What's new

[PICTURES] A stunner in Indian elections, for Narendra Modi and BJP its just like chickens came home to roost

What was the major reason behind BJP's underwhelming performance in 2024 elections?

  • Divisive & hate politics with less focus on equitable development

    Votes: 8 38.1%

  • Poor economic policies that only benefit ultra rich guys

    Votes: 3 14.3%

  • Arrogance and take for granted attitude

    Votes: 8 38.1%

  • Some other reason

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Total voters
    21
Champ_Pal said:
You have to look at the history of India. Lower caste people held power longer than anyone in India.

.
Click to expand...
One more example is One of the great and technically brilliant south indian kingdoms led by Sri krishna devaraya (ruled over 200 plus years).Portugese trade flourished under them.His ertstwhile Kingdom ,Hampi, is an unesco heritage . it had a dance hall where musicians have to play all the music instruments using the rock stupas.
 

Modi 3.0: Moody's Expects Policy Continuity But Delays In Far-reaching Reforms​


The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance’s (NDA) slim majority in Lok Sabha may delay more far-reaching economic and fiscal reforms that could impede progress on fiscal consolidation, Moody’s Ratings said on Wednesday.

NDA securing a majority in the general elections will give a historic third term for Narendra Modi as Prime Minister of India.

“We expect policy continuity, especially with regards to budgetary emphasis on infrastructure spending and boosting domestic manufacturing, to support robust economic growth.

“However, the NDA’s relatively slim margin of victory, as well as the BJP’s loss of its outright majority in parliament, may delay more far-reaching economic and fiscal reforms that could impede progress on fiscal consolidation,” Moody’s said in a note.

India’s fiscal outcomes will remain weaker than Baa-rated peers, even as the final budget for the fiscal year ending March 2025 (fiscal 2024-25) to be released in the next few weeks provides some indications of India’s fiscal policy over the course of the term of the incoming government through 2029, it said.

In fiscal 2023-24, India’s real GDP accelerated to 8.2 per cent from 7.0 per cent in the previous year, driven by gains in gross fixed capital formation as the government’s infrastructure programme gained further traction even as private consumption remained subdued.

“Our assessment of India’s economic strength incorporates real GDP growth of around 7 per cent over the three-year period between fiscal 2023-24 through 2025-26, while factoring potential upside over the medium-term resulting from improvements in productivity and potential growth on the back of traction on infrastructure development and digitalization,” Moody’s said.

The rating agency said although it projects India to grow faster than all other economies in the G20 through fiscal 2025-26, near-term economic momentum masks structural weaknesses that pose risks to long-term potential growth.

“High levels of youth unemployment across all sectors and weakness in productivity growth in the sovereign’s large agriculture sector continue to constrain its growth potential,” it said. ”While we expect the incoming government to carry over its focus on fiscal consolidation, material improvements in its debt ratios and interest servicing have yet to materialize.”

Since reaching a trough in fiscal 2020-21, the central government’s deficit is likely to have narrowed for three consecutive years; if the planned deficit of around 5 per cent of GDP announced in the interim budget for fiscal 2024-25 is achieved, it would place the government’s goal of achieving a 4.5 per cent of GDP deficit by fiscal 2025-26 within reach.

“However, the pace of India’s fiscal consolidation post-pandemic has not outperformed other emerging markets in Asia-Pacific, and its fiscal and debt metrics remain weaker than Indonesia (Baa2 stable), the Philippines (Baa2 stable) and Thailand (Baa1 stable), as well as other Baa-rated peers globally.

“In addition, India’s fiscal metrics, whether aggregated at a central government or general government level, would remain worse than before the pandemic, when India’s rating was higher at Baa2,” it added.

www.news18.com

Modi 3.0: Moody's Expects Policy Continuity But Delays In Far-reaching Reforms - News18

NDA securing a majority in the general elections will give a historic third term for Narendra Modi as Prime Minister of India.
www.news18.com www.news18.com
 
"Winning, Losing Part Of Politics, Numbers Game Goes On": PM Modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the last cabinet meeting of the current tenure said winning and losing are part of politics. PM Modi's BJP, which won 282 seats in 2014 and 303 in the 2019 election, won 240 seats this time - 32 short of the 272-majority mark. It will now depend on the 53 seats won by members of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) to form government.

"We have done good work for the last 10 years. We will continue doing so," PM Modi told NDA leaders at the last cabinet meeting.

On the Lok Sabha election results - the NDA will stake claim to form government for a third time, calling the results a victory of the world's largest democracy - PM Modi said, "Winning and losing are part of politics. The numbers game will go on."

The Prime Minister thanked Union Ministers for giving their best in the past 10 years.

"All of you have worked very hard," PM Modi said.

After the meeting, he left for the Rashtrapati Bhavan to submit his resignation. He will take oath for the new term on Saturday.

"The President has accepted the resignation and requested Shri Narendra Modi and the Council of Ministers to continue till the new Government assumes office," the Rashtrapati Bhavan said in a statement.

The term of the current 17th Lok Sabha ends on June 16.

The Congress, part of the opposition INDIA bloc, won 99 seats in the elections as against 52 in 2019, eating into the BJP's share in Rajasthan and Haryana.

www.ndtv.com

"Winning, Losing Part Of Politics, Numbers Game Goes On": PM Modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the last cabinet meeting of the current tenure said winning and losing are part of politics.
www.ndtv.com www.ndtv.com
 
Devadwal said:
Oh bhai how many seat are in loksabha .do your math lol
Click to expand...
Not a math issue, but comprehension issue. Congress not contesting more than 200 seats can mean both: They contested less than 200, OR they left more than 200 seats for their partners. I thought you were saying the former.
 
RexRex said:
Nothing tactical about it, common sense dictates that most communties are unlikely to vote for a party that regularly demonises them let alone literally call them infiltrators.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is common sense, which many hindus lack. Hindus can sell their votes for some subsidy or some money in their accounts, muslims use their common sense to vote for the party which aligns with their civilizational goal.

That is why they vote for Mamata who used to be against infiltrators.
That is why they voted for congress who opened the gates of RJB.
And that is why they voted for Shiv Sena.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Doesn't matter. They are free to vote any party as per their religious lines, which they do.

Hindus need to follow suit. Many are doing. Many more will join after today because BJP will learn its lesson and return to core hindutva and RSS.
Click to expand...
What are the core Hindutva and RSS policies that the BJP has not yet implemented or deviated from in this election?

Modi and his colleagues were very vocal about anti-Muslim, anti-Pakistan, and Islamophobic tropes during his last tenure and campaign.

As devoted Hindutva and RSS followers, what would you like to see Modi bring back? Gujarat?

Modi fulfilled the promise of building the Ram temple and participated in multiple photo ops, yet the loss in Gujarat suggests that there may be other factors at play.

How long does India expect to continue with sectarian politics?
 
CricketCartoons said:
Indeed it is common sense, which many hindus lack. Hindus can sell their votes for some subsidy or some money in their accounts, muslims use their common sense to vote for the party which aligns with their civilizational goal.

That is why they vote for Mamata who used to be against infiltrators.
That is why they voted for congress who opened the gates of RJB.
And that is why they voted for Shiv Sena.
Click to expand...
We've talked about this before but Indian democracy is too complex to summarise on religion unlike what you're trying to do here.

As an example, just in my own family
- My Mother-in-law is pretty irreligious and Father-in-law is very into spirituality and religion. They both voted BRS because they liked KCR's work on pensions.
- My Dad's irreligious but Mom's deeply into religion, temples etc. They both voted BJP because they're strong supporters of Chandrababu Naidu and he's allied with BJP. They couldn't care less about Modi's Hinduism agenda. They like the Ayodhya temple but don't see how it matters in a political sense
- My wife's pretty religious but voted Congress because she hates Modi and his divisive politics
- I'm an atheist but ended up voting BJP because I think they have the clearer and more logical economic agenda

Indian Hindus don't vote on a "civilizational agenda" and I suspect neither do Indian Muslims. They won't vote for the BJP because the BJP marginalises them (in words if not as much in actions) but other than that, they'll vote on what makes sense at an individual or group level.
 
