind of secularism.

Most of us already know you don't want secularism, it is pretty evident in your support for a hindutva govt. And actually that is ok, you are entitled to support whoever you want.

 

[Greenstorm]

As a muslim, I disagree with you bro. There were many hindus who fought aganist Muslim with bravery and self-respect. Maharana Prathap, Prithviraj Chauhan etc. are the one whom we do see in negative ligth but respect them none the less. And I am sure Muslims of that time, also consider them their equals and respect them as well.

All the attributes they you just describe hindus were (sly nature, spineless etc.), there is only one group of people we found in this world, and never use to consider them to be our equal or opponent. For such huge blunder we paid dearly, and under their conspiracies we lost all our empires. The jews.

But even them deserve tremendous respect, with only a fraction of population of christian and muslim world, one they fully control and another they fully suppresed. Hats off to their intelligence, mind game and their conspiracies.

Fortunately Muslims are starting to recognise them in this generation, and trying counter them through diplomacy and mind game instead of brute force.

I don't believe that Muslims respect Hindus even as enemies. An average Muslim hardly knows the names of Hindu rulers you mentioned and why should he ? Prithvi Chauhan had a far larger army, yet was defeated on his home ground by Ghouri.

CricketCartoon is right with his observation regarding how Muslims generally view Hindus. Terms like baniya, baghal mein churri gives an idea about common perception.

A Christian crusader had far more respect then a Kumar serving in some Hindu maharaja's army.

 

[JaDed]

I don't believe that Muslims respect Hindus even as enemies. An average Muslim hardly knows the names of Hindu rulers you mentioned and why should he ? Prithvi Chauhan had a far larger army, yet was defeated on his home ground by Ghouri.

CricketCartoon is right with his observation regarding how Muslims generally view Hindus. Terms like baniya, baghal mein churri gives an idea about common perception.

A Christian crusader had far more respect then a Kumar serving in some Hindu maharaja's army.

Good to know that you think Kings are to be respectful coz they were brutal, it also clears why the insecure Hindutva are brainwashed when this is probably what they would fed as well.
[MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION] this is why i think there is hate -the superiority complex for the brutal rulers.

 

[Greenstorm]

Then Islam is no threat in India. Why do Indian diaspora spend so much time debating Islam on discussion forums all around the world?

Because it's spineless vs spineless so that evens it out.

 

[Greenstorm]

Good to know that you think Kings are to be respectful coz they were brutal, it also clears why the insecure Hindutva are brainwashed when this is probably what they would fed as well.

[MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION] this is why i think there is hate -the superiority complex for the brutal rulers.

It is power that deserves respect, not brutality.

Insecure hindutva are not brainwashed. The hate that they exhbit in mobs and behind keyboards is just a natural reaction after centuries of humiliation.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Good to know that you think Kings are to be respectful coz they were brutal, it also clears why the insecure Hindutva are brainwashed when this is probably what they would fed as well.

[MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION] this is why i think there is hate -the superiority complex for the brutal rulers.

In those days there was no UN ( granted UN is not useful even now) and development was a zero sum game. You could only become stronger and more prosperous by expanding your kingdom. If a king was not brutal, his kingdom wouldn't last. And no matter how brutal a king was, the main question was: Did he help advance your civilization or not? Mughals helped advance the muslim civilization. As a hindu, I hold scars of what they did to my civilization and will always hate them, but if a hindu ruler had done the same to muslims, I would be proud of that ruler. Of course, in todays age I would not gloat about the brutality, but I would always be thankful that the ruler helped advance my civilization. I don't have to be apologetic or politically correct about it.

 

[JaDed]

In those days there was no UN ( granted UN is not useful even now) and development was a zero sum game. You could only become stronger and more prosperous by expanding your kingdom. If a king was not brutal, his kingdom wouldn't last. And no matter how brutal a king was, the main question was: Did he help advance your civilization or not? Mughals helped advance the muslim civilization. As a hindu, I hold scars of what they did to my civilization and will always hate them, but if a hindu ruler had done the same to muslims, I would be proud of that ruler. Of course, in todays age I would not gloat about the brutality, but I would always be thankful that the ruler helped advance my civilization. I don't have to be apologetic or politically correct about it.

You don’t have to be apologetic but I’m pretty sure there is gloating as visible among most posters here.

