[PICTURE] Narendra Modi, a dictator? ABC News documentary exposes Modi govt’s crackdown on press, minorities

[rpant_gabba]

your words bro. instead of complaining, think before you post

Lol.. What a selective pickings. If I take only the highlighted portion as the definition of terrorist then even people' parents and teachers would be classified as terrorists as they sometimes enforce their opinion too. So my advice read the whole definition again as it has other components and ingredients too.

@The Bald Eagle this where we left. you couldn;t back up your own words.

let me know if you want to continue

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@The Bald Eagle this where we left. you couldn;t back up your own words.

let me know if you want to continue

O so you are finally ready for it.

Below is my definition of terrorist
>>>Terrorists are those who enforce their opinions on others, who kill people aimlessly just to further their powers and those who kick people out of their land for their colonization and just to get their dirty hands over their resources.<<<

And here is yours
>>>terrorist are those who target civilians with violence to further their political cause<<<

As I asked you before but you digressed then. This thread is about Modi. And according to your definition he is a terrorist because he assented to civilian killings in IOK and poor Muslim killings in Gujrat riots and following are the reputable sources to back this claim

India: New Reports of Extrajudicial Killings in Kashmir

The Indian authorities should immediately order an independent, impartial investigation into the killings by security forces of three people in July 2020 in Jammu and Kashmir, Human Rights Watch said today.

www.hrw.org

====
These include a report stating that the violence in Gujarat showed "all the hallmarks of an ethnic cleansing".[2] The documents also cited police officers who stated that the police were prevented from aiding Muslim rape victims by pressure from the state government, and noted religious bias in how relief funds were distributed.[20] Jack Straw, at the time the UK Foreign Secretary, is depicted saying that there were "serious claims" that Modi was actively restricting the activities of the police, and also "tacitly encouraging the Hindu extremists

India: The Modi Question - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[sweep_shot]

I believe there should be a court case against Narendra Modi at International Criminal Court (ICC) for his role in extrajudicial killings in IOK and also Gujarat riot.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I believe there should be a court case against Narendra Modi at International Criminal Court (ICC) for his role in extrajudicial killings in IOK and also Gujarat riot.

It would be pretty pointless in reality, he was banned from entering USA after the Gujarat massacre, but as soon as he won the elections in India those restrictions were lifted. For most nations economic interests override moral objections when push comes to shove.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

I believe there should be a court case against Narendra Modi at International Criminal Court (ICC) for his role in extrajudicial killings in IOK and also Gujarat riot.

Do you know the process and jurisdiction of ICC?
Of course, The supreme Court of India when the opposition Congress was in power for 10 years at centre acquitted him, won't matter to you

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Do you know the process and jurisdiction of ICC?
Of course, The supreme Court of India when the opposition Congress was in power for 10 years at centre acquitted him, won't matter to you

Are you talking about this court? Lol

===

How independent is India’s Supreme Court?

Despite its enormous powers, it rarely challenges the government

India’s supreme court has been making waves. On February 21st it overturned the result of a mayoral election in Chandigarh, capital of the northern states of Punjab and Haryana, and chided an official loyal to the Bharatiya Janata Party (bjp) for having rigged the poll. Two days earlier it ordered the government of Narendra Modi to reverse a dilution in the rules protecting forestland. Last week it struck down electoral bonds, an opaque campaign-finance instrument that had mainly benefited the bjp.

These judgments highlight the court’s considerable power to challenge the government. India’s constitution makes it among the world’s most powerful supreme courts. Yet anyone counting on it emerging as a strong check on Mr Modi’s authoritarian drift is liable to be disappointed. The court has been much less willing to challenge the bjp government on its political priorities. Despite its recent activities, a combination of structural flaws and political pressure has severely diminished its role as an independent bulwark against the excesses of the ruling party.

The court’s power was damaged during Indira’s Gandhi’s more extreme spell of authoritarianism, the 21-month-long Emergency that the former prime minister declared in 1975. It has since clawed back most of the functions and prestige stripped from it at that time. And it has expanded its role beyond judicial review to include functions more commonly reserved for the legislature and executive, says Anuj Bhuwania, a legal scholar at the University of Leipzig. On occasion, the court has used these powers to advance an agenda at odds with the aims of Mr Modi’s government.

Examples of that include landmark rulings which decriminalised gay sex (though stopped short of legalising same-sex marriage) and advanced citizens’ rights to privacy. These arguably made India more progressive. Yet the court has been extremely reluctant to challenge Mr Modi on more hot-button issues. In December, for example, it approved the government’s move in 2019 to strip Jammu and Kashmir, previously India’s only Muslim-majority state, of its statehood and split it into two territories.

In 2022 it cleared the prime minister of complicity in deadly sectarian riots in Gujarat in 2002, when he was the state’s chief minister. More surprisingly, it suggested the petitioners who had brought the case should be prosecuted for abusing the judicial process. In 2019 it awarded land in Ayodhya, where Hindu extremists demolished an ancient mosque in 1992, to Hindus. That led to the construction of the lavish Ram temple that Mr Modi inaugurated on the site last month.

When the court cannot bring itself to side with the government in such hypersensitive cases, it often refrains from passing judgment—a tactic known as “judicial avoidance”. Some controversial cases, such as a raft of petitions filed against the Citizenship Amendment Act, a law that discriminates against Muslims, have had hearings postponed for years. Umar Khalid, a student activist who has been in jail for three years awaiting trial on bogus terrorism charges, last week decided to withdraw his plea for bail after his hearing was postponed for the 14th time. The ruling on electoral bonds came seven years after their introduction was first challenged. The court thus gave the ruling party ample time to benefit from what always looked like a questionable instrument.

Some of this appears straightforwardly a result of political pressure. Lawyers say the government drags its feet on clearing the appointment of judges it dislikes and accuse it of trying to pick and choose between those that hear sensitive cases. Last year a lawyer wrote an open letter to the chief justice complaining about last-minute switches of judges set to hear human-rights and freedom-of-speech cases. In 2018 four Supreme Court judges accused the then-chief justice of bending to Mr Modi.

Yet unlike, for example, Hungary and Turkey, which are also democracies with strongmen rulers, the government has not engaged in blatant court-stacking. The court itself thwarted the only alleged recent attempt to do so: in 2015 it struck down a law that would have given the executive more power over judicial appointments.

By and large, says Mr Bhuwania, the court has decided to align its agenda with that of the government in order to safeguard its autonomy. Such a court might sometimes take on the government. But it will not be an especially reliable constitutional check on executive power.

Source: The Economist

How independent is India’s Supreme Court?

Despite its enormous powers, it rarely challenges the government

www.economist.com

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Are you talking about this court? Lol
===
How independent is India’s Supreme Court?


Despite its enormous powers, it rarely challenges the government


India’s supreme court has been making waves. On February 21st it overturned the result of a mayoral election in Chandigarh, capital of the northern states of Punjab and Haryana, and chided an official loyal to the Bharatiya Janata Party (bjp) for having rigged the poll. Two days earlier it ordered the government of Narendra Modi to reverse a dilution in the rules protecting forestland. Last week it struck down electoral bonds, an opaque campaign-finance instrument that had mainly benefited the bjp.