Red-Indian said:
We've talked about this before but Indian democracy is too complex to summarise on religion unlike what you're trying to do here.

As an example, just in my own family
- My Mother-in-law is pretty irreligious and Father-in-law is very into spirituality and religion. They both voted BRS because they liked KCR's work on pensions.
- My Dad's irreligious but Mom's deeply into religion, temples etc. They both voted BJP because they're strong supporters of Chandrababu Naidu and he's allied with BJP. They couldn't care less about Modi's Hinduism agenda. They like the Ayodhya temple but don't see how it matters in a political sense
- My wife's pretty religious but voted Congress because she hates Modi and his divisive politics
- I'm an atheist but ended up voting BJP because I think they have the clearer and more logical economic agenda

Indian Hindus don't vote on a "civilizational agenda" and I suspect neither do Indian Muslims. They won't vote for the BJP because the BJP marginalises them (in words if not as much in actions) but other than that, they'll vote on what makes sense at an individual or group level.
Click to expand...
If I am interpreting this correctly, the anti-Muslim narrative promoted by Hindutva and RSS seems to be losing support on an individual level?
 
Red-Indian said:
We've talked about this before but Indian democracy is too complex to summarise on religion unlike what you're trying to do here.

As an example, just in my own family
- My Mother-in-law is pretty irreligious and Father-in-law is very into spirituality and religion. They both voted BRS because they liked KCR's work on pensions.
- My Dad's irreligious but Mom's deeply into religion, temples etc. They both voted BJP because they're strong supporters of Chandrababu Naidu and he's allied with BJP. They couldn't care less about Modi's Hinduism agenda. They like the Ayodhya temple but don't see how it matters in a political sense
- My wife's pretty religious but voted Congress because she hates Modi and his divisive politics
- I'm an atheist but ended up voting BJP because I think they have the clearer and more logical economic agenda

Indian Hindus don't vote on a "civilizational agenda" and I suspect neither do Indian Muslims. They won't vote for the BJP because the BJP marginalises them (in words if not as much in actions) but other than that, they'll vote on what makes sense at an individual or group level.
Click to expand...

I am not making an accusation on muslims. I am only saying they use common sense which hindus lack. Muslims don't need any defending, because what they do is the RIGHT thing to do. They don't sell their votes for civic amenities or money guarantee schemes.

The example of your family only proves my point, that hindus vote based on multiple issues, civilizational being the least of them. Like Udayanidhi Stalin got hindu votes despite his remarks, SP in UP got votes despite firing on karsewaks, Mamata got hindu votes despite taking away OBC reservation from hindus and giving to other community.

Muslims are a ghairatmund qaum. Hindus are mostly beghairat (including me).

I am a sanghi, and I did not vote for BJP yet again ( just wanted to keep my track record of not voting for them intact), but the BJP candidate still ended up winning ( Gurgaon seat).
 
HalBass9 said:
If I am interpreting this correctly, the anti-Muslim narrative promoted by Hindutva and RSS seems to be losing support on an individual level?
Click to expand...
I personally think that would be going too far as an interpretation. The core BJP audience still responds well to the anti-muslim narrative and commitments to take away Muslim rights to polygamy, break down a few mosques, curtail interfaith marriages etc. still play well to this audience.

I'm no political scientist but I would rather say that the BJP and Modi have run up against the size limits of that audience. Are they 20% of the Hindu vote? 25? I don't know but if the BJP wants to win a standalone majority again, they have to find a way to appeal to voting constituencies with different priorities and not seem like obsessed with a one-track anti-muslim narrative.
 
It has not been easy being a Muslim in Narendra Modi’s India. With the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) steadfastly refusing to allow my community even a token representation in corridors of power, India’s largest minority, the third largest Muslim population in the world, is left voiceless.

For the first time since India’s Independence in 1947, the ruling party did not have a single Muslim Member of Parliament.

Tuesday’s election results, in which Prime Minister Modi sealed a rare third term, only enhance the sense of gloom and doom for Indian Muslims like me. My community may once again not have an MP in the government.

With the BJP back in power – albeit without the supermajority it had vowed – my only hope lies in a politically weakened Modi now. A weakened Modi shall, hopefully, translate into a more robust India and more secure minorities.

It may still be a long haul though.

After the recently concluded, hate-driven campaign led by Modi himself, things may only get worse. As it was before the vote, India is poised to continue transforming itself from a secular democratic republic into possibly a Hindu majoritarian state, with reduced rights and presence of minorities in general – and of Muslims in particular.

If after Modi’s first victory in 2014, there was a sense of cautious hope, 10 years later, my Muslim community stands orphaned, not just jettisoned by the ruling BJP, but repeatedly marked out as the group responsible for the supposed ills of the nation. There is an overriding feeling of belonging to a group under siege.

A polling official puts an ink mark on the finger of an elderly voter during the fourth phase of India's general election, on the outskirts of Srinagar, on May 13.

A polling official puts an ink mark on the finger of an elderly voter during the fourth phase of India's general election, on the outskirts of Srinagar, on May 13.
Mukhtar Khan/AP
The prime minister kickstarted the invidious campaign by calling India’s 200 million Muslims “infiltrators” in one of his early election speeches.

His vitriol was, to put it mildly, unprovoked; the state of Rajasthan where he delivered his divisive speech has a strongly guarded border with Muslim-majority Pakistan. The state has only sent one Muslim candidate to the Lok Sabha – the Lower House of Parliament – since the first election back in 1952.

In this year’s election, the two leading political parties, the BJP and the Indian National Congress (INC or, simply, “Congress”), did not give a ticket to a single Muslim to contest the elections in Rajasthan. Yet the invisible Muslim ghost was punched with relish by Modi. It’s worth remembering this is the man who, back in 2002, was the Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat when large-scale violence claimed over 1,000 lives, a vast majority of them Muslims. (Modi denied any wrongdoing, and the Supreme Court cleared him of complicity).

But let us return to 2024. As the 6-week-long election wore on, Modi mocked the Muslim community’s supposed high fertility rate and repeatedly targeted the community using the opposition – especially Congress – as a mere pretext, accusing it of reserving 15% of the Union Budget for Indian Muslims. (Congress rejected the claim).

Of course, Modi denied discriminating against Muslims, and in a widely televised interview claimed to have celebrated the Muslim festival of Eid with his friends.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi greets supporters at a roadshow on April 6 in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. India's general election, with almost 970 million registered voters, is a mammoth undertaking lasting 6 weeks.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi greets supporters at a roadshow on April 6 in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. India's general election, with almost 970 million registered voters, is a mammoth undertaking lasting 6 weeks.
Elke Scholiers/Getty Images
Meanwhile the Islamophobia within the BJP hit a new low when the party’s promotional video showed caricatures of Congress party leaders placing an egg marked “Muslims” in a nest next to three eggs marked “SC,” “OBC” and “ST” (three lower caste groups). As the eggs hatch, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is shown feeding “funds” to the chick wearing a skullcap while ignoring the other chickens. The allusion was not lost on anyone. The video ran for days on social media before the Election Commission wrote to Twitter to take action.

Muslims stood silenced by the unceasing vitriol. Some were intimidated. Others hoped the election would bring an end to BJP rule. It proved a false hope. The BJP’s much-hyped claim of getting over 400 seats in the Lower House of Parliament did not materialize. The party, in the end, needed help from allies, Telugu Desam and Janata Dal (United), to form a government for the third time in succession – a feat hitherto performed only by the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s Congress immediately after Independence.

Muslims stood silenced by the unceasing vitriol. Some were intimidated. Others hoped the election would bring an end to BJP rule. It proved a false hope.

Ziya Us Salam

Except for one candidate in the constituency of Kerala, the BJP refused to put up Muslim candidates. This had an unfortunate ripple effect with the number of Muslims getting tickets from other parties showing a decline.

The main opposition party, Congress, failed to put up a Muslim candidate in the capital, New Delhi, as well as in the commercial center Mumbai and in Mahatma Gandhi’s home state, Gujarat. In fact, the number of Muslim candidates put up by major political parties showed a steep decline, falling from 115 in the 2019 elections, to 78 in 2024.