Also the question as to how religion is similar to ethnicity, in terms religion can be spread across ethnicity, why would a Bengali Hindu care about the rule of Marathi one? In that logic are the Tamil Hindus your role models for their advancement in “Hindu” Culture down south not diluted by Mughals?

 

[JaDed]

It is power that deserves respect, not brutality.

Insecure hindutva are not brainwashed. The hate that they exhbit in mobs and behind keyboards is just a natural reaction after centuries of humiliation.

Naw I think you are brainwashed as well to believe in superiority of kings centuries ago, similar to insecurity of these Hindutva ones.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You don’t have to be apologetic but I’m pretty sure there is gloating as visible.

Also the question as to how religion is similar to ethnicity, in terms religion can be spread across ethnicity, why would a Bengali Hindu care about the rule of Marathi one? In that logic are the Tamil Hindus your role models for their advancement in “Hindu” Culture down south not diluted by Mughals?

It seems you favour ethnicity over religion, but unfortunately your ethnics bond didn't hold and was easily broken apart by religion. Of course, I respect Tamil Hindus contribution to our civilization. I am only against those ramasamy followers. Keep watching the development in TN....have worked hard for a year and will continue what I came here for.

 

[JaDed]

It seems you favour ethnicity over religion, but unfortunately your ethnics bond didn't hold and was easily broken apart by religion. Of course, I respect Tamil Hindus contribution to our civilization. I am only against those ramasamy followers. Keep watching the development in TN....have worked hard for a year and will continue what I came here for.

I never see you extend any respect toward Tamil Kings but insecurity seems to be high towards defeats of Rajputs, Marathas.

I do believe in ethnic lines over religious ones, national ones over religious ones as well.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I never see you extend any respect toward Tamil Kings but insecurity seems to be high towards defeats of Rajputs, Marathas.

I do believe in ethnic lines over religious ones, national ones over religious ones as well.

Can you show me one post where I disrespected Tamil kings, and/or showed deference towards rajputs or marathas? TM Riddle used to get annoyed at me as I would diss the rajputs earlier. Maybe you are mistaking me for someone else.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I do believe in ethnic lines over religious ones, national ones over religious ones as well.

You can continue to remain Don Quixote. Your ethnics killed each other with utmost brutality. Punjabi hindus + sikhs vs punjabi muslims, and then later the punjabi hindus vs punjabi sikhs. It would be funny if it was not tragic, but continue living in your communist utopia.

 

[Braveheart]

If hindus refuse to give their daughters into muslim families, its hatred.

Depends on the Muslim Family.
A Saudi Prince's family would be a good prospect, seeing the amount Indian Hindus are currently 'sucking' up to them at the moment.

 

[Greenstorm]

Naw I think you are brainwashed as well to believe in superiority of kings centuries ago, similar to insecurity of these Hindutva ones.

It is lot easier to label someone as brainwashed in an attempt to negate his view instead of trying to understand it.

 

[JaDed]

It is lot easier to label someone as brainwashed in an attempt to negate his view instead of trying to understand it.

Or its easy to assume as you have done with your replies as to why Hindutva ones are hateful putting it down to the defeats.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Few questions.

1) What do you mean by “giving their daughters” to Muslims? Do Hindu parents own their daughters and decide their fate or are the daughters not free to chose who they want to marry?

2) So you are saying it’s ok not to rent out your property to someone only because of their religion? Do you consider such an act discrimination (and you’re fine with being discriminatory) or do you feel this isn’t discrimination at all?

1) In Hindus, there is a ritual called Kanyadaan, its giving away your daughter. If someone wants to marry a Muslim thats her choice. But to actively promote that knowing that non muslims cannot be married to muslims without conversion is unacceptable. Hindus have full right to protest such a propoganda.

2.Its absolutely within the rights of a person to decide who they rent out their property. Hindus will rarely rent out the property to muslims because of beef eating

and because its more difficult to get a non willing muslim tenant to vacate a property.You will have people like Ayyub and co. crying victim. So yes people are unwilling.

 

[JaDed]

You can continue to remain Don Quixote. Your ethnics killed each other with utmost brutality. Punjabi hindus + sikhs vs punjabi muslims, and then later the punjabi hindus vs punjabi sikhs. It would be funny if it was not tragic, but continue living in your communist utopia.

I don’t mind the utopia with Chinese communists and leftists gen Z making their move towards the leftist society.

