Meghalaya Governor suggests ‘Tiananmen treatment’ for Delhi riots

[Bewal Express]

If I have no documentation, I will claim citizenship by declaring myself a refugee from Pakistan or Bangladesh? Is that what you are saying?

Stop running, what recourse will be there for poor Muslims in Ind if they can't prove they citizens. You can hide behind semantics but this is what it comes down to.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Stop running, what recourse will be there for poor Muslims in Ind if they can't prove they citizens. You can hide behind semantics but this is what it comes down to.

You didn't answer. if I don't have documentation, will I declare myself as a refugee to get citizenship? And where did you read this provision? Asking for the draft is not semantics. Semantics will come in picture when you share the draft and then I can speak legalese, right now you are dealing in fictionalese.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Stop running, what recourse will be there for poor Muslims in Ind if they can't prove they citizens. You can hide behind semantics but this is what it comes down to.

Have you revisited your assumption that the first law is unjust, and now believe that the yet-to-be-real second law is the potentially unjust one while the first law is fine?

 

[Bewal Express]

Have you revisited your assumption that the first law is unjust, and now believe that the yet-to-be-real second law is the potentially unjust one while the first law is fine?

No, its intentions were revealed all along with the proposed 2nd law. Why are you avoiding answering what the intention of the CAA was.

 

[CricketCartoons]

No, its intentions were revealed all along with the proposed 2nd law. Why are you avoiding answering what the intention of the CAA was.

How can I tell what the intention is? There may be very evil intentions. I am only seeing it from the point of the refugees and the constitution. Should the refugees stay in camps till the BJP govt is voted out of power and the law will be kosher then, as the new govt will have good intentions? I have been repeating this point but you keep ignoring it. Should any scheme, any law which helps the needy be suspended till we get a govt which has good intentions?

 

[Bewal Express]

How can I tell what the intention is? There may be very evil intentions. I am only seeing it from the point of the refugees and the constitution. Should the refugees stay in camps till the BJP govt is voted out of power and the law will be kosher then, as the new govt will have good intentions? I have been repeating this point but you keep ignoring it. Should any scheme, any law which helps the needy be suspended till we get a govt which has good intentions?

Nothing predicts behaviour like behaviour. Look at their idiology and their previous actions and you can see what they are thinking, if you can't, then I can't help you.

 

[Itachi]

One question:

19 lakhs were excluded from the latest round of NRC.

12 lakh Hindus. 7 lakh Muslims. Do correct me if I am wrong.

Are all these 19 lakhs illegals? This was brought down from 40 lakhs.

If things are so simple, why is there such massive confusion?

Asking not for argument but for understanding purposes.

The confusion is actually in rest of india. Every assamese people was well aware of what the process was. There was clarifications of different regulations even in village level, laying out what is required and not required. the NRC seva kendras actually did a tremendous job in weeding out the confusions as they helped even the illiterate people in every steps. That's why you didn't see uproar among the muslim community which otherwise should have happened going by the news from all over the world.

The people who were not included in NRC could still apply for citizenship through foriegn tribunal. These tribunals will decide the rest for those people who weren't included.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Nothing predicts behaviour like behaviour. Look at their idiology and their previous actions and you can see what they are thinking, if you can't, then I can't help you.

A law is unjust because the BJP passed it. Will the same law with same wordings be just if (your preferred party) passed it? Is that your logic?

 

[Bewal Express]

A law is unjust because the BJP passed it. Will the same law with same wordings be just if (your preferred party) passed it? Is that your logic?

You keep acting naive. Let's leave it here, we are going around in circles.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You keep acting naive. Let's leave it here, we are going around in circles.

My questions are based on what you are saying, but you avoid answering. You have been talking about the intentions of the govt as an evidence that the law is unjust? So that begs the question, will the same law be just if a really secular govt passes it?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

How can I tell what the intention is? There may be very evil intentions. I am only seeing it from the point of the refugees and the constitution. Should the refugees stay in camps till the BJP govt is voted out of power and the law will be kosher then, as the new govt will have good intentions? I have been repeating this point but you keep ignoring it. Should any scheme, any law which helps the needy be suspended till we get a govt which has good intentions?

I have been thinking about the same for the last few weeks.

One of the complex conundrums.

Muslims will oppose cos it could lead to an existential threat. If you don't oppose now, it may be too late by the time NRC rolls out.

Those who are pro CAA (at all costs) will support cos many innocents and persecuted people benefit from this. After all, CAA is a noble law.

Others are opposing cos they see BJP for the snakes they are and are concerned about the nation. Fighting for the greater good.

There have been some debates on the way CAA has been structured.

Where all of this will lead is unclear right now.

Btw, BJP fans keep touting Amit Shah as the Chanakya.

He must be the DUMBEST idiot to talk about NRC chronology and screw things up. Or he must be the MOST evil person to have predicted the effect this would have on the nation which would help BJP strength their us vs them game.

Dark times indeed.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I have been thinking about the same for the last few weeks.

One of the complex conundrums.

Muslims will oppose cos it could lead to an existential threat. If you don't oppose now, it may be too late by the time NRC rolls out.

Those who are pro CAA (at all costs) will support cos many innocents and persecuted people benefit from this. After all, CAA is a noble law.

Others are opposing cos they see BJP for the snakes they are and are concerned about the nation. Fighting for the greater good.

There has been some debates on the way CAA has been structured.

Where all of this will lead is unclear right now.

BJP fans keep touting Amit Shah as the Chanakya.

He must be the DUMBEST idiot to talk about NRC chronology and screw things up. Or he must be the MOST evil person to have predicted the effect this would have on the nation which would help BJP strength their us vs them game.

Dark times indeed.