In the days and months to come, things could get seriously tough for Indian Muslims. With the prime minister failing to condemn the frequent lynching of Muslim men by right-wing vigilantes since 2015, and state governments ruled by the BJP using bulldozers to demolish Muslim establishments as a means of cowing even the odd voice of protest, it is going to be a question of survival for my community.

Our food habits, clothing, education centers and places of worship are all likely to be under greater scrutiny, possibly even violent attacks in the days of come.

Already, medieval Indian mosques, some as old as 900 years, are being contested by Hindu outfits in various courts. There have been noises that the world-famous Taj Mahal was originally a Hindu temple, and that the historic Qutb Minar in Delhi was built after demolition of temples.

A community which has seen the 16th century mosque, the Babri Masjid, become a Hindu temple during Modi’s second term has reason to fear the worst.

We’ve seen BJP leaders talking of closing Islamic seminaries across the states of Uttar Pradesh and Assam. In the state of Uttarakhand, a hurriedly cobbled together Uniform Civil Code is in place – essentially a single set of laws for all residents that does not take into account the customs or religious laws of different religions or minority groups. It could be the norm for the rest of India soon as the BJP tries to deny Indian Muslims the right to follow Islamic laws in civil matters, a right granted by the Indian Constitution.

With Hindu Rashtra a virtual reality, it is difficult to see a silver lining for Indian Muslims who chose pluralist India over the theocratic state of Pakistan at the time of Independence.

In the summer of 2024, my community stands betrayed, forsaken and forlorn.



 
Last edited by a moderator:
pillionrider said:
Since you sound magnanimous today, will you find it in your heart to accept that there is a limit to which the average Hindu can be swayed in the name of religion?
Click to expand...

I have no problem in accepting it. That is the main reason why India taught English in their schools following partition while Pakistanis shunned it. I don't really think the majority of Indians are serious about religion, not least because they probably can't reconcile the perceived spiritual emphasis of Hinduism's past with the political opportunism/hate mongering of the current wave of hindutva.

I do follow the progress with interest though, because my view has always been that religion gets in the way of advancement. If Modi can somehow show religious fervour can take a country forward, then maybe Taliban can get Afghanistan to the moon as well. :unsure:
 
Red-Indian said:
I personally think that would be going too far as an interpretation. The core BJP audience still responds well to the anti-muslim narrative and commitments to take away Muslim rights to polygamy, break down a few mosques, curtail interfaith marriages etc. still play well to this audience.

I'm no political scientist but I would rather say that the BJP and Modi have run up against the size limits of that audience. Are they 20% of the Hindu vote? 25? I don't know but if the BJP wants to win a standalone majority again, they have to find a way to appeal to voting constituencies with different priorities and not seem like obsessed with a one-track anti-muslim narrative.
Click to expand...

BJP's vote share was 36 per cent this time, down from 37 per cent. Not a big loss.

Three things hurt BJP:

1. Lack of cohesion among allies in Maharashtra.

2. Poor candidate selection and break of coordination between National leadership State leadership and ground workers.

3. The biggest mistake, trying to sideline the RSS. BJP's organisational and cadre strength comes from RSS. Without it BJP suffered.

Hindutva remains a very popular ideology among Hindus.

Add to that BJP's economic policies.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I have no problem in accepting it. That is the main reason why India taught English in their schools following partition while Pakistanis shunned it. I don't really think the majority of Indians are serious about religion, not least because they probably can't reconcile the perceived spiritual emphasis of Hinduism's past with the political opportunism/hate mongering of the current wave of hindutva.

I do follow the progress with interest though, because my view has always been that religion gets in the way of advancement. If Modi can somehow show religious fervour can take a country forward, then maybe Taliban can get Afghanistan to the moon as well. :unsure:
Click to expand...
Jews are religious and extremely science oriented.
 
Stewie said:
It has not been easy being a Muslim in Narendra Modi’s India. With the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) steadfastly refusing to allow my community even a token representation in corridors of power, India’s largest minority, the third largest Muslim population in the world, is left voiceless.

For the first time since India’s Independence in 1947, the ruling party did not have a single Muslim Member of Parliament.

Tuesday’s election results, in which Prime Minister Modi sealed a rare third term, only enhance the sense of gloom and doom for Indian Muslims like me. My community may once again not have an MP in the government.

With the BJP back in power – albeit without the supermajority it had vowed – my only hope lies in a politically weakened Modi now. A weakened Modi shall, hopefully, translate into a more robust India and more secure minorities.

It may still be a long haul though.

After the recently concluded, hate-driven campaign led by Modi himself, things may only get worse. As it was before the vote, India is poised to continue transforming itself from a secular democratic republic into possibly a Hindu majoritarian state, with reduced rights and presence of minorities in general – and of Muslims in particular.

If after Modi’s first victory in 2014, there was a sense of cautious hope, 10 years later, my Muslim community stands orphaned, not just jettisoned by the ruling BJP, but repeatedly marked out as the group responsible for the supposed ills of the nation. There is an overriding feeling of belonging to a group under siege.

A polling official puts an ink mark on the finger of an elderly voter during the fourth phase of India's general election, on the outskirts of Srinagar, on May 13.'s general election, on the outskirts of Srinagar, on May 13.

A polling official puts an ink mark on the finger of an elderly voter during the fourth phase of India's general election, on the outskirts of Srinagar, on May 13.
Mukhtar Khan/AP
The prime minister kickstarted the invidious campaign by calling India’s 200 million Muslims “infiltrators” in one of his early election speeches.

His vitriol was, to put it mildly, unprovoked; the state of Rajasthan where he delivered his divisive speech has a strongly guarded border with Muslim-majority Pakistan. The state has only sent one Muslim candidate to the Lok Sabha – the Lower House of Parliament – since the first election back in 1952.

In this year’s election, the two leading political parties, the BJP and the Indian National Congress (INC or, simply, “Congress”), did not give a ticket to a single Muslim to contest the elections in Rajasthan. Yet the invisible Muslim ghost was punched with relish by Modi. It’s worth remembering this is the man who, back in 2002, was the Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat when large-scale violence claimed over 1,000 lives, a vast majority of them Muslims. (Modi denied any wrongdoing, and the Supreme Court cleared him of complicity).

But let us return to 2024. As the 6-week-long election wore on, Modi mocked the Muslim community’s supposed high fertility rate and repeatedly targeted the community using the opposition – especially Congress – as a mere pretext, accusing it of reserving 15% of the Union Budget for Indian Muslims. (Congress rejected the claim).

Of course, Modi denied discriminating against Muslims, and in a widely televised interview claimed to have celebrated the Muslim festival of Eid with his friends.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi greets supporters at a roadshow on April 6 in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. India's general election, with almost 970 million registered voters, is a mammoth undertaking lasting 6 weeks.'s general election, with almost 970 million registered voters, is a mammoth undertaking lasting 6 weeks.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi greets supporters at a roadshow on April 6 in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. India's general election, with almost 970 million registered voters, is a mammoth undertaking lasting 6 weeks.
Elke Scholiers/Getty Images
Meanwhile the Islamophobia within the BJP hit a new low when the party’s promotional video showed caricatures of Congress party leaders placing an egg marked “Muslims” in a nest next to three eggs marked “SC,” “OBC” and “ST” (three lower caste groups). As the eggs hatch, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is shown feeding “funds” to the chick wearing a skullcap while ignoring the other chickens. The allusion was not lost on anyone. The video ran for days on social media before the Election Commission wrote to Twitter to take action.

Muslims stood silenced by the unceasing vitriol. Some were intimidated. Others hoped the election would bring an end to BJP rule. It proved a false hope. The BJP’s much-hyped claim of getting over 400 seats in the Lower House of Parliament did not materialize. The party, in the end, needed help from allies, Telugu Desam and Janata Dal (United), to form a government for the third time in succession – a feat hitherto performed only by the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s Congress immediately after Independence.

Muslims stood silenced by the unceasing vitriol. Some were intimidated. Others hoped the election would bring an end to BJP rule. It proved a false hope.

Ziya Us Salam

Except for one candidate in the constituency of Kerala, the BJP refused to put up Muslim candidates. This had an unfortunate ripple effect with the number of Muslims getting tickets from other parties showing a decline.