 

[Greenstorm]

Or its easy to assume as you have done with your replies as to why Hindutva ones are hateful putting it down to the defeats.

Then instead of throwing around labels, please feel free to present your view as to why Hindutvas are filled with hatred and where I am wrong with my view.

 

[JaDed]

Then instead of throwing around labels, please feel free to present your view as to why Hindutvas are filled with hatred and where I am wrong with my view.

I did, blamed it on your superiority complex gloating for the brutal rulers.

 

[cricketjoshila]

1. The modern world has moved on so that the concepts of families disagreeing to their kids getting married is now extremist. Leaving the hindu/muslim side, nowadays if w child expresses their desire to marry someone of their choice and the parents clamp down on it, its seen as extremist. The concept of 'giving' daughters is also seen as outdated. Fwiw its something Its a sentiment that I agree with as I would prefer my family members married only muslims....but yeah its seen as extreme by wider society.


2. Hindus can vote for who they want but if they vote for extreme parties they will get called extremists.

3. Do you not think its wrong to discriminate based on religion? I mean refusing to rent a property to someone just because they are a different religion is pretty extreme.


Why dont you just admit you want hindu style nationalism? Its quite clear you have a visceral dislike towards muslims.

1. Actively promoting hindu girls to be married to muslims , which may ultimately result in their conversion will be objected to by hindus.

2. Basically if muslims dont like the party voted in, they get to call hindus extremist.

3. its not. My property i get to decide who i rent it out to. I dont want anyone who eats beef into my property. Thats my choice.

I just want freedom of choice, within the laws, without muslims telling me that i ought to do what is correct for them.

 

[Greenstorm]

I did, blamed it on your superiority complex gloating for the brutal rulers.

My supposed superiority complex makes hindutva hateful ?

 

[JaDed]

My supposed superiority complex makes hindutva hateful ?

Yeah brainwashed (by Hindu Parties) to feel inferior at the superiority complex that you and likewise religious people exhibit.

 

[cricketjoshila]

My supposed superiority complex makes hindutva hateful ?

What is your superiority complex about?

Anyone from present day pakistan ruled India? Or you are one of those trying to steal the credit of Arabs and central asians?

 

[Greenstorm]

Yeah brainwashed (by Hindu Parties) to feel inferior at the superiority complex that you and likewise religious people exhibit.

Fine if that is your view but you can apply this lazy 'brainwashing theory' of yours to explain almost every social event or activity.

I can also say that you are brainwashed to believe that Muslims and hindutvas are brainwashed.

 

[JaDed]

I can also say that you are brainwashed to believe that Muslims and hindutvas are brainwashed.

) good one.

 

[Abdullah719]

As India drifts into autocracy, nonviolent protest is the most powerful resistance

Nothing is as important, the philosopher Immanuel Kant claimed, as the “freedom to make public use of one’s reason on all matters”. Unfortunately, as Kant also noted, the opportunity to argue is often restrained by society – sometimes very severely. A disturbing fact about the world today is that authoritarian tendencies have been strikingly on the increase in many countries – in Asia, in Europe, in Latin America, in Africa and within the United States of America. I fear I have to include my own country, India, in that unfortunate basket.

After India secured independence from British colonial rule, it had for many decades a fine history of being a secular democracy with much personal liberty. People showed their commitment to freedom and their determination to remove authoritarian governance through decisive public action, for example in the general elections in 1977, in which the despotic regulations – dressed as “the emergency” – were firmly rejected by the people. The government obeyed promptly.

However, in recent years the priority of freedom seems to have lost some of its lustre for many people, and the current government gives striking evidence of the inclination to promote a different kind of society. There have also been strong attempts to stifle anti-government protests, which, strangely enough, have often been described by the government as “sedition”, providing grounds for arrest and for locking up opposition leaders. Aside from the despotic tendencies implicit in this approach, there is also a profound confusion of thought here, since a disagreement with the government need not be a rebellion to overthrow the state, or to subvert the nation (on which the diagnosis of “sedition” must depend).

When I was in school in British-ruled colonial India, many of my relations, who were nonviolently agitating for India’s independence (inspired by Mahatma Gandhi and other champions of freedom), were in British Indian jails under what was described as “preventive detention”, allegedly to stop them from doing anything violent. After India’s independence, preventive detention as a form of incarceration was halted; but then it was reintroduced, initially by the Congress government, in a relatively mild form. That was bad enough, but under the Hindutva-oriented BJP government now in office, preventive detention has acquired a hugely bigger role, allowing easy arrests and imprisonment of opposition politicians without trial.

