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

[JaDed]

yaar I don't know how much you know about Islam but I suspect when you use the term "reform" or "reformation" you are talking about stuff that simply cannot happen with Islam.

Unlike Hinduism, Islam has a very very streamlined, documented, accepted and defended framework for how a Muslim should live his/her life, Its codified in the books. Quran, Fiqh, etc. You simply cannot go about making earth shattering changes to it. That's just how it is.

I feel what can be done is to allow individual rights/freedoms in light of the this codified framework as long as they do not go entirely against or conflict with other laws for Muslims. For instance, if there is a marriage law, inheritance stuff, etc if it does not hurt other communities or non Muslims, use it to apply only on Muslims. I still don't see how that appeases them. That was my question. You said Hindu laws were "reformed", how were they reformed or why was there a need for it?

Once again, its a very very tough ask and a fine line. Unfortunately, if people in the land are used to be treated a certain way for years and years and all of a sudden you decide to take that away from them, yes they will cry about it.


In Pakistan, we have sunnis and shiites and for civil and family cases, they are both handled in light of their sect's prescribed laws. I just thought I should mention that here.

I appreciate your response and I understand it.

 

[Mockingbird]

yaar I don't know how much you know about Islam but I suspect when you use the term "reform" or "reformation" you are talking about stuff that simply cannot happen with Islam.

Unlike Hinduism, Islam has a very very streamlined, documented, accepted and defended framework for how a Muslim should live his/her life, Its codified in the books. Quran, Fiqh, etc. You simply cannot go about making earth shattering changes to it. That's just how it is.

I feel what can be done is to allow individual rights/freedoms in light of the this codified framework as long as they do not go entirely against or conflict with other laws for Muslims. For instance, if there is a marriage law, inheritance stuff, etc if it does not hurt other communities or non Muslims, use it to apply only on Muslims. I still don't see how that appeases them. That was my question. You said Hindu laws were "reformed", how were they reformed or why was there a need for it?

Once again, its a very very tough ask and a fine line. Unfortunately, if people in the land are used to be treated a certain way for years and years and all of a sudden you decide to take that away from them, yes they will cry about it.


In Pakistan, we have sunnis and shiites and for civil and family cases, they are both handled in light of their sect's prescribed laws. I just thought I should mention that here.

What about Muslims living as minorities in western lands where there are no separate civil laws based on religion - won’t that create a conflict? For eg, where the courts heavily espouse spousal support and alimony in a case of divorce or where there are bigamy laws for marrying another woman without divorcing the first, wont that create a conflict with Islamic laws?

 

[Stewie]

What about Muslims living as minorities in western lands where there are no separate civil laws based on religion - won’t that create a conflict? For eg, where the courts heavily espouse spousal support and alimony in a case of divorce or where there are bigamy laws for marrying another woman without divorcing the first, wont that create a conflict with Islamic laws?

I am absolutely NOT stating Muslims are entitled to it when they live in non-muslims lands.. at all. I myself live as a muslim minority and I dont believe any of that would make any sense here.

 

[Mockingbird]

I am absolutely NOT stating Muslims are entitled to it when they live in non-muslims lands.. at all. I myself live as a muslim minority and I dont believe any of that would make any sense here.

So why would it make sense in a country where Hindus are almost 80 percent of the population? Why can’t India have one set of laws for its population?

 

[RexRex]

So why would it make sense in a country where Hindus are almost 80 percent of the population? Why can’t India have one set of laws for its population?

@Stewie wants indian muslims to have the option of having four wives and other such perks.

 

[Stewie]

So why would it make sense in a country where Hindus are almost 80 percent of the population? Why can’t India have one set of laws for its population?

I feel like I am being asked to repeat the same crap over and over again. Read through the thread. Thanks.

 

[Red-Indian]

I feel like I am being asked to repeat the same crap over and over again. Read through the thread. Thanks.

There are 4 types of folks who want to push for removal of Muslim Personal law in India

1. The Hindutvas - India should be a Hindu Rashtra. A cow slaughter ban is okay but no privileges should be given to Muslims even if they have zero impact on us. Very few of those will post here but they exist.

2. The lite-Hindutvas - Muslims are getting to marry 4 times when we aren't even though India is 80% Hindu. Let's take away that right from them even if we have to give up the right to ban cow slaughter. Majority of the posters here are in this group.