The main opposition party, Congress, failed to put up a Muslim candidate in the capital, New Delhi, as well as in the commercial center Mumbai and in Mahatma Gandhi’s home state, Gujarat. In fact, the number of Muslim candidates put up by major political parties showed a steep decline, falling from 115 in the 2019 elections, to 78 in 2024.

In the days and months to come, things could get seriously tough for Indian Muslims. With the prime minister failing to condemn the frequent lynching of Muslim men by right-wing vigilantes since 2015, and state governments ruled by the BJP using bulldozers to demolish Muslim establishments as a means of cowing even the odd voice of protest, it is going to be a question of survival for my community.

Our food habits, clothing, education centers and places of worship are all likely to be under greater scrutiny, possibly even violent attacks in the days of come.

Already, medieval Indian mosques, some as old as 900 years, are being contested by Hindu outfits in various courts. There have been noises that the world-famous Taj Mahal was originally a Hindu temple, and that the historic Qutb Minar in Delhi was built after demolition of temples.

A community which has seen the 16th century mosque, the Babri Masjid, become a Hindu temple during Modi’s second term has reason to fear the worst.

We’ve seen BJP leaders talking of closing Islamic seminaries across the states of Uttar Pradesh and Assam. In the state of Uttarakhand, a hurriedly cobbled together Uniform Civil Code is in place – essentially a single set of laws for all residents that does not take into account the customs or religious laws of different religions or minority groups. It could be the norm for the rest of India soon as the BJP tries to deny Indian Muslims the right to follow Islamic laws in civil matters, a right granted by the Indian Constitution.

With Hindu Rashtra a virtual reality, it is difficult to see a silver lining for Indian Muslims who chose pluralist India over the theocratic state of Pakistan at the time of Independence.

In the summer of 2024, my community stands betrayed, forsaken and forlorn.



Click to expand...
It’s an opinion so i’ll not blame CNN but below is blatant hypocrisy :

. In the state of Uttarakhand, a hurriedly cobbled together Uniform Civil Code is in place – essentially a single set of laws for all residents that does not take into account the customs or religious laws of different religions or minority groups. It could be the norm for the rest of India soon as the BJP tries to deny Indian Muslims the right to follow Islamic laws in civil matters, a right granted by the Indian Constitution.
 
JaDed said:
It’s an opinion so i’ll not blame CNN but below is blatant hypocrisy :

. In the state of Uttarakhand, a hurriedly cobbled together Uniform Civil Code is in place – essentially a single set of laws for all residents that does not take into account the customs or religious laws of different religions or minority groups. It could be the norm for the rest of India soon as the BJP tries to deny Indian Muslims the right to follow Islamic laws in civil matters, a right granted by the Indian Constitution.
Click to expand...
Can you explain a bit more why you think this is hypocrisy?
 
Stewie said:
Can you explain a bit more why you think this is hypocrisy?
Click to expand...
To be in same country and have different constitutional laws is hypocrisy.

This is privileged way of thought and publishing the opinion on CNN which is a mouthpiece of a country that cannot even have a conversation about religious laws, is remarkably inconsistent.
 
cricketjoshila said:
BJP's vote share was 36 per cent this time, down from 37 per cent. Not a big loss.

Three things hurt BJP:

1. Lack of cohesion among allies in Maharashtra.

2. Poor candidate selection and break of coordination between National leadership State leadership and ground workers.

3. The biggest mistake, trying to sideline the RSS. BJP's organisational and cadre strength comes from RSS. Without it BJP suffered.

Hindutva remains a very popular ideology among Hindus.

Add to that BJP's economic policies.
Click to expand...
The third point should be the first, and proved to be all the difference between a spectacular victory and a decent victory.

I have joined the local RSS chapter, mostly comprising of ex army personel, and there has been lack of enthusiasm because of the way top leadership in BJP was treating RSS. But after teaching them some humility, we are already feeling sympathetic to them and are going back to show our support.
 
cricketjoshila said:
BJP's vote share was 36 per cent this time, down from 37 per cent. Not a big loss.

Three things hurt BJP:

1. Lack of cohesion among allies in Maharashtra.

2. Poor candidate selection and break of coordination between National leadership State leadership and ground workers.

3. The biggest mistake, trying to sideline the RSS. BJP's organisational and cadre strength comes from RSS. Without it BJP suffered.

Hindutva remains a very popular ideology among Hindus.

Add to that BJP's economic policies.
Click to expand...
What is hindutva ideology?
 
JaDed said:
It’s an opinion so i’ll not blame CNN but below is blatant hypocrisy :

. In the state of Uttarakhand, a hurriedly cobbled together Uniform Civil Code is in place – essentially a single set of laws for all residents that does not take into account the customs or religious laws of different religions or minority groups. It could be the norm for the rest of India soon as the BJP tries to deny Indian Muslims the right to follow Islamic laws in civil matters, a right granted by the Indian Constitution.
Click to expand...

Muslims should get to follow Islamic laws.

Hindus should be secular.

This is a joke.

I hope UCC happens.
 
JaDed said:
To be in same country and have different constitutional laws is hypocrisy.

This is privileged way of thought and publishing the opinion on CNN which is a mouthpiece of a country that cannot even have a conversation about religious laws, is remarkably inconsistent.
Click to expand...
Well like you already said, it’s an opinion piece. CNN is obviously not above and beyond reproach, in fact they are probably the most hypocritical outlet of all.

But let’s talk about the writer’s POV because that’s what really matters considering the nature of the write up.

India has a weird history. Unlike US or other western nations, it has had three different “peoples” for lack of a better term govern it over the not so distant past. So it tries to achieve a nationalistic identity easily forgetting the historic mindset of people. An India before partition had Muslims observe those freedoms dating back centuries and now all of a sudden if you tell them no you can’t have such religion based rights, it won’t be easy for anybody to digest.

Plus on top of that, the pendulum is swinging more and more in the direction of Hindus so it antagonizes them. It’s not an easy transition for them and I don’t blame them for feeling marginalized.

But all that being said, let me add a couple of more things here:

1. I fully understand and support the laws of the country I live in. I cannot have more than one wife. That’s the only restrictive law I face as a Muslim. I can pray where I want. I can eat what I want. I can kill whatever animal I want for consumption as long as I have a hunting license. But I also accept i am considered an immigrant here and so I have to compromise. Muslims in India consider themselves native to the land so they really feel aggrieved due to these privileges they have always enjoyed being taken away.

2. There are religious laws even in the US. You should read up on them. Where do you think the abortion stuff is coming from?
There are places where you can’t sell alcohol on Sundays. Point being, all nations have laws and privileges driven by the religious or otherwise… beliefs of the “natives”. I don’t feel it’s hypocritical of one to want such privileges.

JaDed said:
To be in same country and have different constitutional laws is hypocrisy.

This is privileged way of thought and publishing the opinion on CNN which is a mouthpiece of a country that cannot even have a conversation
Click to expand...
 
Stewie said:
Well like you already said, it’s an opinion piece. CNN is obviously not above and beyond reproach, in fact they are probably the most hypocritical outlet of all.

But let’s talk about the writer’s POV because that’s what really matters considering the nature of the write up.

India has a weird history. Unlike US or other western nations, it has had three different “peoples” for lack of a better term govern it over the not so distant past. So it tries to achieve a nationalistic identity easily forgetting the historic mindset of people. An India before partition had Muslims observe those freedoms dating back centuries and now all of a sudden if you tell them no you can’t have such religion based rights, it won’t be easy for anybody to digest.

Plus on top of that, the pendulum is swinging more and more in the direction of Hindus so it antagonizes them. It’s not an easy transition for them and I don’t blame them for feeling marginalized.

But all that being said, let me add a couple of more things here:

1. I fully understand and support the laws of the country I live in. I cannot have more than one wife. That’s the only restrictive law I face as a Muslim. I can pray where I want. I can eat what I want. I can kill whatever animal I want for consumption as long as I have a hunting license. But I also accept i am considered an immigrant here and so I have to compromise. Muslims in India consider themselves native to the land so they really feel aggrieved due to these privileges they have always enjoyed being taken away.