Indeed, from last year, under the provision of a freshly devised Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the state can unilaterally declare someone to be a terrorist, which allows them to arrest this alleged terrorist and place them in incarceration without trial. A number of human rights activists have been designated as terrorists and are in jail already under this arrangement.

When someone is described as being “anti-national”, this can be seen as a big philosophical denunciation anywhere in the world, but in today’s India it may mean nothing more than the person has made some critical remarks about the government in office. The confusion between “anti-government” and “anti-national” is typical of autocratic governance. The courts have sometimes been able to stop such abusive practices, but given the slow movement of the Indian courts, and the differences of opinion within India’s large supreme court, this has not always been an effective remedy. One of the most prominent defenders of human rights in the world, Amnesty International, has been forced to leave India as a result of governmental intervention.

The pursuit of authoritarianism in general is sometimes combined with the persecution of a particular section of the nation – often linked, in India, with caste or religion. The low-caste former “untouchables”, now called Dalits, continue to get the benefits of affirmative action (in terms of employment and education) that were introduced at the time of India’s independence, but they are often very harshly treated. Cases of rape and murder of Dalits by upper-caste men, which have become shockingly common events, are frequently ignored or covered up by the government, unless pressed otherwise by public protests.

The Indian authorities have been particularly severe on the rights of Muslims, even to the extent of restricting some of their citizenship rights. Despite centuries of peaceful co-existence between Hindus and Muslims, there have been striking attempts in recent years by politically extremist Hindu organisations to treat indigenous Muslims somewhat like foreigners and to accuse them of doing harm to the nation. This has been fed by cultivating disaffection and inter-religious animosity through the rapidly increased power of extremist Hindu politics. The fact that the celebrated poet Rabindranath Tagore had a Hindu background was not contradicted by his self-description in Oxford (when giving the Hibbert lectures) that he came from the confluence of three cultural streams, combining Hinduism and Islam, in addition to western influence.

Indian culture is a joint product of people of different religious faiths, and this can be seen in different fields – from music and literature to painting and architecture. Even the very first translation and propagation of Hindu philosophical texts – the Upanishads – for use outside India was done on the active initiative of a Mughal prince, Dara Shikoh, the eldest son of Mumtaz (in whose memory Dara’s father, Emperor Shah Jahan, built the Taj Mahal). Led by the government’s current ideological priorities, many school textbooks in India are being rewritten now to present a thoroughly revisionist history, reducing – or ignoring altogether – the contributions of Muslim people.

Despite the government’s power, armed with the UAPA, to call anyone a terrorist, those accused are typically committed to nonviolent protests in the way that Gandhi had advocated. This applies particularly to newly emerging secular resistance in India, led by student leaders. For instance, Umar Khalid, a Muslim scholar from Jawaharlal Nehru University who has been arrested and imprisoned as an alleged “terrorist” through the use of the UAPA, has eloquently expressed this secular movement’s commitment to peaceful protest: “If they beat us with lathis [sticks], we will hold aloft the Tricolour [the Indian national flag]. If they fire bullets, then we will hold the constitution and raise our hands.”

While the growth of authoritarianism in India demands determined resistance, the world is also facing a pandemic of autocracy at this time, which makes the Indian lapses look less abnormal than they in fact are. The justification for imposing tyranny varies from country to country, such as reducing drug trafficking in the case of the Philippines, curtailing the flow of immigrants in Hungary, suppressing gay lifestyles in Poland, and using the military to control allegedly corrupt behaviour in Brazil. The world needs as many different ways of defending freedom as there are attacks upon it.

Dr Martin Luther King Jr noted in a letter written in 1963 from Birmingham jail: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” He also insisted that all resistance has to be nonviolent. So do the young student leaders of today’s India. If there is a commonality in the distinct manifestations of autocracy, there is also a shared reasoning in the resistance.

Amartya Sen is a Harvard professor and Nobel-prize winning economist.
This is an edited extract of a speech that he gave upon winning the 2020 Peace prize of the German Book Trade.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/26/india-autocracy-nonviolent-protest-resistance

 

[DeadlyVenom]

1. Actively promoting hindu girls to be married to muslims , which may ultimately result in their conversion will be objected to by hindus.