The CAA certainly has some holes regarding its completeness. I expect that the Supreme Court will ask a few changes to make it more complete. It certainly is not anti muslim, the way it is being presented, even by reputable media organizations (after all, their correspondents are indians who have their own political leanings). This is one occasion where BJP has been on the receiving end of what it used to do to its opponents. It is getting a taste of its own medicine. But beyond all this noise about BJP/fascism/muslims the liberal jamaat is forgetting the refugees, most of whom are dalits, and they shouldn't be made to pay for the reputation of BJP or the trust deficit the govt has with muslims.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The confusion is actually in rest of india. Every assamese people was well aware of what the process was. There was clarifications of different regulations even in village level, laying out what is required and not required. the NRC seva kendras actually did a tremendous job in weeding out the confusions as they helped even the illiterate people in every steps. That's why you didn't see uproar among the muslim community which otherwise should have happened going by the news from all over the world.

The people who were not included in NRC could still apply for citizenship through foriegn tribunal. These tribunals will decide the rest for those people who weren't included.

Thanks for the info.

This was very helpful.

Been hearing some horror stories with respect to NRC in Assam.

Hope it all gets settled.

If I may ask, do you guys have any rough estimate of how many illegals could be in Assam? Like any rough survey or study or something?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The CAA certainly has some holes regarding its completeness. I expect that the Supreme Court will ask a few changes to make it more complete. It certainly is not anti muslim, the way it is being presented, even by reputable media organizations (after all, their correspondents are indians who have their own political leanings). This is one occasion where BJP has been on the receiving end of what it used to do to its opponents. It is getting a taste of its own medicine. But beyond all this noise about BJP/fascism/muslims the liberal jamaat is forgetting the refugees, most of whom are dalits, and they shouldn't be made to pay for the reputation of BJP or the trust deficit the govt has with muslims.

Yeah your point about positive discrimination makes total sense. I don't see CAA being against Constitution (haven't checked the nitty gritty details of it of course).

As for those opposing, I am positively sure they do understand that this is affecting persecuted minorities.

It's just that when your life is under massive threat, focus will be on safeguarding that.

Look at USA. Ranting against Al Qaeda/Taliban for decades and yet they strike up a "peace" deal cos they can't wait to get out of this mess. Dunno where that will lead to either.

Complexities of life.

 

[Itachi]

Thanks for the info.

This was very helpful.

Been hearing some horror stories with respect to NRC in Assam.

Hope it all gets settled.

If I may ask, do you guys have any rough estimate of how many illegals could be in Assam? Like any rough survey or study or something?

NRC was troublesome for the people and there's no denying that. There are many instances where many people used legacy code (1951 NRC from where you draw the lineage)that were not linked with them intentionally/unintentionally. In those cases, personal interviews were performed where each party was given the opportunity to prove their claims. NRC in assam wasn't just a documented procedure rather, in stage 2 personal inteviews also took place for suspicious entries.

There's no data available for illegal immigrants. That's why Assam accord 1985 demanded an NRC like procedure in order to estimate the illegal immigrants. At that point, came IMDT act in 1983 which made the matter more complicated. While the rest of the india followed foreigners act 1946, in case of assam, for the same cause IMDT 1983 was enacted which was striked down by SC in 2005.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

NRC was troublesome for the people and there's no denying that. There are many instances where many people used legacy code (1951 NRC from where you draw the lineage)that were not linked with them intentionally/unintentionally. In those cases, personal interviews were performed where each party was given the opportunity to prove their claims. NRC in assam wasn't just a documented procedure rather, in stage 2 personal inteviews also took place for suspicious entries.

There's no data available for illegal immigrants. That's why Assam accord 1985 demanded an NRC like procedure in order to estimate the illegal immigrants. At that point, came IMDT act in 1983 which made the matter more complicated. While the rest of the india followed foreigners act 1946, in case of assam, for the same cause IMDT 1983 was enacted which was striked down by SC in 2005.

I see.

Thanks mate.

 

[Bewal Express]

My questions are based on what you are saying, but you avoid answering. You have been talking about the intentions of the govt as an evidence that the law is unjust? So that begs the question, will the same law be just if a really secular govt passes it?

And you avoiding answering my question as to why it was passed by this govt. Did the Fascists suddenly find love in their heart for minorities in other countries.

 

[CricketCartoons]

And you avoiding answering my question as to why it was passed by this govt. Did the Fascists suddenly find love in their heart for minorities in other countries.

I am not govt, neither I can read their mind ( I can guess though). And I even said let us assume there are evil intentions. But you are avoiding the point, which I have repeated many times now. I will write it out again.

1. Will the law become just if it was passed by a truly secular govt?
2. Should any law that benefits the minorities, the disenfranchised, the needy be suspended because the current govt has evil intentions?

Give me logic, not jazbaati mantaq, please.

 

[Bewal Express]

I am not govt, neither I can read their mind ( I can guess though). And I even said let us assume there are evil intentions. But you are avoiding the point, which I have repeated many times now. I will write it out again.

1. Will the law become just if it was passed by a truly secular govt?
2. Should any law that benefits the minorities, the disenfranchised, the needy be suspended because the current govt has evil intentions?

Give me logic, not jazbaati mantaq, please.

You may not be able to read minds but you can understand the ideology of the party that passed it, and hopefully you are intelligent enough to read between the lines( or maybe you want to live in denial)
But they aren't a secular govt, so the question is academic. If a secular govt passes it in India then we can debate it. We can only debate what's in front of us. Yes to 2nd question because every law is passed for a reason and if the intention is evil then yes it should be suspended even if their is some small benefits to some groups.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You may not be able to read minds but you can understand the ideology of the party that passed it, and hopefully you are intelligent enough to read between the lines( or maybe you want to live in denial)
But they aren't a secular govt, so the question is academic. If a secular govt passes it in India then we can debate it. We can only debate what's in front of us. Yes to 2nd question because every law is passed for a reason and if the intention is evil then yes it should be suspended even if their is some small benefits to some groups.