These judgments highlight the court’s considerable power to challenge the government. India’s constitution makes it among the world’s most powerful supreme courts. Yet anyone counting on it emerging as a strong check on Mr Modi’s authoritarian drift is liable to be disappointed. The court has been much less willing to challenge the bjp government on its political priorities. Despite its recent activities, a combination of structural flaws and political pressure has severely diminished its role as an independent bulwark against the excesses of the ruling party.


The court’s power was damaged during Indira’s Gandhi’s more extreme spell of authoritarianism, the 21-month-long Emergency that the former prime minister declared in 1975. It has since clawed back most of the functions and prestige stripped from it at that time. And it has expanded its role beyond judicial review to include functions more commonly reserved for the legislature and executive, says Anuj Bhuwania, a legal scholar at the University of Leipzig. On occasion, the court has used these powers to advance an agenda at odds with the aims of Mr Modi’s government.


Examples of that include landmark rulings which decriminalised gay sex (though stopped short of legalising same-sex marriage) and advanced citizens’ rights to privacy. These arguably made India more progressive. Yet the court has been extremely reluctant to challenge Mr Modi on more hot-button issues. In December, for example, it approved the government’s move in 2019 to strip Jammu and Kashmir, previously India’s only Muslim-majority state, of its statehood and split it into two territories.


In 2022 it cleared the prime minister of complicity in deadly sectarian riots in Gujarat in 2002, when he was the state’s chief minister. More surprisingly, it suggested the petitioners who had brought the case should be prosecuted for abusing the judicial process. In 2019 it awarded land in Ayodhya, where Hindu extremists demolished an ancient mosque in 1992, to Hindus. That led to the construction of the lavish Ram temple that Mr Modi inaugurated on the site last month.

When the court cannot bring itself to side with the government in such hypersensitive cases, it often refrains from passing judgment—a tactic known as “judicial avoidance”. Some controversial cases, such as a raft of petitions filed against the Citizenship Amendment Act, a law that discriminates against Muslims, have had hearings postponed for years. Umar Khalid, a student activist who has been in jail for three years awaiting trial on bogus terrorism charges, last week decided to withdraw his plea for bail after his hearing was postponed for the 14th time. The ruling on electoral bonds came seven years after their introduction was first challenged. The court thus gave the ruling party ample time to benefit from what always looked like a questionable instrument.

Some of this appears straightforwardly a result of political pressure. Lawyers say the government drags its feet on clearing the appointment of judges it dislikes and accuse it of trying to pick and choose between those that hear sensitive cases. Last year a lawyer wrote an open letter to the chief justice complaining about last-minute switches of judges set to hear human-rights and freedom-of-speech cases. In 2018 four Supreme Court judges accused the then-chief justice of bending to Mr Modi.

Yet unlike, for example, Hungary and Turkey, which are also democracies with strongmen rulers, the government has not engaged in blatant court-stacking. The court itself thwarted the only alleged recent attempt to do so: in 2015 it struck down a law that would have given the executive more power over judicial appointments.


By and large, says Mr Bhuwania, the court has decided to align its agenda with that of the government in order to safeguard its autonomy. Such a court might sometimes take on the government. But it will not be an especially reliable constitutional check on executive power.

Source: The Economist

How independent is India’s Supreme Court?

Despite its enormous powers, it rarely challenges the government

www.economist.com

Literally, half baked knowledge coming to the fore again . Please read the article first. You are quoting from the very article where Court actively blasted Modi's BJP attempt at stealing a local election, took down the electoral bonds scheme that favors BJP right months before the elections, affecting BJP's election run.
Are you looking to praise the Indian Judiciary??

Just recently this very Supreme Court nulled that stupid Kanwar Yatra Muslim Eatry diktat by BJP. So many judgements against the Modi govt in the last 10 years but... LOL

Indian judiciary is actually the one of the most powerful independent judicial body in the world, other organs of the Indian govt have little way to control it. I have already pointed it out in other threads.
Indian Judiciary decides based on its independent interpretation of the law as per Indian Constitution. Sometimes Modi is in the right and sometime he falls on the wrong side.
Your preconceived notion is that for a system to be fair, Modi should be guilty EVERYTIME.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Well i must admit this @Aang_The_last_airbender that you are a good digresser. I specifically highlighted the judges biasness and tilt toward modi but you ignored that. Infact you didn't read the article entirely as it criticizes Indira Gandhi too from whose time India judiciary has become a puppet of government and always given decision to appease the majority.

Please read the article again and come back then. And sorry your info this time isn't even half baked.

Literally, half baked knowledge coming to the fore again . Please read the article first. You are quoting from the very article where Court actively blasted Modi's BJP attempt at stealing a local election, took down the electoral bonds scheme that favors BJP right months before the elections, affecting BJP's election run.
Are you looking to praise the Indian Judiciary??

Just recently this very Supreme Court nulled that stupid Kanwar Yatra Muslim Eatry diktat by BJP. So many judgements against the Modi govt in the last 10 years but... LOL

Indian judiciary is actually the one of the most powerful independent judicial body in the world, other organs of the Indian govt have little way to control it. I have already pointed it out in other threads.
Indian Judiciary decides based on its independent interpretation of the law as per Indian Constitution. Sometimes Modi is in the right and sometime he falls on the wrong side.
Your preconceived notion is that for a system to be fair, Modi should be guilty EVERYTIME.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Its rich coming from Leftie outlets from US that there is no press freedom in India.

In US, if you go against the Leftie trope, you will get cancelled. You have to go with their woke narrative regarding everything. Otherwise, expect to become jobless.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Well i must admit this @Aang_The_last_airbender that you are a good digresser. I specifically highlighted the judges biasness and tilt toward modi but you ignored that. Infact you didn't read the article entirely as it criticizes Indira Gandhi too from whose time India judiciary has become a puppet of government and always given decision to appease the majority.

Please read the article again and come back then. And sorry your info this time isn't even half baked.

I am kinda limited in sharing views and sources due to limitation on my profile. I have read all that sir, and do you think from my posts I would not be aware of them??

I am not awarding the Indian Judiciary 100/100 but it certainly is far more independent than even the most developed democracies of the world. US for example. The author has a certain bent, and he has rightly pointed about certain concerns. The Judiciary has had landmark decisions in favor and against the Modi govt. both. and if the author is aggrieved by certain judgements that just shows that Indian judiciary is not here to please any specific person. I do not agree with some of te judgements listed either but again, the judiciary operates independently. and that's my point. Indira Gandhi had been the biggest threat to institutions of democracy of India,, Modi doesnt come close. We survived her attempts at being dictator, Modi is nothing.