2. Basically if muslims dont like the party voted in, they get to call hindus extremist.

3. its not. My property i get to decide who i rent it out to. I dont want anyone who eats beef into my property. Thats my choice.

I just want freedom of choice, within the laws, without muslims telling me that i ought to do what is correct for them.

2. Are hindus who vote for other parties called extremists? It seems to be reserved for the BJP voters......the BJP are also called extremist by a great number of Hindus and Christians. Why is your ire reserved for muslims?

3. Whats the likelihood that the muslim will eat beef though? Cow consumption rates in India are already practically low. I guess its zero in many states. I read that 40% of Muslims in india consume beef ( 60 million or so) but that would probably be in muslim majority areas. I also read about 12.5 million Hindus eat beef ( number is probably higher as there are lots of hindu athiests so we are lead to believe).

If your issue is literally just with beef then surely you should advertise for non beef eaters rather muslims?

 

[cricketjoshila]

2. Are hindus who vote for other parties called extremists? It seems to be reserved for the BJP voters......the BJP are also called extremist by a great number of Hindus and Christians. Why is your ire reserved for muslims?

3. Whats the likelihood that the muslim will eat beef though? Cow consumption rates in India are already practically low. I guess its zero in many states. I read that 40% of Muslims in india consume beef ( 60 million or so) but that would probably be in muslim majority areas. I also read about 12.5 million Hindus eat beef ( number is probably higher as there are lots of hindu athiests so we are lead to believe).

If your issue is literally just with beef then surely you should advertise for non beef eaters rather muslims?

1. BJP and its allies gather close to 45 per cent votes. Just because Bjp doesn't do muslim appeasement, they are extremist? Secularism doesn't mean hindus need to think whether muslims will like it or not, before voting. No one stops muslims from voting for Owaisi or IUML.

2. Muslims are the majority beef eaters in India. Its not possible for anyone to keep checking everyday if someone is cooking beef. Its simpler to simply avoid people who are likely to eat beef.

 

[Nadeemp]

As India drifts into autocracy, nonviolent protest is the most powerful resistance

Nothing is as important, the philosopher Immanuel Kant claimed, as the “freedom to make public use of one’s reason on all matters”. Unfortunately, as Kant also noted, the opportunity to argue is often restrained by society – sometimes very severely. A disturbing fact about the world today is that authoritarian tendencies have been strikingly on the increase in many countries – in Asia, in Europe, in Latin America, in Africa and within the United States of America. I fear I have to include my own country, India, in that unfortunate basket.

After India secured independence from British colonial rule, it had for many decades a fine history of being a secular democracy with much personal liberty. People showed their commitment to freedom and their determination to remove authoritarian governance through decisive public action, for example in the general elections in 1977, in which the despotic regulations – dressed as “the emergency” – were firmly rejected by the people. The government obeyed promptly.

However, in recent years the priority of freedom seems to have lost some of its lustre for many people, and the current government gives striking evidence of the inclination to promote a different kind of society. There have also been strong attempts to stifle anti-government protests, which, strangely enough, have often been described by the government as “sedition”, providing grounds for arrest and for locking up opposition leaders. Aside from the despotic tendencies implicit in this approach, there is also a profound confusion of thought here, since a disagreement with the government need not be a rebellion to overthrow the state, or to subvert the nation (on which the diagnosis of “sedition” must depend).

When I was in school in British-ruled colonial India, many of my relations, who were nonviolently agitating for India’s independence (inspired by Mahatma Gandhi and other champions of freedom), were in British Indian jails under what was described as “preventive detention”, allegedly to stop them from doing anything violent. After India’s independence, preventive detention as a form of incarceration was halted; but then it was reintroduced, initially by the Congress government, in a relatively mild form. That was bad enough, but under the Hindutva-oriented BJP government now in office, preventive detention has acquired a hugely bigger role, allowing easy arrests and imprisonment of opposition politicians without trial.

Indeed, from last year, under the provision of a freshly devised Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the state can unilaterally declare someone to be a terrorist, which allows them to arrest this alleged terrorist and place them in incarceration without trial. A number of human rights activists have been designated as terrorists and are in jail already under this arrangement.