2. There are religious laws even in the US. You should read up on them. Where do you think the abortion stuff is coming from?
There are places where you can’t sell alcohol on Sundays. Point being, all nations have laws and privileges driven by the religious or otherwise… beliefs of the “natives”. I don’t feel it’s hypocritical of one to want such privileges.
Click to expand...

Fair post, however at some point .. you have to realise that having different laws for different communities is not healthy for cohesion.

Btw anti-abortion laws in the USA are not religious laws. It is seen as a 'every human has a right to life' argument.

Which are the places that can't sell alcohol on Sunday ? Just curious.
 
cricketjoshila said:
BJP's vote share was 36 per cent this time, down from 37 per cent. Not a big loss.

Three things hurt BJP:

1. Lack of cohesion among allies in Maharashtra.

2. Poor candidate selection and break of coordination between National leadership State leadership and ground workers.

3. The biggest mistake, trying to sideline the RSS. BJP's organisational and cadre strength comes from RSS. Without it BJP suffered.

Hindutva remains a very popular ideology among Hindus.

Add to that BJP's economic policies.
Click to expand...
Some truth in what you say.

There'll eventually be books written and doctorates awarded about the dynamics behind this election and the implications of the result so I'll stay away from theorising too much.

I'll just say that this election has revealed that there's again more than one path to power in India both for the BJP and a more united opposition.
 
RexRex said:
I've called him out on several of his lies recently after which he pretends not to understand .. so I don't share this weird fascination you have with him lol.
Click to expand...
He might be aggressive, and he defends his country at any cost. But lying is the last thing you can accuse him of.
 
Devadwal said:
Total laksabha seat are 543 , they contested 328 so more than 200 seat where they not participate .
Click to expand...
That is their own decision to compete on those limited seats not some compulsion. It’s called seat sharing when you have alliance partners. What a foolish metric lol.
 
Hitman said:
He might be aggressive, and he defends his country at any cost. But lying is the last thing you can accuse him of.
Click to expand...
He has spread fake news. I have called him out on this multiple times and he has usually stopped responding as a a response. I'd call that a type of lying, though I'm not sure if he is aware that he is lying in the process. He is just brainwashed and a topper of Whatsapp Uni. It's stunning how he sometimes speaks the same language of the IT cell.
 
Stewie said:
Well like you already said, it’s an opinion piece. CNN is obviously not above and beyond reproach, in fact they are probably the most hypocritical outlet of all.

But let’s talk about the writer’s POV because that’s what really matters considering the nature of the write up.

India has a weird history. Unlike US or other western nations, it has had three different “peoples” for lack of a better term govern it over the not so distant past. So it tries to achieve a nationalistic identity easily forgetting the historic mindset of people. An India before partition had Muslims observe those freedoms dating back centuries and now all of a sudden if you tell them no you can’t have such religion based rights, it won’t be easy for anybody to digest.

Plus on top of that, the pendulum is swinging more and more in the direction of Hindus so it antagonizes them. It’s not an easy transition for them and I don’t blame them for feeling marginalized.

But all that being said, let me add a couple of more things here:

1. I fully understand and support the laws of the country I live in. I cannot have more than one wife. That’s the only restrictive law I face as a Muslim. I can pray where I want. I can eat what I want. I can kill whatever animal I want for consumption as long as I have a hunting license. But I also accept i am considered an immigrant here and so I have to compromise. Muslims in India consider themselves native to the land so they really feel aggrieved due to these privileges they have always enjoyed being taken away.

2. There are religious laws even in the US. You should read up on them. Where do you think the abortion stuff is coming from?
There are places where you can’t sell alcohol on Sundays. Point being, all nations have laws and privileges driven by the religious or otherwise… beliefs of the “natives”. I don’t feel it’s hypocritical of one to want such privileges.
Click to expand...
Well written and logical.

Some more context on the Civil code though. Polygamy and some extremely unfair to women inheritance laws (from a non-religious perspective) are all that's left of historic Indian Islamic practices in the Civil code. A lot of stuff like underage marriage, triple talaq have already been steadily eroded and tacitly accepted if not welcomed by the community. The rationalisation and de-religionisation of civil law is an inevitably in a secular country - has already been largely accepted by Hindus and I'm confident will be accepted by Muslims and a couple of other communities like Parsis that still have them.

I hope the opinion piece writer is bemoaning the 'hurriedly cobbled' part and not the 'uniform' part.
 
Red-Indian said:
Well written and logical.

Some more context on the Civil code though. Polygamy and some extremely unfair to women inheritance laws (from a non-religious perspective) are all that's left of historic Indian Islamic practices in the Civil code. A lot of stuff like underage marriage, triple talaq have already been steadily eroded and tacitly accepted if not welcomed by the community. The rationalisation and de-religionisation of civil law is an inevitably in a secular country - has already been largely accepted by Hindus and I'm confident will be accepted by Muslims and a couple of other communities like Parsis that still have them.

I hope the opinion piece writer is bemoaning the 'hurriedly cobbled' part and not the 'uniform' part.
Click to expand...
I am no religious expert here but the inheritance laws actually favor women. I will explain how.

As a man you inherit, 2 parts of your father's inheritance. A woman gets 1 part. But the woman also inherits are husbands when he passes, which is 1/8. The polygamy law was devised due to severe shortage of men during times of war. Women were not so independent 1400 years ago as they are now. It also requires permission from the first wife. If implemented correctly, the multiple wives law automatically will die its natural death. The triple talaq one is also not much different from the modern day courts where the judge will sometimes ask you if you want to divorce and some give you time to think about it. Women have the right to take Khula.

I think the Islamic laws are much "maligned" by Hindus because they don't understand them fully, are taught to believe they are unfair or are only exposed to the ridiulous interpretations of them used by the Indian subcontinental scholars. Trust me, you wont see some such interprations in the larger muslim world, only in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh maybe.


But overall I agree with your assessment if they don't make sense, they will die their natural death and Muslims wont even complain about them.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Perhaps they are, but the orthodox Jews don't seem that much different to the Salafi Muslims. Depends if you are talking about Jews or :quote: Jews
Click to expand...
lol that is true for orthodox, but in states a average jews I see are uber religious but extremely into science as well.

I think they manage to find a balance.
 
RexRex said:
Fair post, however at some point .. you have to realise that having different laws for different communities is not healthy for cohesion.

Btw anti-abortion laws in the USA are not religious laws. It is seen as a 'every human has a right to life' argument.

Which are the places that can't sell alcohol on Sunday ? Just curious.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The sentiment is coming from the JudeoChristian traditions of religious laws. They never claim as such because that would automatically nullify their claim so they approach it with this angle.

There are plenty of southern states that prohibit sale of alcohol on Sundays (church days) you can look it up. But here is a detailed write up I found of religion based laws in the US.


www.bbc.com

Which US states have passed religious laws? - BBC News

More than a dozen states in the US have considered or passed "religious liberty" laws to appease religious groups, sparking controversy and protest.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
Stewie said:
Well like you already said, it’s an opinion piece. CNN is obviously not above and beyond reproach, in fact they are probably the most hypocritical outlet of all.

But let’s talk about the writer’s POV because that’s what really matters considering the nature of the write up.

India has a weird history. Unlike US or other western nations, it has had three different “peoples” for lack of a better term govern it over the not so distant past. So it tries to achieve a nationalistic identity easily forgetting the historic mindset of people. An India before partition had Muslims observe those freedoms dating back centuries and now all of a sudden if you tell them no you can’t have such religion based rights, it won’t be easy for anybody to digest.

Plus on top of that, the pendulum is swinging more and more in the direction of Hindus so it antagonizes them. It’s not an easy transition for them and I don’t blame them for feeling marginalized.

But all that being said, let me add a couple of more things here:

1. I fully understand and support the laws of the country I live in. I cannot have more than one wife. That’s the only restrictive law I face as a Muslim. I can pray where I want. I can eat what I want. I can kill whatever animal I want for consumption as long as I have a hunting license. But I also accept i am considered an immigrant here and so I have to compromise. Muslims in India consider themselves native to the land so they really feel aggrieved due to these privileges they have always enjoyed being taken away.