Lets cover the judgements one by one
1. Chandigarh local elections: BJP blasted and lost Chandigarh Council, a major embarrassment to BJP and empowered the opposition. Here SC didnt wait and delivered judgements within days and was outfight critical calling it "murder of democracy" by BJP.
2. Election bonds: The judgment played a key role in wrecking BJP's chances in this Lok Sabha Elections. One can estimate a loss of 30-40 seats just because of this judgement
3. Dilution of Forestland reversed: hurt Modi's Big business buddies in favor of local tribes
4. Decriminalized Gay sex : the conservative RSS was up in arms, here Islam and Hindutva are common buddies but SC didnt care. . Does this favor majority ??
5. Citizens right to privacy preserved: The dictator Modi wanted control over our personal online stuff, a pupprt SC should have allowed that in name of security.
6. Ayodhya Verdict 2019: The facts infront of the court decided the judgement. Now you can your own view on it. Why did it take 5 years of Modi rule, if SC was puppet??
7. Coming to 2018 letter by SC judges : Again, as I said your knowledge is limited. There is deeper background to it. This was a little powerplay between the judges. Context is super important, sir. and the very judges who protested against the Chief Justice in 2018, gave the Ayodhya verdict in 2019. oops !!! (One of them by the standard rules was Chief Justice in 2019, Modi could not prevent that in anyway) NOT ALLOWED
8. Article 370 : BJP had masterminded a 2 year plan to abrogate the article. I personally feel the Constitutionality of abrogation of article 370 is flimsy but SC decided otherwise and also took a slightly pro-India stance here.
9. 2022, cases against Modi: they have been tried again and again. The Law and courts need more than media articles to convict. You can't keep bringing same stuff which cannot test the judicial enquiry of courts.
10. Ah the final and my favorite : 2015 stacking attempt: NJAC. it was a joint attempt of the entire legislature to have some say in judicial appointments. It passed with super majority (All parties votied for it, not just BJP). A major amendment and was ratified by ALL state legislatures too. But Supreme Court, being the most powerful judicial body of any country in the world, simple nullified it.

Puppet Court??

In the 10 incidents, I have covered from the article. 7 are against Modi.

Have I digressed or avoided anything??
Again point 6 and 7 would be important for you.

 

[oatmeal]

Modi isnt a dictator but he's an authoritarian ruler. His wings were clipped in the recent Lok Sabha elections but its hard for him to govern any other way because that's how he's always been.

In a large country like India, you cant be an outright dictator, so Modi and Shah uses selective pressure. Sometimes its ED going after opposition, sometimes its electoral bonds to build massive money advantage, sometimes its engineering pre and post poll defections to topple governments and break parties. It's a stick vs carrot approach

 

[HalBass9]

Modi isnt a dictator but he's an authoritarian ruler. His wings were clipped in the recent Lok Sabha elections but its hard for him to govern any other way because that's how he's always been.

In a large country like India, you cant be an outright dictator, so Modi and Shah uses selective pressure. Sometimes its ED going after opposition, sometimes its electoral bonds to build massive money advantage, sometimes its engineering pre and post poll defections to topple governments and break parties. It's a stick vs carrot approach

Democratically elected dictators are notorious for exploiting state institutions to perpetuate their rule.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Modi isnt a dictator but he's an authoritarian ruler. His wings were clipped in the recent Lok Sabha elections but its hard for him to govern any other way because that's how he's always been.

In a large country like India, you cant be an outright dictator, so Modi and Shah uses selective pressure. Sometimes its ED going after opposition, sometimes its electoral bonds to build massive money advantage, sometimes its engineering pre and post poll defections to topple governments and break parties. It's a stick vs carrot approach

Electoral bonds is a literal red herring. No party refused to accept the black money donations coming to them except the CPI.
. Congress, AAP, TMC, SP just did lip service to oppose but loved the easy access to corporate money.
Pre-poll and post defections have been happening since ages. The rules are much stricter than what it was when Congress ruled for nearly 40 years. Number of state govts toppled by Modi and BJP doesn't even come close to what Congress used to do under Nehru, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi.

Many guys just suffer from the recency bias and a bit of information overload of social media echo chambers.

 

[oatmeal]

Electoral bonds is a literal red herring. No party refused to accept the black money donations coming to them except the CPI.
. Congress, AAP, TMC, SP just did lip service to oppose but loved the easy access to corporate money.
Pre-poll and post defections have been happening since ages. The rules are much stricter than what it was when Congress ruled for nearly 40 years. Number of state govts toppled by Modi and BJP doesn't even come close to what Congress used to do under Nehru, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi.

Many guys just suffer from the recency bias and a bit of information overload of social media echo chambers.

lol you suffer from a serious case of whataboutery in order to reflexively defend Modi. this is called Andbhakti

Just because Indira Gandhi declared emergency decades back doesnt mean Modi is not a authoritarian ruler. Electoral bonds is an easy way for corporates to donate money without ever making it public. Instead of black money in case they were able to transfer white funds which are easy to spend on capital expenditure. And Black money is on top of this which is used for other nefarious reasons.

BJP was a disproportionate beneficiary of this, not the only one but they benefited from it the most.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@Aang_The_last_airbender I know you love to write essays. But I have a very simple question

Was Modi not complicit in killing of nearly 2000 Muslims in gujrat riots? Plz answer this directly and making God your witness. And please don't slip away by quoting the Indian Supreme Court the most impartial court in the universe. Lol

I shall present the evidences later.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

lol you suffer from a serious case of whataboutery in order to reflexively defend Modi. this is called Andbhakti

Just because Indira Gandhi declared emergency decades back doesnt mean Modi is not a authoritarian ruler. Electoral bonds is an easy way for corporates to donate money without ever making it public. Instead of black money in case they were able to transfer white funds which are easy to spend on capital expenditure. And Black money is on top of this which is used for other nefarious reasons.

BJP was a disproportionate beneficiary of this, not the only one but they benefited from it the most.

I am going to send the snapshot of this post to my friends and family, calling me a "andhBhakt"

My dad would be proud after so many years, and my friends are going to die of laughter!!

Its a hard life being accused of being called a "pseudo-sickular" "leftie" "commie" and "Hindutva supporter", " Modi Bhakt" at the same time. No India for people like me

 

[oatmeal]

I am going to send the snapshot of this post to my friends and family, calling me a "andhBhakt" .
My dad would be proud after so many years, and my friends are going to die of laughter!!

Its a hard life being accused of being called a "pseudo-sickular" "leftie" "commie" and "Hindutva supporter", " Modi Bhakt" at the same time. No India for people like me

lol you are free to send the snapshot to anyone you like, but that doesnt' change the fact that you are being an andbhakt when you bring in whataboutery of decades old Congress governments to justify Modi's authoritarianism.

I seriously question the competence of anyone who doesnt consider Modi and Shah authoritarian in their governance style. It's far more honest to say that I support their policies so I dont consider it a problem because it helps the country achieve the policy objectives I prefer to happen

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

@Aang_The_last_airbender I know you love to write essays. But I have a very simple question

Was Modi not complicit in killing of nearly 2000 Muslims in gujrat riots? Plz answer this directly and making God your witness. And please don't slip away by quoting the Indian Supreme Court the most impartial court in the universe. Lol

I shall present the evidences later.