When someone is described as being “anti-national”, this can be seen as a big philosophical denunciation anywhere in the world, but in today’s India it may mean nothing more than the person has made some critical remarks about the government in office. The confusion between “anti-government” and “anti-national” is typical of autocratic governance. The courts have sometimes been able to stop such abusive practices, but given the slow movement of the Indian courts, and the differences of opinion within India’s large supreme court, this has not always been an effective remedy. One of the most prominent defenders of human rights in the world, Amnesty International, has been forced to leave India as a result of governmental intervention.

The pursuit of authoritarianism in general is sometimes combined with the persecution of a particular section of the nation – often linked, in India, with caste or religion. The low-caste former “untouchables”, now called Dalits, continue to get the benefits of affirmative action (in terms of employment and education) that were introduced at the time of India’s independence, but they are often very harshly treated. Cases of rape and murder of Dalits by upper-caste men, which have become shockingly common events, are frequently ignored or covered up by the government, unless pressed otherwise by public protests.

The Indian authorities have been particularly severe on the rights of Muslims, even to the extent of restricting some of their citizenship rights. Despite centuries of peaceful co-existence between Hindus and Muslims, there have been striking attempts in recent years by politically extremist Hindu organisations to treat indigenous Muslims somewhat like foreigners and to accuse them of doing harm to the nation. This has been fed by cultivating disaffection and inter-religious animosity through the rapidly increased power of extremist Hindu politics. The fact that the celebrated poet Rabindranath Tagore had a Hindu background was not contradicted by his self-description in Oxford (when giving the Hibbert lectures) that he came from the confluence of three cultural streams, combining Hinduism and Islam, in addition to western influence.

Indian culture is a joint product of people of different religious faiths, and this can be seen in different fields – from music and literature to painting and architecture. Even the very first translation and propagation of Hindu philosophical texts – the Upanishads – for use outside India was done on the active initiative of a Mughal prince, Dara Shikoh, the eldest son of Mumtaz (in whose memory Dara’s father, Emperor Shah Jahan, built the Taj Mahal). Led by the government’s current ideological priorities, many school textbooks in India are being rewritten now to present a thoroughly revisionist history, reducing – or ignoring altogether – the contributions of Muslim people.

Despite the government’s power, armed with the UAPA, to call anyone a terrorist, those accused are typically committed to nonviolent protests in the way that Gandhi had advocated. This applies particularly to newly emerging secular resistance in India, led by student leaders. For instance, Umar Khalid, a Muslim scholar from Jawaharlal Nehru University who has been arrested and imprisoned as an alleged “terrorist” through the use of the UAPA, has eloquently expressed this secular movement’s commitment to peaceful protest: “If they beat us with lathis [sticks], we will hold aloft the Tricolour [the Indian national flag]. If they fire bullets, then we will hold the constitution and raise our hands.”

While the growth of authoritarianism in India demands determined resistance, the world is also facing a pandemic of autocracy at this time, which makes the Indian lapses look less abnormal than they in fact are. The justification for imposing tyranny varies from country to country, such as reducing drug trafficking in the case of the Philippines, curtailing the flow of immigrants in Hungary, suppressing gay lifestyles in Poland, and using the military to control allegedly corrupt behaviour in Brazil. The world needs as many different ways of defending freedom as there are attacks upon it.

Dr Martin Luther King Jr noted in a letter written in 1963 from Birmingham jail: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” He also insisted that all resistance has to be nonviolent. So do the young student leaders of today’s India. If there is a commonality in the distinct manifestations of autocracy, there is also a shared reasoning in the resistance.

Amartya Sen is a Harvard professor and Nobel-prize winning economist.
This is an edited extract of a speech that he gave upon winning the 2020 Peace prize of the German Book Trade.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/26/india-autocracy-nonviolent-protest-resistance

Thanks for posting. Great article.

 

[gani999]

It is power that deserves respect, not brutality.

Insecure hindutva are not brainwashed. The hate that they exhbit in mobs and behind keyboards is just a natural reaction after centuries of humiliation.

What humiliation, exactly?

India is the only country that got invaded and ruled by muslims, and still remains a majority hindu country. Every other country conquered by muslim invaders was converted to Islam completely within a 100 years.

All muslims could get out of India was two pieces going by the name of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

And lets face it. The likes of you cannot stomach this. Hence all the talk of muslims humiliating hindus coming from you.