Thanks for the answers, finally.

1. Will the law become just if it was passed by a truly secular govt?
Your answer: it is an academic question and can be answered only when there is a truly secular govt.
So you don't want to give a definite answer to this hypothetical question. Your assumption that a law is unjust because a govt with evil intention has passed it, led to me to assume the corollary, that you will call a law just if a secular govt passes it. Your answer shows you are not sure about that. Your whole argument is based on the assumption of intent, not on the individual merit of the law itself. Also, the second law doesn't exist yet, but that didn't stop you from the academic discussion.

2. Should all laws that benefit minorities be suspended because the govt has evil intentions.
Your answer: Definite YES.

Modi govt gave more scholarship to muslims, and increased the amount from the previous govt. Modi said he wants Muslims with Quran in one hand and laptop in another. Then in the second term he increased it further and reserved 50% of scholarship for minority girls.
Increased the budget for minorities appearing in civil services exams for free coaching so that there can be more muslims in civil services.

Just two pro muslim schemes by Modi govt. According to you these schemes should be suspended, because the govt has evil intentions (or do you think they have good intentions when they favour muslims?). Again, fair enough. But the problem is that indian constitution doesn't have a sadiq and ameen clause so your jazbati argument doesn't hold any water according to indian constitution. The only criteria for revoking a law is whether if violates the basic structure of the constitution, and not what real or imaginary intentions were behind it.

 

[Bewal Express]

Thanks for the answers, finally.

1. Will the law become just if it was passed by a truly secular govt?
Your answer: it is an academic question and can be answered only when there is a truly secular govt.
So you don't want to give a definite answer to this hypothetical question. Your assumption that a law is unjust because a govt with evil intention has passed it, led to me to assume the corollary, that you will call a law just if a secular govt passes it. Your answer shows you are not sure about that. Your whole argument is based on the assumption of intent, not on the individual merit of the law itself. Also, the second law doesn't exist yet, but that didn't stop you from the academic discussion.

2. Should all laws that benefit minorities be suspended because the govt has evil intentions.
Your answer: Definite YES.

Modi govt gave more scholarship to muslims, and increased the amount from the previous govt. Modi said he wants Muslims with Quran in one hand and laptop in another. Then in the second term he increased it further and reserved 50% of scholarship for minority girls.
Increased the budget for minorities appearing in civil services exams for free coaching so that there can be more muslims in civil services.

Just two pro muslim schemes by Modi govt. According to you these schemes should be suspended, because the govt has evil intentions (or do you think they have good intentions when they favour muslims?). Again, fair enough. But the problem is that indian constitution doesn't have a sadiq and ameen clause so your jazbati argument doesn't hold any water according to indian constitution. The only criteria for revoking a law is whether if violates the basic structure of the constitution, and not what real or imaginary intentions were behind it.

Intent is important, for example you could kill someone and if its not intended, its called manslaughter and with intent it's called Murder. The ideology of the Hindutuva tells everything about intent and no amount verbal gymnastics can get away from what the long term plan is

It's interesting that you praise Modi for his supposed good work towards Muslims, but if you back this up by demonising the same group and make them look like aliens and traitors, then you know its a double game for electoral gains, I am sure some Muslims will fall for it. Watch Dave chappells Clayton Bigsby to see those types in communities.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Intent is important, for example you could kill someone and if its not intended, its called manslaughter and with intent it's called Murder. The ideology of the Hindutuva tells everything about intent and no amount verbal gymnastics can get away from what the long term plan is

It's interesting that you praise Modi for his supposed good work towards Muslims, but if you back this up by demonising the same group and make them look like aliens and traitors, then you know its a double game for electoral gains, I am sure some Muslims will fall for it. Watch Dave chappells Clayton Bigsby to see those types in communities.

I did not praise modi anywhere. Please highlight the part where I did.

You said that laws should be declared unjust if the intention of the govt is bad, even if the law helps some people.

So do you oppose the above two schemes by Modi govt which are meant for Muslim welfare, because the intention of the govt is bad. Those schemes should be rolled back, isn't that what you are saying?

 

[CricketCartoons]

[MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] which country do you live in currently? Does that country have a system where any govt law/scheme is implemented only when it is proved beyond doubt that it is not for electoral gains and the intentions of the govt is good? If this doesn't happen in your country, do you know any country where such a system is in place?

 

[Bewal Express]

[MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] which country do you live in currently? Does that country have a system where any govt law/scheme is implemented only when it is proved beyond doubt that it is not for electoral gains and the intentions of the govt is good? If this doesn't happen in your country, do you know any country where such a system is in place?

I live in a country where I am an equal citizen. I live in a country where I don't have mobs come to attack me and then the media calling it a riot to make it sound as both sides are to blame. You are not going to convince me that these laws are designed not to marginalise an already marginalised community. Intent is not only important, its the only thing.

 

[Bewal Express]

I did not praise modi anywhere. Please highlight the part where I did.

You said that laws should be declared unjust if the intention of the govt is bad, even if the law helps some people.

So do you oppose the above two schemes by Modi govt which are meant for Muslim welfare, because the intention of the govt is bad. Those schemes should be rolled back, isn't that what you are saying?

No I don't. But they don't make up for his malafide intent.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I live in a country where I am an equal citizen. I live in a country where I don't have mobs come to attack me and then the media calling it a riot to make it sound as both sides are to blame. You are not going to convince me that these laws are designed not to marginalise an already marginalised community. Intent is not only important, its the only thing.