3. The rationalists - neither polygamy nor beefbans make sense but there's deep emotions connected with religion attached so let it be for now since neither is causing major social hurt only minor. The religious guys will see logic and come around in the end.

4. The communists - all religions are nonsense. We need to remove any religious privileges and vestiges in law whether blasphemy or beef bans or polygamy. And we need to do it NOW

 

[rpant_gabba]

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.

Why is it not a civil discussion.

In the eyes of the law in US, Christianity, Islam, etc etc are nthe same level as Scientology and Pastafarianism

Can you provide a logical reason as to why it should be treated differently from other belief systems?

What is the criteria? Age? number of followers?

 

[RexRex]

There are 4 types of folks who want to push for removal of Muslim Personal law in India

1. The Hindutvas - India should be a Hindu Rashtra. A cow slaughter ban is okay but no privileges should be given to Muslims even if they have zero impact on us. Very few of those will post here but they exist.

2. The lite-Hindutvas - Muslims are getting to marry 4 times when we aren't even though India is 80% Hindu. Let's take away that right from them even if we have to give up the right to ban cow slaughter. Majority of the posters here are in this group.

3. The rationalists - neither polygamy nor beefbans make sense but there's deep emotions connected with religion attached so let it be for now since neither is causing major social hurt only minor. The religious guys will see logic and come around in the end.

4. The communists - all religions are nonsense. We need to remove any religious privileges and vestiges in law whether blasphemy or beef bans or polygamy. And we need to do it NOW

There's also a group between 3 and 4 -

3.5) People who want to seen common sense uniform laws across all communties, like you see in other diverse democracies like the USA. Beefbans and polygamy can cause social harm.

 

[rpant_gabba]

There are 4 types of folks who want to push for removal of Muslim Personal law in India

1. The Hindutvas - India should be a Hindu Rashtra. A cow slaughter ban is okay but no privileges should be given to Muslims even if they have zero impact on us. Very few of those will post here but they exist.

2. The lite-Hindutvas - Muslims are getting to marry 4 times when we aren't even though India is 80% Hindu. Let's take away that right from them even if we have to give up the right to ban cow slaughter. Majority of the posters here are in this group.

3. The rationalists - neither polygamy nor beefbans make sense but there's deep emotions connected with religion attached so let it be for now since neither is causing major social hurt only minor. The religious guys will see logic and come around in the end.

4. The communists - all religions are nonsense. We need to remove any religious privileges and vestiges in law whether blasphemy or beef bans or polygamy. And we need to do it NOW

Isn't the current opposition a combination of 3 and 4? DMK had rationalism at its core and communists have been been part of the UPA for decades now.

 

[rpant_gabba]

There's also a group between 3 and 4 -

3.5) People who want to seen common sense uniform laws across all communties, like you see in other diverse democracies like the USA. Beefbans and polygamy can cause social harm.

JFC... We are agreeing with each other.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Yes. Have you heard of the first amendment? Look it up.

answer the question

In the eyes of the law in US, Christianity, Islam, etc etc are nthe same level as Scientology and Pastafarianism

Can you provide a logical reason as to why it should be treated differently from other belief systems?

What is the criteria? Age? number of followers?

Name one law is caters to christianity.

 

[Stewie]

There are 4 types of folks who want to push for removal of Muslim Personal law in India

1. The Hindutvas - India should be a Hindu Rashtra. A cow slaughter ban is okay but no privileges should be given to Muslims even if they have zero impact on us. Very few of those will post here but they exist.

2. The lite-Hindutvas - Muslims are getting to marry 4 times when we aren't even though India is 80% Hindu. Let's take away that right from them even if we have to give up the right to ban cow slaughter. Majority of the posters here are in this group.

3. The rationalists - neither polygamy nor beefbans make sense but there's deep emotions connected with religion attached so let it be for now since neither is causing major social hurt only minor. The religious guys will see logic and come around in the end.

4. The communists - all religions are nonsense. We need to remove any religious privileges and vestiges in law whether blasphemy or beef bans or polygamy. And we need to do it NOW

I don't understand the obsession with these laws and the claims that this is Muslim appeasement somehow or that Muslims enjoy perks. So far NOBODY and I repeat NOBODY has been able to provide one valid reason why or how using Islamic laws used only for Muslims is somehow preferential treatment for them.