I tried to leave nothing from the article brother. and I believe I have answered your points about judiciary. I have not said the SC is impartial, the word is independent. There is a difference. Objectively, I would side with you guys with regards to how the article 370 was scrapped, but I am Indian and so is the Supreme Court.

Lets get the context fully.
1. How many political leaders have been convicted around the world for riots? Has Donald Trump being convicted, even though there are public speeches by him inciting the riot on Jan 6. What's the situation in Pakistan? Any conviction of politician except when they lead revolt against the army?
Gujrat riots in 2002 were not the first riots in India and certainly not the last ones. How many senior political leaders have been convicted in India so far. Congress leaders openly lead to riots against Sikhs after Indira Gandhi assassination, Rajiv Gandhi allowed it openly and made public statements about it. Any conviction of Rajiv Gandhi??
Its a failure of our legal systems all over the world that politicians escape accountability of riots and bloodshed.
and coming to Modi, he has always been smart about it. There are no direct verifiable evidence (hearsay are not evidence in the court of law) that link Modi to the atrocities that happened.
There have been far worse bloody riots that have happened in different parts of the world than Gujrat. Pakistan has its fair share, how many convictions?

And everything in media is not true, we should always understand that. The Manchester airport and Southport incident are just the recent examples how narrative can be spread. Does anyone have undeniable proof against Modi, I think not.

My personal opinion: Modi is likely to complicit in letting violence continue for a duration longer than he could have. He is guilty of not responding in a timely manner. It's impossible to convict someone on a senior position as a CM.
Just a strained analogy, Can you find Nigel Farage guilty of Southport riots?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I tried to leave nothing from the article brother. and I believe I have answered your points about judiciary. I have not said the SC is impartial, the word is independent. There is a difference. Objectively, I would side with you guys with regards to how the article 370 was scrapped, but I am Indian and so is the Supreme Court.

Lets get the context fully.
1. How many political leaders have been convicted around the world for riots? Has Donald Trump being convicted, even though there are public speeches by him inciting the riot on Jan 6. What's the situation in Pakistan? Any conviction of politician except when they lead revolt against the army?
Gujrat riots in 2002 were not the first riots in India and certainly not the last ones. How many senior political leaders have been convicted in India so far. Congress leaders openly lead to riots against Sikhs after Indira Gandhi assassination, Rajiv Gandhi allowed it openly and made public statements about it. Any conviction of Rajiv Gandhi??
Its a failure of our legal systems all over the world that politicians escape accountability of riots and bloodshed.
and coming to Modi, he has always been smart about it. There are no direct verifiable evidence (hearsay are not evidence in the court of law) that link Modi to the atrocities that happened.
There have been far worse bloody riots that have happened in different parts of the world than Gujrat. Pakistan has its fair share, how many convictions?

And everything in media is not true, we should always understand that. The Manchester airport and Southport incident are just the recent examples how narrative can be spread. Does anyone have undeniable proof against Modi, I think not.

My personal opinion: Modi is likely to complicit in letting violence continue for a duration longer than he could have. He is guilty of not responding in a timely manner. It's impossible to convict someone on a senior position as a CM.
Just a strained analogy, Can you find Nigel Farage guilty of Southport riots?

They say that devil is in the details but it's nice that you wrote the truth willy nilly about Modi. Although you have been too light on him. And yes Indira and Rajiv Gandhi were complicits too back then against Sikhs.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

India: The Modi Question - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

@Aang_The_last_airbender I recommend you to watch this documentary. Contains many more things besides hearsay stuff. Have a nice day

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

They say that devil is in the details but it's nice that you wrote the truth willy nilly about Modi. Although you have been too light on him. And yes Indira and Rajiv Gandhi were complicits too back then against Sikhs.

Now please share the "proof" that should get Modi convicted in a court of law plz? We are not looking for a social media trial.

 

[Hikaru]

Never trusted these propaganda pieces. The likes of Modi Ji, Putin, Trump will always be targetted by mainstream media because these are alpha-men who know how to walk the talk.

Despite his hateful tweets against Narendra Modi, even Imran Khan couldn't resist praising Modi in many of his political rallies. That's NAMO for you, a true Bhartiya even enemies respect.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

India: The Modi Question - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

@Aang_The_last_airbender I recommend you to watch this documentary. Contains many more things besides hearsay stuff. Have a nice day

Brother, will this documentary work as evidence in a court of law
I like to cover and see multiple POV, already seen that when it was released. As I said it will be all classified as hearsay, Its literally impossible to convict politicians for riots.
Donald Trump, someone who was literally impeached by US Congress is still free for the riots in Washington right.
There is a huge huge difference between media conviction and getting conviction from court of law.
Let me know when Nigel Farage even faces charges for riots in Southport.

 

[Hikaru]

Now please share the "proof" that should get Modi convicted in a court of law plz? We are not looking for a social media trial.

Everything and everyone good for India will continue to face trial from the enemies of Bharat, for centuries to come. Today it's Modi, tomorrow it will be someone else brother.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Brother, will this documentary work as evidence in a court of law
I like to cover and see multiple POV, already seen that when it was released. As I said it will be all classified as hearsay, Its literally impossible to convict politicians for riots.
Donald Trump, someone who was literally impeached by US Congress is still free for the riots in Washington right.
There is a huge huge difference between media conviction and getting conviction from court of law.
Let me know when Nigel Farage even faces charges for riots in Southport.

You are mixing stuff, Nigel farage was not mayor of the area where it happened. Wrong comparison.Trump one is more reasonable but again you can't compare a half a day event with an event that continued for a month long. And of evidences, the witnesses of these cases also Hindus were penalized and convicted in return to keep them quite forever.

 

[RexRex]

Modi allegedly 'got rid' one of his fellow ministers who was preparing to testify against him for his role in 2001 massacre. @Aang_The_last_airbender

A Murder Foretold

A Murder Foretold

www.outlookindia.com

 

[HalBass9]

Never trusted these propaganda pieces. The likes of Modi Ji, Putin, Trump will always be targetted by mainstream media because these are alpha-men who know how to walk the talk.

Despite his hateful tweets against Narendra Modi, even Imran Khan couldn't resist praising Modi in many of his political rallies. That's NAMO for you, a true Bhartiya even enemies respect.

Praising what is right and criticizing what is wrong, even when it involves someone who is prejudiced against you, is a hallmark of great leadership.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Modi allegedly 'got rid' one of his fellow ministers who was preparing to testify against him for his role in 2001 massacre. @Aang_The_last_airbender

A Murder Foretold

A Murder Foretold

www.outlookindia.com

The keyword "alleged" .. let me know when allegations become proofs in court of law.
Conjectures, speculations and media trials. I am not saying that it might not be true.
But no court of law can convict based on these supposedly hearsay based statements. Go talk to an actual lawyer in any of our countries and try to get a conviction out these so called proofs.
Whether true or not, its not good enough for conviction.

 

[RexRex]

The keyword "alleged" .. let me know when allegations become proofs in court of law.
Conjectures, speculations and media trials. I am not saying that it might not be true.
But no court of law can convict based on these supposedly hearsay based statements. Go talk to an actual lawyer in any of our countries and try to get a conviction out these so called proofs.
Whether true or not, its not good enough for conviction.