It is great that you live in a great country, but do they have a system in place like the one you are talking about? Where laws are implemented when it is proved beyond doubt that the intentions were good and were not for electoral gains? I am highlighting this part so you don't miss.

 

[CricketCartoons]

No I don't. But they don't make up for his malafide intent.

Modi has malafide intent. Yet you don't care about his intent when some of his schemes are pro muslim, but you care about his intent when he passes a law for refugees? Can you explain your thought process for this duplicity?

 

[Bewal Express]

Modi has malafide intent. Yet you don't care about his intent when some of his schemes are pro muslim, but you care about his intent when he passes a law for refugees? Can you explain your thought process for this duplicity?

No, because you look at the totality. Your example is akin to guy beating wife regularly and then buying her a valentines card.

 

[Bewal Express]

It is great that you live in a great country, but do they have a system in place like the one you are talking about? Where laws are implemented when it is proved beyond doubt that the intentions were good and were not for electoral gains? I am highlighting this part so you don't miss.

You are drunk on Majoritarianism. The malafide intent of the law is shown by the proposed law and no amount of semantics can get away from that.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You are drunk on Majoritarianism. The malafide intent of the law is shown by the proposed law and no amount of semantics can get away from that.

Which part suggested that I was supporting majoritarianism? I am interested in your novel concept of using intent to pass or block a law, and wondering how it can be codified as a law, and that there are no holes in your proposed system. You have failed to show a single country where such a system is in place. So were India the first country to use your wonderful idea, how should we go about it? How does one conclude whether the intent is malafide or not, and not meant for electoral gains.

 

[CricketCartoons]

No, because you look at the totality. Your example is akin to guy beating wife regularly and then buying her a valentines card.

You said intent is the only thing to be seen. You also say that it should be seen in totality. So the pro muslim laws/schemes are fine, but the one which does not favour muslims is not fine. But even here you are not looking at totality. Muslims don't constitute totality. There are other communities too, and if a law favours muslims over other communities, don't you think that the intent is malafide again? It seems you are drunk on Muslim Minoritarianism if you are advocating intent detection based on whether it favours muslims or not.

 

[Bewal Express]

You said intent is the only thing to be seen. You also say that it should be seen in totality. So the pro muslim laws/schemes are fine, but the one which does not favour muslims is not fine. But even here you are not looking at totality. Muslims don't constitute totality. There are other communities too, and if a law favours muslims over other communities, don't you think that the intent is malafide again? It seems you are drunk on Muslim Minoritarianism if you are advocating intent detection based on whether it favours muslims or not.

No, pro marginalised communities policies are fine for social cohesion( maybe you need to ask why they marginalised) and they happens everywhere. So stop playing dumb, unless you are claiming they are unique to Ind. Policies that are targeting and discriminating are not fine. You terrible reply on this question shows your own pathetic minnset.

 

[CricketCartoons]

No, pro marginalised communities policies are fine for social cohesion( maybe you need to ask why they marginalised) and they happens everywhere. So stop playing dumb, unless you are claiming they are unique to Ind. Policies that are targeting and discriminating are not fine. You terrible reply on this question shows your own pathetic minnset.

You are in favour of the pro muslim policies when they are discriminating against other communities.
You are not in favour of the policies which are not pro muslim.
You are not in favour of the first law which is pro minority but doesn't have anything for muslims.

So pardon me for thinking that your idea of whether a law is just or unjust is what it holds for muslims and muslims only. Will be glad if you show me I got you wrong.

 

[Bewal Express]

You are in favour of the pro muslim policies when they are discriminating against other communities.
You are not in favour of the policies which are not pro muslim.
You are not in favour of the first law which is pro minority but doesn't have anything for muslims.

So pardon me for thinking that your idea of whether a law is just or unjust is what it holds for muslims and muslims only. Will be glad if you show me I got you wrong.

You have bottled it. I backed my points with facts and you are now clutching at straw.No, I am in favour of policies that favour minorities when they are victims of discrimination(thats all minorities not just Muslims) . In Ind the Muslims are victims discrimination every sphere, unless you live in some fantasy land, and want to show stats to disprove by statement. In every other civilised country, they make at laws that don't discriminate, and you its seems are happy with that.

 

[Itachi]

You have bottled it. I backed my points with facts and you are now clutching at straw.No, I am in favour of policies that favour minorities when they are victims of discrimination(thats all minorities not just Muslims) . In Ind the Muslims are victims discrimination every sphere, unless you live in some fantasy land, and want to show stats to disprove by statement. In every other civilised country, they make at laws that don't discriminate, and you its seems are happy with that.

In which country do you live?

 

[Bewal Express]

In which country do you live?

Why does that matter.

 

[Itachi]

Why does that matter.

you have stated how a system should be in a nation. I am wondering how the situation is in the country you live in? If yes, then how? If no, then why?

 

[Bewal Express]

you have stated how a system should be in a nation. I am wondering how the situation is in the country you live in? If yes, then how? If no, then why?

I stated that Minorities are victims of discrimination in many societies (some more than others) , is that fact in Ind or not? I stated that govt should not pass laws that help to increase or perpetuate Discrimination, will the law passed and the ones proposed not do that when taken together?

 

[AdamM97]

While the form of democracy in india is not perfect, I would need to know the methodology of the calculation of the index, and how much weight each parameter is given, and whether it is justified, before I can comment on it.

So keeping the discussion on track, if blocking roads for months is your democratic right, what about the democratic right of someone who runs shops along the road, or uses the road for daily commute? How does ones right cannibalize the right of another?