2. There are religious laws even in the US. You should read up on them. Where do you think the abortion stuff is coming from?
There are places where you can’t sell alcohol on Sundays. Point being, all nations have laws and privileges driven by the religious or otherwise… beliefs of the “natives”. I don’t feel it’s hypocritical of one to want such privileges.
Click to expand...
While Muslims are definitely native to the land, at end of the day it’s faith.
White Americans are not native to US either, yet they make laws that majority follow.

Now before saying below I completely support what Indian Congress did in 1955, they reformed Hindu laws, now were they the government of India or of Hindus?

The opinion piece has an issue one main reason is the person is commenting on how India is having less Muslim MPs yet wants majority Indians to be ok for Muslim having privileges that go against constitution.(Muslim personal law privilege was granted by Rajiv Gandhi Congress against the will of Supreme Court , which made BJP go from one seat to what its now).

My point is the person writing the opinion piece wants privileges reservations and more Muslim MPs.. that is highly privileged person.

Also you can’t shoot Dogs in US , all these are subjective things
 
Red-Indian said:
Some truth in what you say.

There'll eventually be books written and doctorates awarded about the dynamics behind this election and the implications of the result so I'll stay away from theorising too much.

I'll just say that this election has revealed that there's again more than one path to power in India both for the BJP and a more united opposition.
Click to expand...

UP elections 2027 will be the biggest indication. If Akhilesh can hold onto his gains, it will be good. If BJP snatches it back it will be advantage NDA for next elections.

But one thing is sure BJP is going back to the RSS.

RSS chief is landing in Delhi tommorow. Meeting with BJP top brass.
 
pillionrider said:
He has spread fake news. I have called him out on this multiple times and he has usually stopped responding as a a response. I'd call that a type of lying, though I'm not sure if he is aware that he is lying in the process. He is just brainwashed and a topper of Whatsapp Uni. It's stunning how he sometimes speaks the same language of the IT cell.
Click to expand...

I am a rank holder in one of India's oldest medical colleges in MBBS and MD both. So this Whatsapp University jibe you can keep to yourself. I can reply to you in your own language but then how will that differentiate between your upbringing and mine.

I haven't lied. There is information on which people have different views. I have one you may have another.

More often than not my post is accompanied by a source link.
 
JaDed said:
While Muslims are definitely native to the land, at end of the day it’s faith.
White Americans are not native to US either, yet they make laws that majority follow.

Now before saying below I completely support what Indian Congress did in 1955, they reformed Hindu laws, now were they the government of India or of Hindus?

The opinion piece has an issue one main reason is the person is commenting on how India is having less Muslim MPs yet wants majority Indians to be ok for Muslim having privileges that go against constitution.(Muslim personal law privilege was granted by Rajiv Gandhi Congress against the will of Supreme Court , which made BJP go from one seat to what its now).

My point is the person writing the opinion piece wants privileges reservations and more Muslim MPs.. that is highly privileged person.

Also you can’t shoot Dogs in US , all these are subjective things
Click to expand...
I think you are side stepping he spirit of the point. None of us is then native to this world so to speak. We call came from somewhere. The European colonizers of the US are now in a vast majority and have been for centuries now, the natives were decimated a long long time ago. Muslims have been in India for centuries and they are still in very large numbers there. There is a clear difference there. I am trying to point out the factors due to difficulty in transition, not whether the privileges Indian Muslims want are fair or not.
 
Stewie said:
Well like you already said, it’s an opinion piece. CNN is obviously not above and beyond reproach, in fact they are probably the most hypocritical outlet of all.

But let’s talk about the writer’s POV because that’s what really matters considering the nature of the write up.

India has a weird history. Unlike US or other western nations, it has had three different “peoples” for lack of a better term govern it over the not so distant past. So it tries to achieve a nationalistic identity easily forgetting the historic mindset of people. An India before partition had Muslims observe those freedoms dating back centuries and now all of a sudden if you tell them no you can’t have such religion based rights, it won’t be easy for anybody to digest.

Plus on top of that, the pendulum is swinging more and more in the direction of Hindus so it antagonizes them. It’s not an easy transition for them and I don’t blame them for feeling marginalized.

But all that being said, let me add a couple of more things here:

1. I fully understand and support the laws of the country I live in. I cannot have more than one wife. That’s the only restrictive law I face as a Muslim. I can pray where I want. I can eat what I want. I can kill whatever animal I want for consumption as long as I have a hunting license. But I also accept i am considered an immigrant here and so I have to compromise. Muslims in India consider themselves native to the land so they really feel aggrieved due to these privileges they have always enjoyed being taken away.

2. There are religious laws even in the US. You should read up on them. Where do you think the abortion stuff is coming from?
There are places where you can’t sell alcohol on Sundays. Point being, all nations have laws and privileges driven by the religious or otherwise… beliefs of the “natives”. I don’t feel it’s hypocritical of one to want such privileges.
Click to expand...

1. There is nothing called always enjoyed. Every community had different personal laws before 1952.

The constitution makers wanted a UCC. Nehru opposed it. And when constitution came into being in 1950 everyone had different personal laws.

In 1952 Nehru brought everyone under the civil code but left Muslims out.

In 1984 Rajiv Gandhi overturned a supreme court verdict by passing a amendment to take out muslim personal issues out of court's judgement.

The constitution clearly says that the government has to strive to have the UCC. Article 44 states this explicitly.

2. Again. This isn't US. They have their own compulsions.
 
Stewie said:
I think you are side stepping he spirit of the point. None of us is then native to this world so to speak. We call came from somewhere. The European colonizers of the US are now in a vast majority and have been for centuries now, the natives were decimated a long long time ago. Muslims have been in India for centuries and they are still in very large numbers there. There is a clear difference there. I am trying to point out the factors due to difficulty in transition, not whether the privileges Indian Muslims want are fair or not.
Click to expand...

Either its a secular republic or it's not.

It cannot be a secular republic with special privileges for Muslims only.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Either its a secular republic or it's not.

It cannot be a secular republic with special privileges for Muslims only.
Click to expand...
Secular is a term really abused by Indians.

But let us take the term in the context you guys use it in.
Personally, I think there is NO secular state in the world. I have already mentioned how even the US has a plethora of religious laws. India has religious laws as well.

But for the sake of thie argument, either you define secularism as a mode of government that distances itself from religion and believes in uniform laws for all, or you define secularism as a mode of government where you respect all religions and allow the freedom of religion. So which one is it that India is claiming to be, just so we are all clear?
Let us start with that first and then we can perhaps have an educated discussion.
 
JaDed said:
While Muslims are definitely native to the land, at end of the day it’s faith.
White Americans are not native to US either, yet they make laws that majority follow.

Now before saying below I completely support what Indian Congress did in 1955, they reformed Hindu laws, now were they the government of India or of Hindus?

The opinion piece has an issue one main reason is the person is commenting on how India is having less Muslim MPs yet wants majority Indians to be ok for Muslim having privileges that go against constitution.(Muslim personal law privilege was granted by Rajiv Gandhi Congress against the will of Supreme Court , which made BJP go from one seat to what its now).

My point is the person writing the opinion piece wants privileges reservations and more Muslim MPs.. that is highly privileged person.

Also you can’t shoot Dogs in US , all these are subjective things
Click to expand...

Was it 1952 or 1955?

Nehru had no intention of reforming anyone it was all about keeping one community in control and appease another.

Nehru's hatred towards Hindus isn't hidden. There was this book by one of the cabinet secretaries of Nehru- Patel times and he wrote how Sardar Patel called out Nehrus anti hindu ideas.

Babasaheb Ambedkar too opposed only bringing Hindus under civil code and leaving out Muslims. That's why the 1950 constitution had different personal laws for different communities.
 
Stewie said:
Secular is a term really abused by Indians.

But let us take the term in the context you guys use it. There is NO secular state in the world. I have already mentioned how even the US has a plethora of religious laws. India has religious laws as well.

Either you define secularism as a mode of government that distances itself from religion and believes in uniform laws for all, or you define secularism as a mode of government where you respect all religions and allow the freedom of religion. So which one is it that India is claiming to be, just so we are all clear?
Click to expand...

How is freedom of religion not allowed in India? Who is stopped from practising his religion?
 
cricketjoshila said:
How is freedom of religion not allowed in India? Who is stopped from practising his religion?
Click to expand...