I wasn't posting proofs for a court conviction, but that 2022 article is very interesting - minister confirmed to Outlook magazine in 2002 that Modi had stopped his police from quelling the riots, and a retired judge confirmed it.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Modi allegedly 'got rid' one of his fellow ministers who was preparing to testify against him for his role in 2001 massacre. @Aang_The_last_airbender

A Murder Foretold

A Murder Foretold

www.outlookindia.com

The keyword "alleged" .. let me know when allegations become proofs in court of law.
Conjectures, speculations and media trials. I am not saying that it might not be true.
But no court of law can convict based on these supposedly hearsay based statements. Go talk to an actual lawyer in any of our countries and try to get a conviction out these so called proofs.
Whether true or not, its not good enough for conviction.

Speaking strictly from legal point of view, a dying declaration is entertained as an acceptable piece of evidence. If I am not wrong it's section 47 of law of evidence Pakistan and may be section 32 in Indian law of evidence. And if someone before his death cast aspertiond at someone then legally that person can be investigated too for an alleged murder or involvement.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

@The Bald Eagle : Are we supposed to take BBC documentaries as reliable sources for criminal conviction??

I wasn't posting proofs for a court conviction, but that 2022 article is very interesting - minister confirmed to Outlook magazine in 2002 that Modi had stopped his police from quelling the riots, and a retired judge confirmed it.

The only thing that is anywhere close to the supposed "proof" is statement by Haren Pandya, who himself had risen through the ranks of RSS. Just like Modi. He was the Home Minister and close confidant of the previous CM Keshubhai Patel, another lifelong RSS worker. BBC conveniently skips Haren Pandya's background.

There should be nothing sus that, Modi had demoted Haren Pandya from Home ministry to Revenue when he was made CM.
We should trust one politician with RSS background with a reason to have grudge against another politician with RSS background. Why? Because its suits our narrative.
One RSS worker, a lifetime BJP politician has more credibility than the other RSS worker and lifetime BJP politician.
(I am skipping past the evidences against Haren Pandya that he led rioters to demolish a mosque or his phone location to be in different city when Modi instructed Police to not interfere) Let's not forget the dates, he is removed for Cabinet on 13 Aug 2002 and he calls up Outlook magazine on 19th Aug. This RSS worker had suddenly become a saint and could only speak truth with no grudge against the man who crushed his CM ambitions. Politicians have never been known to be jealous beings


Again, even if true, prove that in court of law with the above context. The SIT concluded in 2012, Congress and Rahul Gandhi had been in power at the centre since 2004 and they couldn't get a conviction of their political enemy with all the so called "hard proofs". Modi and BJP had no control over the central authorities and were political opponents. Do you think Congress was in cahoots with Modi?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@The Bald Eagle : Are we supposed to take BBC documentaries as reliable sources for criminal conviction??



The only thing that is anywhere close to the supposed "proof" is statement by Haren Pandya, who himself had risen through the ranks of RSS. Just like Modi. He was the Home Minister and close confidant of the previous CM Keshubhai Patel, another lifelong RSS worker. BBC conveniently skips Haren Pandya's background.

There should be nothing sus that, Modi had demoted Haren Pandya from Home ministry to Revenue when he was made CM.
We should trust one politician with RSS background with a reason to have grudge against another politician with RSS background. Why? Because its suits our narrative.
One RSS worker, a lifetime BJP politician has more credibility than the other RSS worker and lifetime BJP politician.
(I am skipping past the evidences against Haren Pandya that he led rioters to demolish a mosque or his phone location to be in different city when Modi instructed Police to not interfere) Let's not forget the dates, he is removed for Cabinet on 13 Aug 2002 and he calls up Outlook magazine on 19th Aug. This RSS worker had suddenly become a saint and could only speak truth with no grudge against the man who crushed his CM ambitions. Politicians have never been known to be jealous beings


Again, even if true, prove that in court of law with the above context. The SIT concluded in 2012, Congress and Rahul Gandhi had been in power at the centre since 2004 and they couldn't get a conviction of their political enemy with all the so called "hard proofs". Modi and BJP had no control over the central authorities and were political opponents. Do you think Congress was in cahoots with Modi?

No BBC documentary alone isn't enough but here in modi case it certainly is. Aang i am getting the feeling now that you haven't watched it because if you had then you wouldn't have made these questions. Again it is based on various Ground Reports from that time including one made by British High commission on ground officials there and because of that evidence Modi got banned not only in US and Uk but in entire of Europe.

Plenty of other stuff in that documentary too please watch first. And also what were the name of witnesses against Modi and what happened to them next.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Speaking strictly from legal point of view, a dying declaration is entertained as an acceptable piece of evidence. If I am not wrong it's section 47 of law of evidence Pakistan and may be section 32 in Indian law of evidence. And if someone before his death cast aspertiond at someone then legally that person can be investigated too for an alleged murder or involvement.

Do you know what a dying declaration is? Get the definition right.
Someone deaths doesn't make the statements made months or years ago "a dying declaration".
Strictly Legal validity

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Do you know what a dying declaration is? Get the definition right.
Someone deaths doesn't make the statements made months or years ago "a dying declaration".
Strictly Legal validity

Don't be in haste. Read the full statement...

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

No BBC documentary alone isn't enough but here in modi case it certainly is. Aang i am getting the feeling now that you haven't watched it because if you had then you wouldn't have made these questions. Again it is based on various Ground Reports from that time including one made by British High commission on ground officials there and because of that evidence Modi got banned not only in US and Uk but in entire of Europe.

Plenty of other stuff in that documentary too please watch first. And also what were the name of witnesses against Modi and what happened to them next.

I knew you were going to get to that too.. was just waiting. What direct evidence is that report based on? British diplomats heard from someone who was told by someone. Legally, Hearsay. My standard point.

I have already covered about others in other posts.

Don't be in haste. Read the full statement...

Dying declaration is treated as evidence but casting aspersion on someone months before dying can open investigation against someone but is not treated as dying declaration. And Aspersion of a professional rival with a grudge, yeah. One can be convicted based on that. nice legal system we would have.

Please go through the legal requirements of how something is treated as dying declaration.
Dont be hasty here.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

And if someone before his death cast aspertiond at someone then legally that person can be investigated too for an alleged murder or involvement.

I knew you were going to get to that too.. was just waiting. What direct evidence is that report based on? British diplomats heard from someone who was told by someone. Legally, Hearsay. My standard point.

I have already covered about others in other posts.

Dying declaration is treated as evidence but casting aspersion on someone months before dying can open investigation against someone but is not treated as dying declaration. And Aspersion of a professional rival with a grudge, yeah. One can be convicted based on that. nice legal system we would have.

Please go through the legal requirements of how something is treated as dying declaration.
Dont be hasty here.