Vandalizing is not a democratic right. Whether it’s the Anti-CAA protesters or the pro-CAA/Hindutva supporters/Delhi police, vandalizing and destroying public property and beating up students in universities is unacceptable and is anti-democracy. However, when a certain section of politicians normalize hate and silently support rioting, we shouldn’t get surprised when everyone starts damaging public property and beating up people.

As for the democracy index, The Democracy Index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. For someone like you who seems to care about democracy, you should care more about Modi Government undermining democracy in the country rather than about protesters vandalizing and damaging public property. Don’t you think?

 

[Itachi]

I stated that Minorities are victims of discrimination in many societies (some more than others) , is that fact in Ind or not? I stated that govt should not pass laws that help to increase or perpetuate Discrimination, will the law passed and the ones proposed not do that when taken together?

you are going with the equality vs equity logic.

what do you prefer? equality or equity?

 

[Bewal Express]

you are going with the equality vs equity logic.

what do you prefer? equality or equity?

In different circumstances both have merits. In law equality and social policies equity.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

https://www.thehindu.com/news/natio...treatment-for-delhi-riots/article30929759.ece

Perhaps there is a lesson there on how to handle the engineered disturbances of NE Delhi, tweets Tathagata Roy
Meghalaya Governor Tathagata Roy has suggested India could resort to the method China used in tackling the Tiananmen Square protest to handle the communal violence in Delhi. The Governor later deleted his tweet on Tiananmen and Xiaoping.

At least 300 people died on June 4, 1989, after Chinese soldiers cracked down on pro-democracy protesters, mostly university students, in Beijing’s landmark square.

“Remember Tiananmen Square, Beijing in 1988 (sic)? And how Deng Xiaoping handled it? Perhaps there is a lesson there on how to handle the engineered disturbances of NE Delhi! I’m sure all comrades will agree!” Mr. Roy tweeted from his Twitter handle on Wednesday.

I agree, by all means do it.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You have bottled it. I backed my points with facts and you are now clutching at straw.No, I am in favour of policies that favour minorities when they are victims of discrimination(thats all minorities not just Muslims) . In Ind the Muslims are victims discrimination every sphere, unless you live in some fantasy land, and want to show stats to disprove by statement. In every other civilised country, they make at laws that don't discriminate, and you its seems are happy with that.

You haven't presented any facts. Second law is not a fact yet, but you have been saying how discriminating it is. First law is fact, but your only argument against it was that the intention of the govt is bad. What fact did you provide to determine the intention? You suggested a system where intention is the only criteria to judge a law. What fact did you provide that can be used to measure intention? Calling your assumptions as facts doesn't make them facts.

You are in favour of those policies which favour muslims over other communities. You favour the laws when it discriminates against other communities because according to you, muslims are victims always, so they deserve any law which favours them over others. Your whom point of intention is whether it is pro muslim or not. If pro muslim, it is a just law. If not pro muslim it is unjust law. I wonder if you think non muslims are lesser humans?

I can mention tonnes of indians laws which favour indian muslims but denying the same to other communities. Of course, you will support those laws, because muslims. There is a huge sense of entitlement and victimhood in your communal argument.

 

[Bewal Express]

You haven't presented any facts. Second law is not a fact yet, but you have been saying how discriminating it is. First law is fact, but your only argument against it was that the intention of the govt is bad. What fact did you provide to determine the intention? You suggested a system where intention is the only criteria to judge a law. What fact did you provide that can be used to measure intention? Calling your assumptions as facts doesn't make them facts.

You are in favour of those policies which favour muslims over other communities. You favour the laws when it discriminates against other communities because according to you, muslims are victims always, so they deserve any law which favours them over others. Your whom point of intention is whether it is pro muslim or not. If pro muslim, it is a just law. If not pro muslim it is unjust law. I wonder if you think non muslims are lesser humans?

I can mention tonnes of indians laws which favour indian muslims but denying the same to other communities. Of course, you will support those laws, because muslims. There is a huge sense of entitlement and victimhood in your communal argument.

You want to Google discrimination against Muslims in India or will you live in denial. The rest of it, we are going around in circles, you want to us tob believe that Modi is a good man and his intentions are noble lol, The Muslims are terrible people wanting special treatment blah blah. Take a hike, a discuss with your Hindutuva friends.

 

[Itachi]

In different circumstances both have merits. In law equality and social policies equity.

What happens if law and social policies pose contradictory statements?

For example, should law be lenient to a criminal from a minority because the place he's from is oppressed by majority and hence such severe reaction could be justified? Which should take precedence?

 

[CricketCartoons]

You want to Google discrimination against Muslims in India or will you live in denial. The rest of it, we are going around in circles, you want to us tob believe that Modi is a good man and his intentions are noble lol, The Muslims are terrible people wanting special treatment blah blah. Take a hike, a discuss with your Hindutuva friends.

Again jazbati response based on fiction. There is dicrimination against muslims, I never denied it. I never called Modi a good man and his intentions nobel, I didn't call it otherwise either. If you are going to give these childish jazbati responses then I ask you to quote the lines where I said it.

You seem to be rattled because your line of argument has been exposed as a muslim centric one. If something favours muslims it is just. If it doesn't favour muslims but favours other minorities, it is unjust. I wanted to give you the benefit of doubt that I may be reading you incorrectly, but you continue to stand by it.

So far you have only presented emotive arguments, no legal argument that can stand scrutiny.

This is the summary of your argument: Muslims are discriminated, so any law which favours them over other communities is just. Other communities are never discriminated. Any law which favours other discriminated communities is unjust if it excludes muslims.

Just read it and try to see the problem.