My religion allows me to have multiple wives. If I want to do it, dont the civil laws in India prohibit me from doing so?

but more importantly, perhaps you can answer the question below:
But for the sake of thie argument, either you define secularism as a mode of government that distances itself from religion and believes in uniform laws for all, or you define secularism as a mode of government where you respect all religions and allow the freedom of religion. So which one is it that India is claiming to be, just so we are all clear?
Let us start with that first and then we can perhaps have an educated discussion.
 
Stewie said:
My religion allows me to have multiple wives. If I want to do it, dont the civil laws in India prohibit me from doing so?

but more importantly, perhaps you can answer the question below:
But for the sake of thie argument, either you define secularism as a mode of government that distances itself from religion and believes in uniform laws for all, or you define secularism as a mode of government where you respect all religions and allow the freedom of religion. So which one is it that India is claiming to be, just so we are all clear?
Let us start with that first and then we can perhaps have an educated discussion.
Click to expand...
What is freedom of religion in your opinion? Having multiple wives?

What if tomorrow someone starts a religion(Church of spaghetti monster) will they be allowed to do anything in the name of religion?
 
JaDed said:
What is freedom of religion in your opinion? Having multiple wives?

What if tomorrow someone starts a religion(Church of spaghetti monster) will they be allowed to do anything in the name of religion?
Click to expand...
I don't think this line of questioning will get us anywhere.

Try to answer the question I posted above and we can have a CIVIL DISCUSSION. Thank you.
 
Stewie said:
I don't think this line of questioning will get us anywhere.

Try to answer the question I posted below and we can have a CIVIL DISCUSSION. Thank you.
Click to expand...
There is no first one in the world.

Also India is not secular currently because it has made an exception for Muslim personal laws thanks to Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi.

India can have freedom of religion until it opposes the civil laws granted by constitution.
No religion can have all its laws imposed.

Now please tell me what’s freedom of religion and which country practices it?
 
cricketjoshila said:
I can reply to you in your own language but then how will that differentiate between your upbringing and mine.
Click to expand...

I am not of biological birth. I have been sent by the Paramatma. So please don't talk about my upbringing. It is an insult to all Hindus and you should be ashamed of yourself.
 
JaDed said:
There is no first one in the world.

Also India is not secular currently because it has made an exception for Muslim personal laws thanks to Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi.

India can have freedom of religion until it opposes the civil laws granted by constitution.
No religion can have all its laws imposed.
Click to expand...
I don't think you are answering the questions. It is rather simple, let me spell it out for you again:

Either you define secularism as:
1. A mode of government that distances itself from religion and believes in uniform laws for all or
2. You define secularism as a mode of government where you respect all religions and allow the freedom of religion.

So which one is it that India is claiming to be, 1 or 2?
 
Stewie said:
I don't think you are answering the questions. It is rather simple, let me spell it out for you again:

Either you define secularism as:
1. A mode of government that distances itself from religion and believes in uniform laws for all or
2. You define secularism as a mode of government where you respect all religions and allow the freedom of religion.

So which one is it that India is claiming to be, 1 or 2?
Click to expand...
Let me be absolutely clear India can’t claim any of the two right now, it can aspire maybe but not claim due to personal Muslim laws.

Is your question on what it aspires to be?
 
JaDed said:
Let me be absolutely clear India can’t claim any of the two right now, it can aspire maybe but not claim due to personal Muslim laws.

Is your question on what it aspires to be?
Click to expand...
Sure. Let us go with what India is aspiring to be
 
JaDed said:
First at least as much as it can.
Click to expand...
A mode of government that distances itself from religion and believes in uniform laws for all.

What is the source of the uniform laws that India will aspire to enforce then? I will explain where my I am going with this. I can prove to you here and now that the aspiration you believe to be truly "secular" or "non-religious" in nature is a fool's dream. Thanks to colonialism, most of the world uses some form or another of old colonial laws brought by the Europeans. These laws are heavily derived from Christianity and Bible. Most of the western world runs on laws derived from Judeo Christian traditions. This is not a personal claim of mine. You can actually research this yourself and will find my statement to be true.

To give you an example, US passed the gay marriage law years ago. In Texas, this gay couple got wed and went to the marriage registrar to get their certificate. The female clerk refused to issue it. Her defense was, she was a Christian and actually issuing a marriage certificate to the couple, would violate her Christian beliefs and thereby her right as a practising Christian, and violate her civil liberties of practising her religion. Believe it or not, she was actually not fired and they made accommodations for her.

I hope you see where I am going with this. Either we try to be absolutely neutral or we try to be accommodating to all. It is a tough line to walk, I know. I am not saying that India is not within her rights to do it. I believe every state has that right but I feel this issue is being used a political bluntt tool.
 
Stewie said:
A mode of government that distances itself from religion and believes in uniform laws for all.

What is the source of the uniform laws that India will aspire to enforce then? I will explain where my I am going with this. I can prove to you here and now that the aspiration you believe to be truly "secular" or "non-religious" in nature is a fool's dream. Thanks to colonialism, most of the world uses some form or another of old colonial laws brought by the Europeans. These laws are heavily derived from Christianity and Bible. Most of the western world runs on laws derived from Judeo Christian traditions. This is not a personal claim of mine. You can actually research this yourself and will find my statement to be true.

To give you an example, US passed the gay marriage law years ago. In Texas, this gay couple got wed and went to the marriage registrar to get their certificate. The female clerk refused to issue it. Her defense was, she was a Christian and actually issuing a marriage certificate to the couple, would violate her Christian beliefs and thereby her right as a practising Christian, and violate her civil liberties of practising her religion. Believe it or not, she was actually not fired and they made accommodations for her.

I hope you see where I am going with this. Either we try to be absolutely neutral or we try to be accommodating to all. It is a tough line to walk, I know. I am not saying that India is not within her rights to do it. I believe every state has that right but I feel this issue is being used a political bluntt tool.
Click to expand...
It’s already being used to be a political tool.
It’s a dangerous situation for this very reason ,where laws can be made pandering to religions thereby causing alter affect.

While colonial laws were for Christians they have been modified a lot and cater to current demographics and my point is it can be what majority vote for and one set of rules with very little reservation for circumstances.

Muslims are a huge number in India, the real minorities in India are Parsis, Tribal and Bahai people..
 
And maybe argument can be made that if religious laws are here to stay , then conversion specific laws can be brought in:

Dharmic religions can only convert among themselves and Abrahamic among themselves.

This way just might work.
 
JaDed said:
It’s already being used to be a political tool.
It’s a dangerous situation for this very reason ,where laws can be made pandering to religions thereby causing alter affect.

While colonial laws were for Christians they have been modified a lot and cater to current demographics and my point is it can be what majority vote for and one set of rules with very little reservation for circumstances.

Muslims are a huge number in India, the real minorities in India are Parsis, Tribal and Bahai people..
Click to expand...
So I hope you are seeing my angle here. As a Muslim, I can slaughter cows. There are laws in the country where I cant do that. I can have multiple wives. But I cannot do that either. Whereas the majority which is Hindus, can vote for whatever law they please because they look at it from religious angle, and it totally goes against point #1.

If you can prove that banning the slaughter of cow is ok and is not religious and it does not infringe upon the right of a Muslim to slaughter cow as a sacrifice, I will concede this debate.
 
Stewie said:
If you can prove that banning the slaughter of cow is ok and is not religious and it does not infringe upon the right of a Muslim to slaughter cow as a sacrifice, I will concede this debate.
Click to expand...
If it’s upto me I would ban every slaughter of animal , I’m a vegetarian.

On Cow slaughter laws, can you show me which part of Quran calls for Cow slaughter, I just want to know.

Also cow slaughter is allowed in some Indian states, and the guy writing opinion on CNN was talking abt his issues with UCC in one state only..

Ban of cow slaughter is religious.. but is it country specific state specific?
 
JaDed said:
If it’s upto me I would ban every slaughter of animal , I’m a vegetarian.

On Cow slaughter laws, can you show me which part of Quran calls for Cow slaughter, I just want to know.

Also cow slaughter is allowed in some Indian states, and the guy writing opinion on CNN was talking abt his issues with UCC in one state only..