Read above bolded part. Even a layman can understand this

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

@The Bald Eagle : The only people whose statemen would carry weight would be the people in the meeting. Namely Haren Pandya and The IPS officers, who claim Modi directly told them to not interfere. Rest all is moot and won't matter.
Now next step, is to validate the truth of the claims by these people. Law has to treat everyone equally right and burden of proof rests with the prosecution rests with the prosecutor. Modi was able to give proofs that these guys were not there in the meetings and had eye witness statements in his favor.
Done, case closed! Legally!

What happened in Gujrat I very well believe Modi would have told the police to stand down (my point about inaction). But can he be convicted on your or mine belief? Nopes. Congress the party in power could very well have influenced to get conviction and believe me they tried. No reasonable court of law can convict Modi here and thats what happened.

This has been a lengthy conversation. but TLDR is just because Modi did not get convicted doesn't mean the judiciary is his puppet. and there are plenty of fanatic politicians in all countries. and Modi obsession of Pakistanis just helps Modi politically and the Pakistani military establishment.

Read above bolded part. Even a layman can understand this

Yes, investigation will happen but that aspersion is not treated as "dying declaration" and Modi did face investigation for that. Dying declaration as treated as an irrefutable evidence unless proven otherwise. Huge Huge difference.

If I tell someone that @The Bald Eagle might kill me and I die after a few months. You will be investigated but my statement is not dying declaration. The police will have to prove your guilt, burden will lie on the prosecution. but
If on my deathbed, I say @The Bald Eagle killed me, that will be treated as dying declaration and you will be in a hypothetical pickle. Burden of proof to refute my dying statement will fall on you now.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@The Bald Eagle : The only people whose statemen would carry weight would be the people in the meeting. Namely Haren Pandya and The IPS officers, who claim Modi directly told them to not interfere. Rest all is moot and won't matter.
Now next step, is to validate the truth of the claims by these people. Law has to treat everyone equally right and burden of proof rests with the prosecution rests with the prosecutor. Modi was able to give proofs that these guys were not there in the meetings and had eye witness statements in his favor.
Done, case closed! Legally!

What happened in Gujrat I very well believe Modi would have told the police to stand down (my point about inaction). But can he be convicted on your or mine belief? Nopes. Congress the party in power could very well have influenced to get conviction and believe me they tried. No reasonable court of law can convict Modi here and thats what happened.

This has been a lengthy conversation. but TLDR is just because Modi did not get convicted doesn't mean the judiciary is his puppet. and there are plenty of fanatic politicians in all countries. and Modi obsession of Pakistanis just helps Modi politically and the Pakistani military establishment.

Yes, investigation will happen but that aspersion is not treated as "dying declaration" and Modi did face investigation for that. Dying declaration as treated as an irrefutable evidence unless proven otherwise. Huge Huge difference.

If I tell someone that @The Bald Eagle might kill me and I die after a few months. You will be investigated but my statement is not dying declaration. The police will have to prove your guilt, burden will lie on the prosecution. but
If on my deathbed, I say @The Bald Eagle killed me, that will be treated as dying declaration and you will be in a hypothetical pickle. Burden of proof to refute my dying statement will fall on you now.

You are a good advocate of modi man. Literally for a moment It appeared modi won it Legally. But nah Modi didn't win because he proved that above characters were absent.

He won because of high handedness and the court biases.
===
Prosecution of the perpetrators of the violence hampered by witnesses being bribed or intimidated and the perpetrators' names being deleted from the charge sheets. Local judges were also biased.[115]

For further details check this link please.

2002 Gujarat riots - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Under criminal prosecution heading

 

[cricketjoshila]

It would be pretty pointless in reality, he was banned from entering USA after the Gujarat massacre, but as soon as he won the elections in India those restrictions were lifted. For most nations economic interests override moral objections when push comes to shove.

Any restrictions on Modi were lifted soon after his acquittal by court.

 

[sweep_shot]

Any restrictions on Modi were lifted soon after his acquittal by court.

How can we be sure court was not biased?

 

[cricketjoshila]

lol you suffer from a serious case of whataboutery in order to reflexively defend Modi. this is called Andbhakti

Just because Indira Gandhi declared emergency decades back doesnt mean Modi is not a authoritarian ruler. Electoral bonds is an easy way for corporates to donate money without ever making it public. Instead of black money in case they were able to transfer white funds which are easy to spend on capital expenditure. And Black money is on top of this which is used for other nefarious reasons.

BJP was a disproportionate beneficiary of this, not the only one but they benefited from it the most.

Why should anyone be forced to reveal their political opinion?

If a corporate wants to donate to X party why can't they donate anonymously? There may be fear that if Y party comes to know they may face retaliation.

BJP is by far the largest party in India. They are in power in most states plus center. They enjoy the maximum support. Hence donation.

 

[cricketjoshila]

How can we be sure court was not biased?

Why will it be biased? Indian judiciary has removed PMs and CMs.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Why will it be biased? Indian judiciary has removed PMs and CMs.

If that's the criteria then Pakistan judiciary is light years ahead Indian counterpart.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

You are a good advocate of modi man. Literally for a moment It appeared modi won it Legally. But nah Modi didn't win because he proved that above characters were absent.

He won because of high handedness and the court biases.
===
Prosecution of the perpetrators of the violence hampered by witnesses being bribed or intimidated and the perpetrators' names being deleted from the charge sheets. Local judges were also biased.[115]

For further details check this link please.

2002 Gujarat riots - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Under criminal prosecution heading

Who was in power in India during 2012 ? Congress, mortal political enemies of Modu for 8 long years.
SIT and all the investigations were conducted by the central authorities not state. Modi had no influence in Delhi till he became PM in 2014. So your point about court bias has no basis in reality.

Now we have shifted to wikipedia as source . So again we go back into hearsay territory. If something cannot be proven in court of law, how can the courts convict? Its prosecution's job to prove witness tampering and the guilt of the accused. The prosecution had the backing of Modi's political enemies in power.

TLDR: Indian Institutions are stronger than you think or imagine and bigger than Modi. Pak Military establishment and politicians need a boogeyman in the East of Wagah to scare the populace and continue their mismanagement and they are happy. Modi gets his boogeyman for free and he is also politically happy.

 

[cricketjoshila]

If that's the criteria then Pakistan judiciary is light years ahead Indian counterpart.

In India there is no Establishment controlling everyone.

India doesn't live under a dictatorship, overt or covert.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

If that's the criteria then Pakistan judiciary is light years ahead Indian counterpart.

We can have a separate thread and Indian judiciary is 100X stronger than Pakistani judiciary can be proven
Not saying the judiciary is not one the most corrupt lethargic entity of Indian governance, but it has one of the best immunity from domestic politics, legislature or executive control than anywhere in the world.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

We can have a separate thread and Indian judiciary is 100X stronger than Pakistani judiciary can be proven
Not saying the judiciary is not one the most corrupt lethargic entity of Indian governance, but it has one of the best immunity from domestic politics, legislature or executive control than anywhere in the world.

No it's incorrect your judiciary may be better than Pak but way below US in terms of global ranking and other stuff.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

No it's incorrect your judiciary may be better than Pak but way below US in terms of global ranking and other stuff.