 

[Itachi]

You want to Google discrimination against Muslims in India or will you live in denial. The rest of it, we are going around in circles, you want to us tob believe that Modi is a good man and his intentions are noble lol, The Muslims are terrible people wanting special treatment blah blah. Take a hike, a discuss with your Hindutuva friends.

Be it Muslims or any other community, in India, it depends upon place to place. India isn't homogeneous country. You can Google but the stats won't portray a correct picture because different states have different social construction and hence, treatment towards minority will be different.

A simple example, I live in assam. The first time the mughals attacked, many Muslim soldiers were left behind and stayed here. The second time mughals attacked, the Muslim descendants from the same mughal soldiers fought against mughals (a Muslim was second chief in command for the troops of the state against mughals).

In short, googling yield inaccurate as it does in case of various others fields unless you go deep into details as Google logarithm will pick up the keywords which are relevant to the search while the rest won't be shown in the results.

 

[Bewal Express]

Be it Muslims or any other community, in India, it depends upon place to place. India isn't homogeneous country. You can Google but the stats won't portray a correct picture because different states have different social construction and hence, treatment towards minority will be different.

A simple example, I live in assam. The first time the mughals attacked, many Muslim soldiers were left behind and stayed here. The second time mughals attacked, the Muslim descendants from the same mughal soldiers fought against mughals (a Muslim was second chief in command for the troops of the state against mughals).

In short, googling yield inaccurate as it does in case of various others fields unless you go deep into details as Google logarithm will pick up the keywords which are relevant to the search while the rest won't be shown in the results.

That may be true, but stats do give you an indication, along with govt reports on the entrenched discrimination they face.

 

[Muhammad10]

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...a-Roy-hails-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-Rohingyas

Such statements are clearly not unusual in this nutter's case. One would imagine they probably earn him brownie points with BJP's loony brigade.

 

[Bewal Express]

Again jazbati response based on fiction. There is dicrimination against muslims, I never denied it. I never called Modi a good man and his intentions nobel, I didn't call it otherwise either. If you are going to give these childish jazbati responses then I ask you to quote the lines where I said it.

You seem to be rattled because your line of argument has been exposed as a muslim centric one. If something favours muslims it is just. If it doesn't favour muslims but favours other minorities, it is unjust. I wanted to give you the benefit of doubt that I may be reading you incorrectly, but you continue to stand by it.

So far you have only presented emotive arguments, no legal argument that can stand scrutiny.

This is the summary of your argument: Muslims are discriminated, so any law which favours them over other communities is just. Other communities are never discriminated. Any law which favours other discriminated communities is unjust if it excludes muslims.

Just read it and try to see the problem.

In summary, you trust the fascists, I don't and nor do your Muslims. You live in your trusting world, I will see it, as it is.

 

[CricketCartoons]

In summary, you trust the fascists, I don't and nor do your Muslims. You live in your trusting world, I will see it, as it is.

My jazbati friend. I have been talking from the constitutional point of view. All you are offering is jazbaati claptrap and throwing accusations when you want to avoid answering uncomfortable questions. You can call me racist/fascist/islamophobe or anything but I will will turn defensive. This trick has gone old.

1. Why any law favouring muslims above non muslims is not unjust according to you?

 

[Bewal Express]

My jazbati friend. I have been talking from the constitutional point of view. All you are offering is jazbaati claptrap and throwing accusations when you want to avoid answering uncomfortable questions. You can call me racist/fascist/islamophobe or anything but I will will turn defensive. This trick has gone old.

1. Why any law favouring muslims above non muslims is not unjust according to you?

Live in your Hindutuva fantasy land. You want to believe the fascists, I don't.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Live in your Hindutuva fantasy land. You want to believe the fascists, I don't.

Great that you don't believe in fascism. But not great that you don't care about other communities and have a muslim centric view.

According to you, any law which favours muslims over other communities is JUST.
And any law which favours other communities over muslims in UNJUST.

You don't believe in fascism, but seems you believe in Islamist supremacy. I would like to believe it is not so.

 

[Bewal Express]

Great that you don't believe in fascism. But not great that you don't care about other communities and have a muslim centric view.

According to you, any law which favours muslims over other communities is JUST.
And any law which favours other communities over muslims in UNJUST.

You don't believe in fascism, but seems you believe in Islamist supremacy. I would like to believe it is not so.

Stop trying to hide from your own naive views. It doesn't bother me what you think I believe, it saddens me that you trust a fascist and his intentions I bet my lesson penny you would have fallen Nazi propaganda . There really isn't any hope for you.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Stop trying to hide from your own naive views. It doesn't bother me what you think I believe, it saddens me that you trust a fascist and his intentions I bet my lesson penny you would have fallen Nazi propaganda . There really isn't any hope for you.

Which views of mine I am trying to hide? Please expose them with relevant quotes.

Your views are exposed as subscribing to islamist supremacy, because, according to Bewal Express:
any law which favours muslims over other communities is JUST.
And any law which favours other communities over muslims in UNJUST.

 

[Bewal Express]

Which views of mine I am trying to hide? Please expose them with relevant quotes.

Your views are exposed as subscribing to islamist supremacy, because, according to Bewal Express:
any law which favours muslims over other communities is JUST.
And any law which favours other communities over muslims in UNJUST.

Yes keep living in Hindutuva fantasy. I can't spend hours debating with a fascist. If you believe that Modis intentions are good, you are just as guilty.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yes keep living in Hindutuva fantasy. I can't spend hours debating with a fascist. If you believe that Modis intentions are good, you are just as guilty.

I am only saying what you wrote. If your idea of fairness is whether it has anything for muslims or not, then what should it be called instead of islamist supremacist belief? Please educate me if there is an alternate interpretation which my hindutva mind is preventing to read.