It's the very definition of inferiority complex

 

[Greenstorm]

What humiliation, exactly?

India is the only country that got invaded and ruled by muslims, and still remains a majority hindu country. Every other country conquered by muslim invaders was converted to Islam completely within a 100 years.

All muslims could get out of India was two pieces going by the name of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

And lets face it. The likes of you cannot stomach this. Hence all the talk of muslims humiliating hindus coming from you.

It's the very definition of inferiority complex

That's not true. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years yet they had enough gheirat to launch reconquest. Same with Balkan nations.

Hindu's submissiveness was on another level. Hate that hindutvas carry is directly linked with past humiliations.

 

[cricketjoshila]

That's not true. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years yet they had enough gheirat to launch reconquest. Same with Balkan nations.

Hindu's submissiveness was on another level. Hate that hindutvas carry is directly linked with past humiliations.

The hindus who submitted are not hindus anymore, those who fought back are still hindus and live in a hindu majority country.


The complex of not able to convert the entire region like what happened to persia or arab land or other countries, is what hurts people like you.

 

[Mesozoic]

That's not true. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years yet they had enough gheirat to launch reconquest. Same with Balkan nations.

Hindu's submissiveness was on another level. Hate that hindutvas carry is directly linked with past humiliations.

Agree.

Just the fact that there are 600 million Muslims currently living in South Asia (more than anywhere in the world) give a great account of the Hindu baniya submissiveness back in the day.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I dont really understand the point about Hindus having a chip on their shoulder about historic issues. Many do seem to have a chip on their shoulder about more modern issues but thats true of elements in almost every country.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Agree.

Just the fact that there are 600 million Muslims currently living in South Asia (more than anywhere in the world) give a great account of the Hindu baniya submissiveness back in the day.

Classic victim blaming.

 

[Zaz]

Its a shame that modi rather than addressing issues such as most of the popilation defactes in the open and goes to sleep hungry is more happier inciting violence

You know what they say A nation gets a leader they deserve

 

[IndoorCricket]

Its a shame that modi rather than addressing issues such as most of the popilation defactes in the open and goes to sleep hungry is more happier inciting violence

You know what they say A nation gets a leader they deserve

Dont know which land you are living in. Swachh Bharat Mission built 100 million toilets in 5 years.

 

[Zaz]

Dont know which land you are living in. Swachh Bharat Mission built 100 million toilets in 5 years.

That still leaves 100s of millions who poop on the streets

 

[IndoorCricket]

That still leaves 100s of millions who poop on the streets

100 million toilets for 600 million people. I think Modi is addressing this issue as you said otherwise. And these things happen in a phase wise manner. Of course there are lot many problems still. People still need to be educated on how properly use toilets. There is a much bigger problem with India and its not the toilets its the sewer systems which needs to support these. Bill Gate innovative toilets will be a gamechanger for under developed and developing nations.

 

[rhony]

Hindus in general respect authority. They probably don't have the warrior mentality. Precisely why democracy took a strong hold in India when compared to Pakistan. Precisely why people don't back armed forces to take over the country. History shows that Hindus under british rule took advantage of the situation and focussed on education and prosperity while muslims clung on to religious texts instead of modern education. This set the muslims back generations compared to Hindus in terms of economic prosperity. Later on there was a realization that polishing one's talwar daily ready to fight ain't gonna do much when you can't earn a decent living.

 

[hamid.s]

Reading through these comments - what astounds me is the level that Indians will go to defend any Hindutva extremism and India in general. At least Bangladeshis and Pakistanis acknowledge the various levels of corruption/discrimination/malpractices that goes on in our country.

But Indians are on another level as they pretend everything is shiny and first world like in their country so much so that while they boast and take pride in to be a "secular democracy: BUT it is completely okay to deny housing based on someone's religion (just one example out of many).

Certain posters will defend anything. It does nothing but shows how fragile and tenuous these certain individual posters are (note: sizable number of Indians. not generalizing ALL Indians).

kichu lojja thaka uchit (to bengali speaking PPers)..

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Hindus in general respect authority. They probably don't have the warrior mentality. Precisely why democracy took a strong hold in India when compared to Pakistan. Precisely why people don't back armed forces to take over the country. History shows that Hindus under british rule took advantage of the situation and focussed on education and prosperity while muslims clung on to religious texts instead of modern education. This set the muslims back generations compared to Hindus in terms of economic prosperity. Later on there was a realization that polishing one's talwar daily ready to fight ain't gonna do much when you can't earn a decent living.