I am not claiming its efficient or not corrupt or something great.

I am just talking about one particular parameter, Independence and immunity from other branches. Again, at lower tier this doesnt hold true but holds firmly at High courts and Supreme Court level. There is a reason we can't improve it.

In the entire history of Independent India, only one sitting High Court Judge has ever been impeached. Think about it
With all the tussles between politicians and judges, just 1 judge in 77 years!!

 

[Champ_Pal]

If you don't bash Modi, you are an Andh Bhakt.

 

[oatmeal]

Why should anyone be forced to reveal their political opinion?

If a corporate wants to donate to X party why can't they donate anonymously? There may be fear that if Y party comes to know they may face retaliation.

BJP is by far the largest party in India. They are in power in most states plus center. They enjoy the maximum support. Hence donation.

Because there is a huge risk of quid pro quo from the companies getting benefits from government policy or taxpayer money. And that deserves to be on public record. This is the law in most countries across the world

black money is already used to donate to political parties , but white is way more convenient than handling cash prone to misuse and corruption at the local level.

If BJP is getting more money only because they have the government in the center, then it's all the more reason to declare corporate donations publicly

 

[oatmeal]

You are not an andhbakth if you don't bash Modi. You are an andhbakth when you reflexively defend any policy and deny basic reality to worship at the altar of Modi

 

[cricketjoshila]

Because there is a huge risk of quid pro quo from the companies getting benefits from government policy or taxpayer money. And that deserves to be on public record. This is the law in most countries across the world

black money is already used to donate to political parties , but white is way more convenient than handling cash prone to misuse and corruption at the local level.

If BJP is getting more money only because they have the government in the center, then it's all the more reason to declare corporate donations publicly

Quid Pro Quo has to be proven. It cannot be a blanket rule to ask donors to reveal their political preference.

Who will protect an entity from political persecution?

BJP is in power in center and most states because it is the most popular party with the biggest support. More supporters mean more donations.

 

[oatmeal]

Quid Pro Quo has to be proven. It cannot be a blanket rule to ask donors to reveal their political preference.

Who will protect an entity from political persecution?

BJP is in power in center and most states because it is the most popular party with the biggest support. More supporters mean more donations.

It can only be proven when there is a public track record. This is the rule in most of the developed world. In the US there are exceptions for Super PACs but those cant coordinate with the campaign. But most donations have to be declared in timely manner.

You can act naive all you want, but the truth is that most corruption happens through such quid pro quo. It's very difficult to prove because a lot is not subject to RTIs and there are no proper paper trail. Having an established paper trail and independent institutions is the only way to prevent corruption.

Its not always going to be a government that aligns with your ideology at the centre or states, so its important that any government is subject to a check on its powers.

 

[Technics 1210]

I believe there should be a court case against Narendra Modi at International Criminal Court (ICC) for his role in extrajudicial killings in IOK and also Gujarat riot.

He was already proven guilty. This is why he was banned in the USA and UK, because the authorities had concrete evidence proving Modi was indeed the butcher of Gujrat, and a religious terrorist.

It is all documented in black and white. The only man to be banned from entering the USA/UK for inciting religious violence.

 

[Champ_Pal]

You are not an andhbakth if you don't bash Modi. You are an andhbakth when you reflexively defend any policy and deny basic reality to worship at the altar of Modi

We criticize Modi if he fails to deliver what he promised. But we are not going to criticize Modi just because he wants to implement Farm Laws or CAA which are supposed to benefit Farmers and minorities in India.

 

[Champ_Pal]

He was already proven guilty. This is why he was banned in the USA and UK, because the authorities had concrete evidence proving Modi was indeed the butcher of Gujrat, and a religious terrorist.

It is all documented in black and white. The only man to be banned from entering the USA/UK for inciting religious violence.

Modi was found Guilty? When and which court?

 

[anikrc1]

That is an incorrect characterization. You don't have to respect Islam if you don't want to. But why would you go on a smear campaign against our Prophet? Most people can have neutral stance on such things so as to no hurt the sentiment or antagonize people's feelings. As human beings, this is a very basic concept of civility.

Is that civility required for only religious figures? What about cartoons of Trump or Modi? Republicans or Hindutvas can argue that they are as dear to them as Islam's prophets are to Muslims.

 

[cricketjoshila]

It can only be proven when there is a public track record. This is the rule in most of the developed world. In the US there are exceptions for Super PACs but those cant coordinate with the campaign. But most donations have to be declared in timely manner.

You can act naive all you want, but the truth is that most corruption happens through such quid pro quo. It's very difficult to prove because a lot is not subject to RTIs and there are no proper paper trail. Having an established paper trail and independent institutions is the only way to prevent corruption.

Its not always going to be a government that aligns with your ideology at the centre or states, so its important that any government is subject to a check on its powers.

If there is an investigation then name can be revealed to the investigation agency.

Here all names revealed. Nothing found. Just donors exposed to political persecution in future.

There is paper trail of bonds. That's why every name could be revealed.

 

[cricketjoshila]

No it's incorrect your judiciary may be better than Pak but way below US in terms of global ranking and other stuff.

Which global ranking?

And please don't even talk about US judiciary, we all saw their attempts to some how prevent Trump from fighting the elections.

Its a joke.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Vietnamese PM by his side, Modi takes dig at China: We don’t support expansionism

With an eye on Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and visiting Vietnamese PM Pham Minh Chinh Thursday underlined the importance of “non-militarisation and self-restraint in the conduct of all activities” to avoid the escalation of disputes in the region.

With the Vietnamese PM by his side, Modi said India supports development and not expansionism — a thinly-disguised reference to Beijing’s belligerence in the Indo-Pacific. More than 55 per cent of world trade crosses through the South China Sea and New Delhi is concerned about potential disruptions.

“In our Act East policy and our Indo-Pacific vision, Vietnam is our important partner… We support development, not expansionism (Hum vistarbad nahi, vikasvad ka samarthan karte hain),” Modi said in Hindi in his statement.

Modi said that they have adopted a new plan of action to strengthen the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.

“New steps have been taken for cooperation in the field of Defence and Security… The agreement on a $300-million credit line will strengthen Vietnam’s maritime security. We have also decided to emphasise cooperation on the issues of terrorism and cyber security,” Modi said.

The joint statement said that the leaders, underlining the link between prosperity and security, “reaffirmed the importance of maintaining peace, stability, security and freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea, while pursuing the peaceful resolution of disputes in accordance with international law, particularly the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), without resorting to threat or use of force.”

“Both leaders underscored the importance of non-militarisation and self-restraint in the conduct of all activities by claimants and all other states, and avoidance of actions that could further complicate the situation or escalate disputes affecting peace and stability. Both leaders emphasised the legal framework set out by the UNCLOS within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out, and that UNCLOS is the basis for determining maritime entitlements, sovereign rights, jurisdiction and legitimate interests over maritime zones,” it said.

SOURCE: https://indianexpress.com/article/i...t-china-we-dont-support-expansionism-9490039/

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Any restrictions on Modi were lifted soon after his acquittal by court.