Ban of cow slaughter is religious.. but is it country specific state specific?
Click to expand...

I think its much deeper than this oversimplification of dismissing it as NOT A REQUIREMENT.

Its more about the freedom and liberties. If you are willing to provide the freedom and liberty of respecting cow as a holy figure and not killing it, which by the way is also not proven to be a requirement of Hindu beliefs, then how can you impose it on others?

In the case of the marriage registrar clerk, she was not practising homosexuality but her faith and her freedom of exercising her religion led her to believe issuing the certificate to a gay couple is wrong. Similarly, a Muslim is not required to sacrifice a cow but knowing he can as a religious freedom is what matters. Similarly knowing he can take a second wife, is what matters.

It is like the right of freedom of speech. You can disagree with what someone says but its important in a democracy to have it.

Either you extend such religious liberties to all or none. If you can justify the slaughter of cow is bad for society, fine ban it. if you can justify polygamy is bad for all, ban it. But there has to be a standard uniform process then divorced from religion to make such determinations.

And this last part is the one I feel human beings will struggle with. There is no organized social concept in the world that is divorced from religion.
 
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will remain in office but with a substantially reduced mandate, confounding expectations of a resounding victory forecast by analysts and exit polls

Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) failed to secure an outright majority for the first time since the Hindu nationalist leader swept to power a decade ago, and will instead rely on coalition allies to govern.

AFP takes a look at the reasons why Modi and his party failed to achieve a third successive landslide win:

Divisive campaign falls flat

Critics and rights groups accused Modi of ramping up rhetoric against Muslims to unprecedented levels during his campaign in a bid to mobilise the Hindu majority.

At his rallies, he referred to Muslims as “infiltrators”, and claimed the main opposition Congress party would redistribute the nation’s wealth to Muslims if it won.

But the strategy failed to galvanise Hindu voters behind the BJP, while also solidifying minority communities’ support for the opposition.

The BJP’s vote share dropped nearly one point to 36.6 per cent from the last election five years ago, translating in India’s electoral system into a drop from 303 to 240 seats in the 543-member parliament.

Numerous voters over the course of the election told AFP that they were more concerned with India’s chronic unemployment problem than with the government’s ideological agenda.

“People were concerned about livelihood, unemployment, price rises,” Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, the author of a Modi biography, told AFP.

“They did not relate to what Modi and the BJP were saying.”

Biggest state flips
For the first time in 15 years, Modi’s party failed to win the most seats in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state and a bellwether for national elections.

Uttar Pradesh is the heartland of India’s majority faith, with widespread support for Modi’s Hindu-nationalist agenda, and had for the past decade formed the bedrock of the BJP’s parliamentary strength.

But an alliance of opposition parties who had competed against each other in past polls saw BJP candidates face stronger rivals, who ultimately won more than half of the state’s seats.

Modi won his seat in the state, representing the Hindu holy city of Varanasi, by just 152,000 votes — compared to a victory margin of nearly half a million votes in 2019.

Spectacularly, the BJP’s candidate lost in the constituency representing Ayodhya, despite Modi in January inaugurating a divisive Hindu temple built on the grounds of a razed mosque there.

“The opposition managed to put a sword back to him and Uttar Pradesh has shown resistance to his brand of politics,” political scientist Ramu Manivannan of the University of Denver told AFP.

The BJP’s electoral strategy was premised on increasing its parliamentary majority by gaining ground in India’s wealthier and better-educated southern states.

Modi made repeated whistlestop tours through the south where he affirmed his “topmost respect” to local culture.

He also embarked on a 48-hour meditation ritual in the southern coastal town of Kanyakumari last week when the vote was nearly over.

But the premier’s relentless campaigning did not translate into significant gains where they were needed.

The party failed to win a single seat in Tamil Nadu state — almost as populous as Germany with 84 million people — and won just one constituency in neighbouring Kerala, with a population of 35 million.

Manivannan said that “ideological resistance in the south” had played its part in the BJP’s lacklustre result.

Southern voters have typically backed regional parties strongly rooted in appeals to social justice policies and opposed the BJP, and Modi’s muscular Hindu-first ideology has held little appeal.

Source: Dawn News
 
Stewie said:
I think its much deeper than this oversimplification of dismissing it as NOT A REQUIREMENT.

Its more about the freedom and liberties. If you are willing to provide the freedom and liberty of respecting cow as a holy figure and not killing it, which by the way is also not proven to be a requirement of Hindu beliefs, then how can you impose it on others?

In the case of the marriage registrar clerk, she was not practising homosexuality but her faith and her freedom of exercising her religion led her to believe issuing the certificate to a gay couple is wrong. Similarly, a Muslim is not required to sacrifice a cow but knowing he can as a religious freedom is what matters. Similarly knowing he can take a second wife, is what matters.

It is like the right of freedom of speech. You can disagree with what someone says but its important in a democracy to have it.

Either you extend such religious liberties to all or none. If you can justify the slaughter of cow is bad for society, fine ban it. if you can justify polygamy is bad for all, ban it. But there has to be a standard uniform process then divorced from religion to make such determinations.

And this last part is the one I feel human beings will struggle with. There is no organized social concept in the world that is divorced from religion.
Click to expand...
So you want to say a UCC doesn’t make sense and every religion should allow to practice what they want even if goes against constitution?

Basically you are saying what Joshila said: Hindus should be secular in majority but Muslims can follow Muslim
laws?

Or maybe you are advocating India to be a Hindu/Dharmic rashtra?
 
Stewie said:
My religion allows me to have multiple wives. If I want to do it, dont the civil laws in India prohibit me from doing so?

but more importantly, perhaps you can answer the question below:
But for the sake of thie argument, either you define secularism as a mode of government that distances itself from religion and believes in uniform laws for all, or you define secularism as a mode of government where you respect all religions and allow the freedom of religion. So which one is it that India is claiming to be, just so we are all clear?
Let us start with that first and then we can perhaps have an educated discussion.
Click to expand...

Your religion also says that your god is the only god, so rest everyone should stop following their religion for you?

Should non Muslims start paying you Jaziya?

You are allowed to follow your religion within the ambit of law. Where ever religious laws clashes with constitution, constitution takes precedence.
 
JaDed said:
So you want to say a UCC doesn’t make sense and every religion should allow to practice what they want even if goes against constitution?

Basically you are saying what Joshila said: Hindus should be secular in majority but Muslims can follow Muslim
laws?

Or maybe you are advocating India to be a Hindu/Dharmic rashtra?
Click to expand...
No. I am saying pick a standard and stick to it. But be mindful that each standard somehow leads to a “religion based” approach. You said you prefer option 1. So I presented the cons of that. There are cons of option 2 as well.

But no matter what direction you take, you have to acknowledge faith based legislation. So it’s a fine line. When you talk of UCC, it’s always going to be derived from somewhere. So it will always have some religion’s influence on it.

If you can manage it don’t doesn’t appear so, great! Do it. But I think you can see what happened when I brought out the subject of cow slaughter. You immediately went into the Hindu defense mode and pivoted to it not being a requirement.

It’s stuff like that that will disenfranchise the minorities. Apart from that I don’t think anybody will deny that the concept of same law for all is somehow unfair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Bald Eagle
  • Poll
"By trouncing BJP in Ayodhya, I.N.D.I.A. bloc defeated Ram temple movement": Rahul Gandhi
Replies
37
Views
644
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
The Bald Eagle
  • Poll
[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Indian elections (2024) Discussion Thread
18 19 20
Replies
2K
Views
21K
cricketjoshila
cricketjoshila
FearlessRoar
"Congress will bulldoze Ram Temple if it comes to power": Narendra Modi
Replies
66
Views
1K
Bhaijaan
Bhaijaan
The Bald Eagle
  • Poll
Do BJP owe its success to Anti Pakistan and Anti Muslim rhethoric rather than any tangible performance?
2 3
Replies
239
Views
5K
DeadlyVenom
D
The Bald Eagle
  • Poll
[VIDEOS] No Muslim representation in India’s cabinet as Modi starts third term, is this finally the dawn of a complete hindu rashtra?
2 3 4
Replies
244
Views
5K
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
Back
Top