I know @JaDed mentioned the Hindu laws were reformed but not Islamic ones and I explained how they are considered complete and not in need of reformation. How do they exactly offend Hindus? If Hindu laws are reformed and are applied only on Hindus, why would Muslims have a problem with it? Same goes the other or should go the other way. Perhaps I am not understanding the gist of the Hindu anger here.

Perhaps someone can help explain it.

 

[Stewie]

Just realized this is probably off topic so my apologies. Maybe we can discuss this in a separate thread.

 

[RexRex]

JFC... We are agreeing with each other.

see, us pseudoseculars are not so bad after all.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Are you a US citizen? How long have you lived here? Did you get your basic education, university education here? Did you study the history of the US?

If you are another keyboard Indian warrior sitting in India typing away, I have nothing to say to you.. except maybe educate yourself on the Judeo Christian traditions and their impact on the US laws.

Managed to chase a bizarre combination of chritsian/islam/hindu parent group from advocating religious practices in schools.

I that regard, supreme court has backed that stance for a long time

 

[rpant_gabba]

see, us pseudoseculars are not so bad after all.

So, why exactly the is the "secular" alliance not pushing for this?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Every faith will have a bias toward their own, maybe far right Hindus wouldn't even had brought the Muslim
personal law issue as a narrative if Nehru hadn’t reformed Hindu laws to his own agenda(which was right).

The idea of appeasement will hurt everyone, instead there can be reformation of every religion through one uniform personal law.

Hindu laws before Congress reformed them were backward according to me but i notice you don’t have issues with Muslim personal laws , which is what @CricketCartoons says , Muslims are more faithful to their faith than majority Hindus would be.

This is also why Javed Akhtar once said:

“In 1975 I showed a comedy scene in a temple. Today I won’t. But even in 1975, I wouldn’t have shown a scene in a mosque because that level of intolerance was there. Now the other one is matching it,”

Competitive intolerance. Hindu just has to think what would a muslim would do in my place, and follow it.

 

[Red-Indian]

Isn't the current opposition a combination of 3 and 4? DMK had rationalism at its core and communists have been been part of the UPA for decades now.

Nah...most of them are some combination of an unlisted 4-5-6-7. Current opponents of a UCC either because they don't want the Modi muslim hating-government enacting it or vote bank politics or Stewie types - let them have it as long it doesn't hurt anyone else.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Mungerilal Ke Haseen Sapne

I don't care for one nation one election. I only care for a pro sanghi government. BJP doesn't even align with 10% of my ideology, but that is enough for me to achieve the goal we have in mind.

 

[Stewie]

Yes. Have you heard of the first amendment? Look it up.

answer the question

In the eyes of the law in US, Christianity, Islam, etc etc are nthe same level as Scientology and Pastafarianism

Can you provide a logical reason as to why it should be treated differently from other belief systems?

What is the criteria? Age? number of followers?

Name one law is caters to christianity.

By the way the thread is not about any of these topics. My comments related to India and not US to begin with. Feel free to open a separate thread if you want to discuss the influence of Judeo Christian traditions on US laws and constitution.

 

[Red-Indian]

I don't understand the obsession with these laws and the claims that this is Muslim appeasement somehow or that Muslims enjoy perks. So far NOBODY and I repeat NOBODY has been able to provide one valid reason why or how using Islamic laws used only for Muslims is somehow preferential treatment for them.


I know @JaDed mentioned the Hindu laws were reformed but not Islamic ones and I explained how they are considered complete and not in need of reformation. How do they exactly offend Hindus? If Hindu laws are reformed and are applied only on Hindus, why would Muslims have a problem with it? Same goes the other or should go the other way. Perhaps I am not understanding the gist of the Hindu anger here.

Perhaps someone can help explain it.

One reason for Hindutvas and lite-Hindutvas to consider it perks is jealousy. My daughter dislikes chocolate cake (I know!) but she sees one kid get a larger slice than her at birthdays and she'll be sulking for ages.