Agree with you that hindus focus more on education and prosperity, and props to them for that, credit should always be given where it is due. However there is no law which says you can't earn a decent living and polish your talwar when you have some down time. One does not necessarily have to exclude the other.

 

[Zaz]

Reading through these comments - what astounds me is the level that Indians will go to defend any Hindutva extremism and India in general. At least Bangladeshis and Pakistanis acknowledge the various levels of corruption/discrimination/malpractices that goes on in our country.

But Indians are on another level as they pretend everything is shiny and first world like in their country so much so that while they boast and take pride in to be a "secular democracy: BUT it is completely okay to deny housing based on someone's religion (just one example out of many).

Certain posters will defend anything. It does nothing but shows how fragile and tenuous these certain individual posters are (note: sizable number of Indians. not generalizing ALL Indians).

kichu lojja thaka uchit (to bengali speaking PPers)..

Youd think india is switzerland judging off indian posters and their comments not a third world country full of communal hate, disease n hunger

And modi is the dalai lama peace loving n not the butcher of gujurat

 

[Greenstorm]

Hindus in general respect authority. They probably don't have the warrior mentality. Precisely why democracy took a strong hold in India when compared to Pakistan. Precisely why people don't back armed forces to take over the country. History shows that Hindus under british rule took advantage of the situation and focussed on education and prosperity while muslims clung on to religious texts instead of modern education. This set the muslims back generations compared to Hindus in terms of economic prosperity. Later on there was a realization that polishing one's talwar daily ready to fight ain't gonna do much when you can't earn a decent living.

This is a fair assessment. Muslims could not evolve with time even though Islam encouraged it (finality of prophet hood meant that Muslims were allowed to interpret and evolve with changing times while taking guidance from the eternal principles in Quran and sunnah).

This failure to adopt has led to the downfall of Muslims.

 

[CricketCartoons]

kichu lojja thaka uchit (to bengali speaking PPers)..

amra lojja shorom vule geychi. aar matha nichu kore parbo na.

 

[Itachi]

Reading through these comments - what astounds me is the level that Indians will go to defend any Hindutva extremism and India in general. At least Bangladeshis and Pakistanis acknowledge the various levels of corruption/discrimination/malpractices that goes on in our country.

But Indians are on another level as they pretend everything is shiny and first world like in their country so much so that while they boast and take pride in to be a "secular democracy: BUT it is completely okay to deny housing based on someone's religion (just one example out of many).

Certain posters will defend anything. It does nothing but shows how fragile and tenuous these certain individual posters are (note: sizable number of Indians. not generalizing ALL Indians).

kichu lojja thaka uchit (to bengali speaking PPers)..

And it is an irony coming from a bangladeshi poster where "secularism" was an alien concept untill just a decade ago.

 

[Nadeemp]

A decade is long enough. Him being from bangladesh has no bearing

 

[Nadeemp]

Nationalism and Religion clouds you judgement. Best to avoid or take in small doses. This thread proves parties from pakistan and India are equally effected by it.

 

[Syed1]

Reading through these comments - what astounds me is the level that Indians will go to defend any Hindutva extremism and India in general. At least Bangladeshis and Pakistanis acknowledge the various levels of corruption/discrimination/malpractices that goes on in our country.

But Indians are on another level as they pretend everything is shiny and first world like in their country so much so that while they boast and take pride in to be a "secular democracy: BUT it is completely okay to deny housing based on someone's religion (just one example out of many).

Certain posters will defend anything. It does nothing but shows how fragile and tenuous these certain individual posters are (note: sizable number of Indians. not generalizing ALL Indians).

kichu lojja thaka uchit (to bengali speaking PPers)..

Well said... this kind of unquestionable loyalty to the state is seen in fascist countries like Nazi Germany.


India under Hindutva Modi is headed in that direction and hopefully the same fate.

 

[CricketCartoons]

And it is an irony coming from a bangladeshi poster where "secularism" was an alien concept untill just a decade ago.

Bangladesh has the best constitution among the sub continent. It states the secularism is fundamental and also says that islam is the state religion. This is how it should be done.

 

[ahmedzee]

Our very own [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] refuses the hate in him against Muslims....I wish there was a technology that showed the innerself to a person.