 

[Bewal Express]

I am only saying what you wrote. If your idea of fairness is whether it has anything for muslims or not, then what should it be called instead of islamist supremacist belief? Please educate me if there is an alternate interpretation which my hindutva mind is preventing to read.

There is nothing I can educate you with, you trust Modi and his RSS fascists. I dont. History is the greatest educator!

 

[CricketCartoons]

There is nothing I can educate you with, you trust Modi and his RSS fascists. I dont. History is the greatest educator!

I hate to label you an Islamist Supremacist, but your muslim centric views don't help. I thought that someone who hates RSS and hindutva will also hate islamist supremacy too, as they are mirror images. But it seems you are only using liberal views against hindutvas as a weapon to further your islamist supremacist beliefs.

 

[Itachi]

Yes keep living in Hindutuva fantasy. I can't spend hours debating with a fascist. If you believe that Modis intentions are good, you are just as guilty.

I don't think he stated anything related to Modi or BJP or Hindutva.

He only asked, do you feel it's fair when rules prefer Muslim advantages but it's unfair when they are at receiving end?

 

[Stewie]

The protests against the citizenship amendment act are anti democratic and meant to undermine the system of parliamentary democracy.

Elected representatives pass a law within the constitutional framework. It can be withdrawn only by the instruction of the court in the only special case when it goes against the basic structure of the constitution. Putting pressure on govt to withdraw it is the language of anarchy and anti democracy.

Even if you give the excuse that it is unconstitutional, then there are two flaws with that argument. The Supreme Court decides if a law is unconstitutional not anyone else. Two, it is not an open and shut case as these ignorant protestors think, and many valid arguments can be given for either side.

The right to protest is not predicated upon the basis. You are using an extremely flawed logic. You elect reps to the government. They work for you. If they pass a law that you don’t agree with, you can protest. Just because you elected them, and they pass a law, somehow doesn’t imply you have given up your right to protest in a democracy. How else can you show dissent? That is ridiculously flawed logic, and perhaps in a flawed democracy such as India, it can fly.

People protest laws and bills here In the US all the time. Nobody labels them anti democratic.

 

[Rudi hater]

Only a sick mind can just go out there and kill people. I heard and seen some harrowing stories. Shame on those who are governing India and those thugs who don't respect miniorities.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The right to protest is not predicated upon the basis. You are using an extremely flawed logic. You elect reps to the government. They work for you. If they pass a law that you don’t agree with, you can protest. Just because you elected them, and they pass a law, somehow doesn’t imply you have given up your right to protest in a democracy. How else can you show dissent? That is ridiculously flawed logic, and perhaps in a flawed democracy such as India, it can fly.

People protest laws and bills here In the US all the time. Nobody labels them anti democratic.

You can protest (even against the constitution) but not by trampling over the rights of fellow citizens.

 

[Stewie]

You can protest (even against the constitution) but not by trampling over the rights of fellow citizens.

1. Who are you alleging is trampling over the rights of fellow citizens?

2. And who decides whether citizens rights are being trampled or not? It’s not as simple and easy as one person (in this case you) making that judgment.

It’s very subjective and depends on how “citizen rights” are defined. You will have to shed some more light on how you reached conclusion.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don't think he stated anything related to Modi or BJP or Hindutva.

He only asked, do you feel it's fair when rules prefer Muslim advantages but it's unfair when they are at receiving end?

What are the rules which give Muslims advantages in India?

 

[Stewie]

What are the rules which give Muslims advantages in India?

This is just the latest rhetoric employed to divert attention away from CAB.
The claim, I am assuming, is based on allowing Muslims polygamy and eating cows.

Somehow that equates to denying Muslims living there citizenships even if they are but somehow can’t prove it.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Somehow that equates to denying Muslims living there citizenships even if they are but somehow can’t prove it.

There is no such law. All rumours.

 

[CricketCartoons]

1. Who are you alleging is trampling over the rights of fellow citizens?

2. And who decides whether citizens rights are being trampled or not? It’s not as simple and easy as one person (in this case you) making that judgment.

It’s very subjective and depends on how “citizen rights” are defined. You will have to shed some more light on how you reached conclusion.

Blocking public roads causing inconvenience to shops and commuters. There are designated spots for protests near the parliament where many protests have taken place. None like this where public road is blocked for more than 2 months.

 

[Stewie]

Blocking public roads causing inconvenience to shops and commuters. There are designated spots for protests near the parliament where many protests have taken place. None like this where public road is blocked for more than 2 months.

So police should intervene and arrest them. Does this justify killing them and other innocents, babies, women? Destroying their homes and places of worship?

 

[CricketCartoons]

So police should intervene and arrest them. Does this justify killing them and other innocents, babies, women? Destroying their homes and places of worship?

So you agree that this form of protest is wrong.

Yes, police should intervene but the govt was playing politics and waiting game so that people get polarized.

 

[Stewie]

You can protest (even against the constitution) but not by trampling over the rights of fellow citizens.

So you agree that this form of protest is wrong.

Yes, police should intervene but the govt was playing politics and waiting game so that people get polarized.

If the law wasn’t followed, yes the protest was held at an incorrect location. But doing so shouldn’t invalidate the reason for the protest and justify genocidal actions.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This is just the latest rhetoric employed to divert attention away from CAB.
The claim, I am assuming, is based on allowing Muslims polygamy and eating cows.

Somehow that equates to denying Muslims living there citizenships even if they are but somehow can’t prove it.

Perhaps non-Muslims should be granted the same rights then, that way there would be no advantages. Hindus should also be free to take multiple wives and eat beef.