The other I would guess is historic baggage. Most of North India lived under Islamic rule for centuries where Muslims were privileged. That resentment has passed on from generation to generation where any difference in law is considered a perk.

 

[rpant_gabba]

By the way the thread is not about any of these topics. My comments related to India and not US to begin with. Feel free to open a separate thread if you want to discuss the influence of Judeo Christian traditions on US laws and constitution.

Here is some reading material

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[rpant_gabba]

Nah...most of them are some combination of an unlisted 4-5-6-7. Current opponents of a UCC either because they don't want the Modi muslim hating-government enacting it or vote bank politics or Stewie types - let them have it as long it doesn't hurt anyone else.

so no logical opposition.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I don't understand the obsession with these laws and the claims that this is Muslim appeasement somehow or that Muslims enjoy perks. So far NOBODY and I repeat NOBODY has been able to provide one valid reason why or how using Islamic laws used only for Muslims is somehow preferential treatment for them.


I know @JaDed mentioned the Hindu laws were reformed but not Islamic ones and I explained how they are considered complete and not in need of reformation. How do they exactly offend Hindus? If Hindu laws are reformed and are applied only on Hindus, why would Muslims have a problem with it? Same goes the other or should go the other way. Perhaps I am not understanding the gist of the Hindu anger here.

Perhaps someone can help explain it.

Shocker.

I'm all for Muslims in india come under islammic penal code. you want islamic way of life. you get the whole package.

Its the case of muslims wanting it both ways. what is your is ours and what is mine is mine.

No rational system would allow it.

 

[RexRex]

So, why exactly the is the "secular" alliance not pushing for this?

The same reason why hindutva alliance is pushing for a cow slaughter ban nationwide. They have a religious votebank to cater to.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I think the gist of my argument is that ALL LAWS ARE BASED IN RELIGION.

Now you may not feel that because you have grown so accustomed to them over the years that you view them as social norms and not steeped in religion, but the truth is they all are.

And with countries such as the USA and other western states, if you dig deep enough you will find this to be true. They claim separation of church and state but its not entirely true and there are laws here based on Judeo Christian traditions. No alcohol on church days in some states. More importantly, people use the excuse of exercising their religious freedom to do or not do certain things. I already used an example above of this situation as well.

So based on our origin, your norms will differ. Muslims and Hindus will never see eye to eye on such things. A UCC has to be utterly divorced from religion for it to work. If Hindus majority can somehow make a case for it... great!

ha, the post modernist take.

BTW, don't they serve wine in churches on sundays?

 

[rpant_gabba]

The same reason why hindutva alliance is pushing for a cow slaughter ban nationwide. They have a religious votebank to cater to.

Don't get me started. not sure which what teaching of hinduism treats a cow differently from a buffalo, dog or chicken etc etc

Except, One aligns with the party philosophy, the other one is pure hypocrisy

 

[RexRex]

Don't get me started. not sure which what teaching of hinduism treats a cow differently from a buffalo, dog or chicken etc etc

Except, One aligns with the party philosophy, the other one is pure hypocrisy

Don't understand your post, make coherent statements with grammar. Which is the alignment and which is the hypocrisy ?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Don't understand your post, make coherent statements with grammar. Which is the alignment and which is the hypocrisy ?

BJP is aligned with Hindu philosophy as a party man

Secular alliance claims they are not aligned with any religious philosophy.

Are u able to figure who r being hypocrites?

 

[RexRex]

BJP is aligned with Hindu philosophy as a party man

Secular alliance claims they are not aligned with any religious philosophy.

Are u able to figure who r being hypocrites?

BJP is aligned with a religious philosophy - hinduism.

Congress alliance is not aligned with any religious philiosophy, they stand for pluralism - meaning each community gets their own personal laws.

 

[rpant_gabba]

BJP is aligned with a religious philosophy - hinduism.

Congress alliance is not aligned with any religious philiosophy, they stand for pluralism - meaning each community gets their own personal laws.

Nonsense. It was congress which included the word secularism into the constitution and are aligned with communist and DMK who in principle don’t care for any religion

 

[rpant_gabba]

BJP is aligned with a religious philosophy - hinduism.

Congress alliance is not aligned with any religious philiosophy, they stand for pluralism - meaning each community gets their own personal laws.