Yes I know, I already said that's the way it works. Most countries will put their financial considerations before morality, and as soon as Modi was elected as PM then the restrictions were lifted. India is just too big a market to ignore. No one really takes courts in third world countries such as India seriously, but they do take their bottom line very seriously.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes I know, I already said that's the way it works. Most countries will put their financial considerations before morality, and as soon as Modi was elected as PM then the restrictions were lifted. India is just too big a market to ignore. No one really takes courts in third world countries such as India seriously, but they do take their bottom line very seriously.

Read again what i wrote.

Modi's restrictions were lifted when he was acquitted. Not when he became PM.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Read again what i wrote.

Modi's restrictions were lifted when he was acquitted. Not when he became PM.

No one takes pakistanis opinion on India seriously. People laugh at it and move on.

Same difference. As I said, most countries will put their financial considerations before morality, India is just too big a market to ignore. No one really takes courts in third world countries such as India seriously, but they do take their bottom line very seriously.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Same difference. As I said, most countries will put their financial considerations before morality, India is just too big a market to ignore. No one really takes courts in third world countries such as India seriously, but they do take their bottom line very seriously.

Again pakistani opinion on India.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Again pakistani opinion on India.

You said

"No one takes pakistanis opinion on India seriously. People laugh at it and move on."

If you were true to your word you should have moved on, but clearly you took my words very seriously as you HAD to respond even though I challenged you to be true to your word and move on.

 

[FearlessRoar]

You said

"No one takes pakistanis opinion on India seriously. People laugh at it and move on."

If you were true to your word you should have moved on, but clearly you took my words very seriously as you HAD to respond even though I challenged you to be true to your word and move on.

Nailed it bro

 

[Stewie]

Is that civility required for only religious figures? What about cartoons of Trump or Modi? Republicans or Hindutvas can argue that they are as dear to them as Islam's prophets are to Muslims.

Are you seriously drawing parallels between religious figures and political leaders of today? Do I really need to explain the difference between the two in light of this conversation?

It sounds almost like you are saying you hold your leader as dear and close to your heart, almost the same as a religious prophet, Is that what you are truly claiming?

 

[FearlessRoar]

Modi is targeting one of India's fiercest voices of dissent, Arundhati Roy. Her 'crime'? Speaking truth to power, exposing the flaws of Hindutva ideology, and advocating for the rights of the marginalized.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Modi is targeting one of India's fiercest voices of dissent, Arundhati Roy. Her 'crime'? Speaking truth to power, exposing the flaws of Hindutva ideology, and advocating for the rights of the marginalized.

Every sane Indian will target Arundhati Roy! She is not Anti-Modi, She is just Anti-India. Has been even before Modi emerged at National scene.

 

[rpant_gabba]

O so you are finally ready for it.

Below is my definition of terrorist
>>>Terrorists are those who enforce their opinions on others, who kill people aimlessly just to further their powers and those who kick people out of their land for their colonization and just to get their dirty hands over their resources.<<<

Here was my question you ran from.

>>>Guess that makes islamist and muslims terrorists with their demand that every respect their prophet and quran?<<

I'm not a hindu and I don't respect hindu deities. no hindu is forcin got be respectful of hindusim

I'm not Not a xtian and dont resect jesus, no xtian is demanding me to be respectful of xtianity

muslims on the other hand demand everyone respect mohammad? why

isn;t that terrorism in your book?

It also makes moghuls terrorists and ottamans terrorists correct?

Lets continue. you want to revise your definition? or post another deflection

 

[uppercut]

Lol...The Quran forbades Muslims not to make fun of any religion

ok so who are the Islamic rulers that adhered to that holy doctrine across 1400 yrs?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Modi is targeting one of India's fiercest voices of dissent, Arundhati Roy. Her 'crime'? Speaking truth to power, exposing the flaws of Hindutva ideology, and advocating for the rights of the marginalized.

Her crime is calling for secession of Kashmir from India.

Don't try to hide facts.

 

[Hikaru]

ok so who are the Islamic rulers that adhered to that holy doctrine across 1400 yrs?

All of them. There's always a historical/social/political context to brush that under the carpet.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yes I know, I already said that's the way it works. Most countries will put their financial considerations before morality, and as soon as Modi was elected as PM then the restrictions were lifted. India is just too big a market to ignore. No one really takes courts in third world countries such as India seriously, but they do take their bottom line very seriously.

What makes you think that when they denied VISA they were not putting financials over morality even then?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Are you seriously drawing parallels between religious figures and political leaders of today? Do I really need to explain the difference between the two in light of this conversation?

It sounds almost like you are saying you hold your leader as dear and close to your heart, almost the same as a religious prophet, Is that what you are truly claiming?

This parallel is not hypothetical. Dalits hold Ambedkar very dear to them. And rightly, indian law prohibits any mocking or insult to him. He was no god or prophet, but did a lot for their rights.

And their sentiments have the same validity as those who revere people mentioned in books.

 

[anikrc1]

Are you seriously drawing parallels between religious figures and political leaders of today? Do I really need to explain the difference between the two in light of this conversation?

It sounds almost like you are saying you hold your leader as dear and close to your heart, almost the same as a religious prophet, Is that what you are truly claiming?

What if someone argues that ?

 

[uppercut]

All of them. There's always a historical/social/political context to brush that under the carpet.

sure Magnus Carlsen here !

 

[FearlessRoar]

Every sane Indian will target Arundhati Roy! She is not Anti-Modi, She is just Anti-India. Has been even before Modi emerged at National scene.

She is not against India, she is against extremist Hindus

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

She is not against India, she is against extremist Hindus

Naseerudding Shah speaks against Modi and BJP but he is not Anti-India. Arundhati Roy would rightly be in prison in any country the way she leads charge against her own nation.
How will you view any Pakistani openly supporting the Peshawar School Massacre?

She is just anti-capitalist anti-development communist who just likes to blame the system. She had been like this from the start way way before Modi was even CM of Gujrat, she just now has an easy punching bag and a millions and millions of audience outside and inside India who just lap it up. Because that's what you want to hear.
When Congress was in power she was pissing them? When Modi is in power, she does the same?

Congress was the one that charged her for sedition, not BJP or Modi.

Arundhati Roy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Arundhati Roy's portrait : (that's her identity).

 

[FearlessRoar]

Naseerudding Shah speaks against Modi and BJP but he is not Anti-India. Arundhati Roy would rightly be in prison in any country the way she leads charge against her own nation.
How will you view any Pakistani openly supporting the Peshawar School Massacre?

She is just anti-capitalist anti-development communist who just likes to blame the system. She had been like this from the start way way before Modi was even CM of Gujrat, she just now has an easy punching bag and a millions and millions of audience outside and inside India who just lap it up. Because that's what you want to hear.
When Congress was in power she was pissing them? When Modi is in power, she does the same?

Congress was the one that charged her for sedition, not BJP or Modi.

Arundhati Roy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Arundhati Roy's portrait : (that's her identity).

I have never heard her speaking against India sovereignty she has only raised voice against extremist Hindus such as BJP and RSS