 

[Stewie]

You can protest (even against the constitution) but not by trampling over the rights of fellow citizens.

There is no such law. All rumours.

If it’s rumors only why is a significant portion of your country’s population taking to the streets? Who is to blame for that?? Isn’t it the government’s responsibility to make sure proper communication regarding such laws takes place? Rather than creating innuendo to polarize people, create fear within a particular minority, feelings of isolation and feeling of being targeted?

Within a democracy, since you like to speak of citizen rights so much, isn’t it the duty of an elected government, which by the way is supposed to serve people, to make sure they do not spread fear or persecution? That they introduce a law without any ambiguity?

 

[Stewie]

In India if the government and others commit 5 acts of injustice and Muslims retaliate by committing 1, guess who is to blame, who is at fault and who suffers? LMAo.

Wonderful democracy and secular country!

 

[CricketCartoons]

If the law wasn’t followed, yes the protest was held at an incorrect location. But doing so shouldn’t invalidate the reason for the protest and justify genocidal actions.

Who is justifying riots?
The reason for the protests are also on shaky grounds. I personally know the leaders of the protest. Some say they have no problem with the first law,but the proposed second law, whose provisions are based on rumours as draft doesnt exist. Some say they want the first law to be withdrawn before they call of the protest. First law doesn't concern any indian. And only supreme court can decide if law violates constitution, they should wait for the court. Ask them basic questions about the constitution and they cannot answer, and they are talking of saving the constitution.

 

[Stewie]

You can protest (even against the constitution) but not by trampling over the rights of fellow citizens.

Perhaps non-Muslims should be granted the same rights then, that way there would be no advantages. Hindus should also be free to take multiple wives and eat beef.

Some even do.. remember that actor from yesteryears who converted to Islam so he could marry that actress although he had a wife already?

Surely he can’t be the only one.. it’s not like non Muslims don’t game the system. There are Hindus who love to eat beef as well!

 

[Stewie]

You can protest (even against the constitution) but not by trampling over the rights of fellow citizens.

Who is justifying riots?
The reason for the protests are also on shaky grounds. I personally know the leaders of the protest. Some say they have no problem with the first law,but the proposed second law, whose provisions are based on rumours as draft doesnt exist. Some say they want the first law to be withdrawn before they call of the protest. First law doesn't concern any indian. And only supreme court can decide if law violates constitution, they should wait for the court. Ask them basic questions about the constitution and they cannot answer, and they are talking of saving the constitution.

With your line of argument, aren’t you justifying riots? As a payback for somehow protesting illegally which is ridiculous in itself.. a protest cannot be illegal just because it was held at a wrong location. As long as it’s peaceful, it should be guaranteed.

When was the last time a non Muslim Indian denomination held a “perfectly legal” protest then? I’ll give you the answer.. they don’t have to.. they just round up thugs and start killing people under the protection of the police.

And the reason is not on shaky grounds.. there are tons of Muslims who can not justify their citizenship although they were born and raised in India due to miseducation or ill education and not bothering with maintaining proper paperwork. In fact there are a lot of non Muslims in a similar position but they won’t be the ones held accountable or questioned to prove their citizenship.

 

[Stewie]

You can protest (even against the constitution) but not by trampling over the rights of fellow citizens.

Who is justifying riots?
The reason for the protests are also on shaky grounds. I personally know the leaders of the protest. Some say they have no problem with the first law,but the proposed second law, whose provisions are based on rumours as draft doesnt exist. Some say they want the first law to be withdrawn before they call of the protest. First law doesn't concern any indian. And only supreme court can decide if law violates constitution, they should wait for the court. Ask them basic questions about the constitution and they cannot answer, and they are talking of saving the constitution.

A law does not have to be unconstitutional for you to protest it.. in a democracy, you have a right to protest.. remember?

If you don’t like a law, you can protest it.. it’s a ridiculous notion that you can’t protest something if it was legally passed through the defined framework. This is called lobbying in a democracy. Look it up!

 

[CricketCartoons]

If it’s rumors only why is a significant portion of your country’s population taking to the streets? Who is to blame for that?? Isn’t it the government’s responsibility to make sure proper communication regarding such laws takes place? Rather than creating innuendo to polarize people, create fear within a particular minority, feelings of isolation and feeling of being targeted?

Within a democracy, since you like to speak of citizen rights so much, isn’t it the duty of an elected government, which by the way is supposed to serve people, to make sure they do not spread fear or persecution? That they introduce a law without any ambiguity?

They are protesting because they have been misled. The govt did itself no favours by the kind of language they used about illegal immigrants and them being quick with decisions that no one thought would be possible (kashmir). So the consensus was that this govt can do anything it wants and it already had trust issues with the muslim population (the govt has brought more pro muslim policies than the earlier govt but then some of its politicians have given provoking statements against muslims, so the sum total was always negative). So when the govt tried to explain that they have nothing to fear from the first law, its words carried no weight among the protestors.

There is another side who have been watching as vultures and using muslims for their own agenda. The lutyens elite who lost their privileges under current govt and have been looking at ways to get back. They include learned lawyers, journalists, celebrities, who deliberately spread lies. One journalist even said not his job to give the right information when interviewing protestors. The protestors are only guilty of ignorance but those who provoked them and encouraged them are the ones who are guilty of bloodshed.

 

[CricketCartoons]

A law does not have to be unconstitutional for you to protest it.. in a democracy, you have a right to protest.. remember?

If you don’t like a law, you can protest it.. it’s a ridiculous notion that you can’t protest something if it was legally passed through the defined framework. This is called lobbying in a democracy. Look it up!

Have already said. Protest but not by trampling over other peoples rights. And when you protest by claiming that you want to save the constitution, then at least read the constitution once.