Reading material.
====
The case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) is a landmark judgement pertaining to Article 356 of the Constitution of India. This is an important case in order to understand the intricacies of the centre-state relationship and the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution. It laid down the scope of Article 356 and defined certain restrictions to the use of this Article which in turn helped in resolving certain complex issues related to centre-state relations. It also laid down the principle of federal structure and the roles of the Governor and President. This judgement is considered to be a historic judgement as a bench of nine judges delivered this judgement which serves as a guide for all disputes which arise out of the misuse of Article 356 and in case of tussle between the centre and a state. The judgement of this case was delivered by a constitutional bench consisting of Justices S.R. Pandian, A.M. Ahmadi, J.S. Verma, P.B. Sawant, K. Ramaswamy, S.C. Agarwal, Yogeshwar Dayal and B.P. Jeevan Reddy on 11th March 1994.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India : case analysis

This article analyzes the case of S.R. Bommai, where the power of the President’s rule was reduced.

blog.ipleaders.in

THE CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT)

 

[Stewie]

Shocker.

I'm all for Muslims in india come under islammic penal code. you want islamic way of life. you get the whole package.

Its the case of muslims wanting it both ways. what is your is ours and what is mine is mine.

No rational system would allow it.

It doesn’t answer the question. Without evidence, proof, etc..

There are plenty of countries including Pakistan where sharia law is not fully implemented. So your statement doesn’t hold any water.

 

[Stewie]

I ask again, what perks if any or preferential treatment do Muslims enjoy in India?

 

[Red-Indian]

I ask again, what perks if any or preferential treatment do Muslims enjoy in India?

To be honest, these laws are pretty much going to disappear in India as well.

One of my Managers reporting in to me is a Muslim lady who's chosen to marry her husband under the Special Marriages Act rather than Muslim personal although it was an arranged marriage because both her and her husband agreed to eliminate the possibility of polygamy.

I've also seen cases where parents have obtained consent of all children - make and female to divide property equally in their wills.

Sooner or later some Muslim lady is going to find a sympathetic court and get a favourable judgement just like Shayara Bano got in the case of Triple Talaq. I'm not even sure the Muslim community will oppose it much except for some radical preachers.

A Muslim hating government trying to take it away though has potential for disaster and could set Muslim women back for years.

 

[Stewie]

ha, the post modernist take.

BTW, don't they serve wine in churches on sundays?

Why don’t you enlighten us on the subject,

Maybe look that up as well while you are at it. Study the Protestant reformation, Martin Luther, the Quakers, their break off from the Catholic Church, etc, the deep Christian conservative movement behind the original colonies of America and how that movement shaped the US constitution and laws.

There is a lot there to unpack for those who believe US is about the separation of church and state. Most academics and those in the know would beg to differ. It’s another one of those lies about how US broke off from the crown for freedom and democracy (and yet the south continued to enrich itself through slavery).

 

[CricketCartoons]

I don't understand the obsession with these laws and the claims that this is Muslim appeasement somehow or that Muslims enjoy perks. So far NOBODY and I repeat NOBODY has been able to provide one valid reason why or how using Islamic laws used only for Muslims is somehow preferential treatment for them.


I know @JaDed mentioned the Hindu laws were reformed but not Islamic ones and I explained how they are considered complete and not in need of reformation. How do they exactly offend Hindus? If Hindu laws are reformed and are applied only on Hindus, why would Muslims have a problem with it? Same goes the other or should go the other way. Perhaps I am not understanding the gist of the Hindu anger here.

Perhaps someone can help explain it.

Non muslims: You will adhere to the rules that WE decide for you.
Muslims: You will adhere to the rules that YOU decide for yourself.

But according to Sweetie this is not preferential treatment to muslims.

 

[Stewie]

To be honest, these laws are pretty much going to disappear in India as well.

One of my Managers reporting in to me is a Muslim lady who's chosen to marry her husband under the Special Marriages Act rather than Muslim personal although it was an arranged marriage because both her and her husband agreed to eliminate the possibility of polygamy.

I've also seen cases where parents have obtained consent of all children - make and female to divide property equally in their wills.

Sooner or later some Muslim lady is going to find a sympathetic court and get a favourable judgement just like Shayara Bano got in the case of Triple Talaq. I'm not even sure the Muslim community will oppose it much except for some radical preachers.

A Muslim hating government trying to take it away though has potential for disaster and could set Muslim women back for years.

I am sure there are a lot of people who would support it without doubt. Even in Pakistan it’s a small percentage of men who have more than one wife.

Hopefully what ever the new code is, it will remain neutral and fair to all.

Do people get to vote for it though?

 

[Red-Indian]

Non muslims: You will adhere to the rules that WE decide for you.
Muslims: You will adhere to the rules that YOU decide for yourself.

But according to Sweetie this is not preferential treatment to muslims.

The problem as Stewie has articulated pretty reasonably in my opinion is - you're a Hindu but you're not campaigning for Hindus to be allowed to pass and follow their own Personal law. You're only campaigning for Muslims not to be allowed to follow their own Personal law.

I doubt any Muslim in India is going to object tomorrow if the Modi government decides to reform Hindu personal law to ban intercaste marriage.

 

[Red-Indian]

I am sure there are a lot of people who would support it without doubt. Even in Pakistan it’s a small percentage of men who have more than one wife.

Hopefully what ever the new code is, it will remain neutral and fair to all.

Do people get to vote for it though?

Nah...I think voting in these cases is tricky. Would a vote to ban underage marriage have won in the court of public opinion 100 years ago in India and/or Pakistan? You have to change laws through the Judiciary and Legislature to reflect current Social norms and hope public opinion catches up.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Maybe look that up as well while you are at it. Study the Protestant reformation, Martin Luther, the Quakers, their break off from the Catholic Church, etc, the deep Christian conservative movement behind the original colonies of America and how that movement shaped the US constitution and laws.

I don't have to. Many of the Blue laws, cut outs made to please religious nutjobs have been getting knocked by the courts left and right. Look it up.

There is a lot there to unpack for those who believe US is about the separation of church and state. Most academics and those in the know would beg to differ.

Enlighten us. Since u seem cliam u r in the know give us examples of laws which violate the establishment clause of the first amendment

It’s another one of those lies about how US broke off from the crown for freedom and democracy (and yet the south continued to enrich itself through slavery).

I will argue that, it was another case of wiping out religious law. As old testment and new testament endorse slavery. It got wiped by a violent civil war and 14th amendment.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The problem as Stewie has articulated pretty reasonably in my opinion is - you're a Hindu but you're not campaigning for Hindus to be allowed to pass and follow their own Personal law. You're only campaigning for Muslims not to be allowed to follow their own Personal law.

I doubt any Muslim in India is going to object tomorrow if the Modi government decides to reform Hindu personal law to ban intercaste marriage.

That is from a muslim POV, that let us live by our rules, and you try to get your own rules. But that is not the basic principle of our constitution, or even Nehruvian secularism.

Our founding fathers have said, including Ambedkar, that UCC should be our goal. What a muslim (whom you find reasonable) is saying that religious laws should supersede the wish of our founding fathers and the principles of our constitution.

And this election was about protecting the constitution, and here you are finding it reasonable. Have you ditched the constitution?

 

[CricketCartoons]

I am sure there are a lot of people who would support it without doubt. Even in Pakistan it’s a small percentage of men who have more than one wife.

Hopefully what ever the new code is, it will remain neutral and fair to all.

Do people get to vote for it though?

If it is only a small percentage and not really any benefit, then muslims will not come to streets protesting if this is taken away from them, right?

You very well know the answer.

 

[rpant_gabba]

The problem as Stewie has articulated pretty reasonably in my opinion is - you're a Hindu but you're not campaigning for Hindus to be allowed to pass and follow their own Personal law. You're only campaigning for Muslims not to be allowed to follow their own Personal law.

I doubt any Muslim in India is going to object tomorrow if the Modi government decides to reform Hindu personal law to ban intercaste marriage.

I'm little puzzled by your focus on polygamy.

the UCC gets into property management: the way temples or treated vs mosques, waqf property nonsense etc etc by the government etc etc

You are welcome to wait. There are others who don't want to wait.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I doubt any Muslim in India is going to object tomorrow if the Modi government decides to reform Hindu personal law to ban intercaste marriage.

Seems you have forgotten how muslims protested against CAA, when it had nothing to do with indian muslims. They were outraged how come non indian refugee muslims from muslim majority countries not given the same treatment that minority muslims were being given. They were fighting for the right of majority muslims from BD/PK/AFG and saying that those should be treated the same way as minorities in those countries.

 

[Red-Indian]

That is from a muslim POV, that let us live by our rules, and you try to get your own rules. But that is not the basic principle of our constitution, or even Nehruvian secularism.

Our founding fathers have said, including Ambedkar, that UCC should be our goal. What a muslim (whom you find reasonable) is saying that religious laws should supersede the wish of our founding fathers and the principles of our constitution.

And this election was about protecting the constitution, and here you are finding it reasonable. Have you ditched the constitution?

I hate it from my perspective since I think almost all religions and religious rules are nonsense. I'm just okay with seeing their point of view as reasonable. Just as I understand Hindus see the cow as their mom and don't want it slaughtered.

I believe both sides will eventually come around and am willing to wait as long as it doesn't actually cause major harm unlike say slavery (which I believe both the Quran and some Hindu scriptures are okay with).

 

[rpant_gabba]

It doesn’t answer the question. Without evidence, proof, etc..

Ex. waqf board hogging public land. Use of temple property by govt, while mosque money is not regulated . Many example so this

There are plenty of countries including Pakistan where sharia law is not fully implemented. So your statement doesn’t hold any water.

Not sure how that supports your position.

Also, I guess they are realizing Sharia law is barbaric?

 

[CricketCartoons]

I hate it from my perspective since I think almost all religions and religious rules are nonsense. I'm just okay with seeing their point of view as reasonable. Just as I understand Hindus see the cow as their mom and don't want it slaughtered.

I believe both sides will eventually come around and am willing to wait as long as it doesn't actually cause major harm unlike say slavery (which I believe both the Quran and some Hindu scriptures are okay with).

I make caricatures and sketches. Will you bat for my right to draw the Prophet (in a respectable way). Why doesnt the constitution allow me that?

Are you against the ideals of our founding fathers and the principles of our constitution?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Steview is fine when he says he prefers some laws for indian muslims. Everyone wants to further their civilization and that is totally fine.

Where he is being dishonest is when he says those laws have no special benefit for muslims. Really, then there should not be any objection if it is taken away?

At least stop pretending that it is not any way preferential towards muslims. It is totally OK to support something that benefits you, your community or your civilization. No need to do mental gymnastics to defend it.

 

[Red-Indian]

I'm little puzzled by your focus on polygamy.

the UCC gets into property management: the way temples or treated vs mosques, waqf property nonsense etc etc by the government etc etc

You are welcome to wait. There are others who don't want to wait.

Okay sure let's get into that as well. It's not part of Muslim Personal law but I think the way Muslim mosques and associated property are administered is atrocious under Waqf law.

But that's a problem for the Muslim community to solve and I won't stand in their way.

Just as I think it's ridiculous that the former Royal family has been given back the rights to administer the Padmanabha Swami temple or how the Jagannath Puri temple is administered but it's a problem for the Hindu community.

 

[CricketCartoons]

@Red-Indian you are neither a muslim, nor a hindu, nor a supporter of the constitution. So what is your locus standii? You have no skin in this game. You are no stakeholder.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Okay sure let's get into that as well. It's not part of Muslim Personal law but I think the way Muslim mosques and associated property are administered is atrocious under Waqf law.

But that's a problem for the Muslim community to solve and I won't stand in their way.

Just as I think it's ridiculous that the former Royal family has been given back the rights to administer the Padmanabha Swami temple or how the Jagannath Puri temple is administered but it's a problem for the Hindu community.

Seems to me the solution is to peel it off in one stroke.

 

[Red-Indian]

I make caricatures and sketches. Will you bat for my right to draw the Prophet (in a respectable way). Why doesnt the constitution allow me that?

Are you against the ideals of our founding fathers and the principles of our constitution?

Sure I fully support your right in theory. I agree the Constitution should not ban that in letter or practice.

In reality though, we live in a deeply religious society. The Hindu community would be deeply offended if you slaughter a cow in front of a temple and the Muslim community would be horrified by a caricature of the prophet.

Let's keep control on both for now to maintain peace and harmony.

 

[Red-Indian]

Seems to me the solution is to peel it off in one stroke.

Will cause social disharmony, riots and maybe deaths. Is it worth it?

I think you once said you were an atheist like me (apologies if not... don't mean to offend). Both of us have the same goals in terms of law. I'm just more willing to recognise social realities and wait for the right time to drive change. Maybe it's because you don't live in India and think it's immediately ready for big change.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Will cause social disharmony, riots and maybe deaths. Is it worth it?

I think you once said you were an atheist like me (apologies if not... don't mean to offend). Both of us have the same goals in terms of law. I'm just more willing to recognise social realities and wait for the right time to drive change. Maybe it's because you don't live in India and think it's immediately ready for big change.

I'm a Pastafarian

Social disharmony is going to happen for even the most beneficial and moral thing, think slavery in US, CAA protests by muslims, even though, it had no negative effect on them.

Most of the social disharmony is manufactured and avoiding doing the right thing olnly makes more difficult in the future.

as the saying goes, best time to start something good was probably yesterday. The next best time is today.

 

[Red-Indian]

I'm a Pastafarian

Social disharmony is going to happen for even the most beneficial and moral thing, think slavery in US, CAA protests by muslims, even though, it had no negative effect on them.

Most of the social disharmony is manufactured and avoiding doing the right thing olnly makes more difficult in the future.

as the saying goes, best time to start something good was probably yesterday. The next best time is today.

Manufactured or not, the potential for chaos exists. There's always an order to this stuff. Whether the religious like it or not, laws in India already ban/regulate a lot of stuff that the dominant religions Hinduism, Islam etc. are okay with - underage marriage, slavery, sati, the caste system, dowry (varying levels of effectiveness in terms of practice of course). We'll get around to the less important stuff - religious institution administration (you wouldn't believe how badly Parsi religious institutions are administered) polygamy, inheritance etc.

Whatever the cliched wall poster slogans say, the best time is not always NOW! If the Indian Supreme Court had passed a judgement decriminalising sodomy and same-sex relationships 50 years ago, it's possible the Indian public may have reacted violently and a constitutional amendment may have been passed setting back LGBT rights further. This time, there was some mild opposition and everybody accepted that the time had come.

 

[FearlessRoar]

In Modi's stronghold, voters chose jobs over new Hindu temple​

The opening of a grand Hindu temple just three months ahead of India's general election was supposed to be a crowning moment for populist prime minister Narendra Modi that would carry his party to a dominant victory with its Hindu-first agenda.
It didn't work out that way.

Instead, Modi's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lost the seat in Ayodhya, where the temple is located. In the surrounding state of Uttar Pradesh, a traditional stronghold for the party and one that sends the most lawmakers to parliament, its tally of seats was nearly halved.

Although the BJP and its allies can form a coalition government to keep Modi in power as prime minister for his third term, the margin of the victory was much smaller than pollsters had predicted and sent a shockwave through Indian politics.

The message from voters in Ayodhya and across swathes of Uttar Pradesh is that the BJP's pro-Hindu agenda was not enough. Other campaign tacks of record economic growth and free-food programmes were overshadowed by unemployment, the cost of living and the widening gap between the urban and rural economies.

"Everyone loves Lord Ram, but without work and income, what can one do?" said Nankan Yadav, a 55-year old Hindu farmer, one of 18 people interviewed in the town by Reuters. Yadav said he switched to the opposition Samajwadi Party after voting for the BJP in the last two elections.

He said he was the sole earner in a family of five, with his three children either studying or jobless.

"Inflation and unemployment are the issues on which people have voted. We have voted to bring the focus back on unemployment," he said, as earth-movers dredged his front yard to widen a public road, a common feature across the city as it grows to accommodate more visitors.

Twenty-four-year-old Mohammad Shahid, whose income driving an electric rickshaw supports his parents, wife and two young children, said he too voted for the Samajwadi Party because he was struggling with high electricity bills, monthly instalments for the loan on his vehicle and other costs.

"Rates for everything keep rising," he said.

The ruling BJP lost a third of its rural parliamentary seats, with analysts saying this was down to discontent over a lack of jobs and inflation in the countryside.

Over the past half-century, the BJP has risen from the fringes of mainstream politics to become the country's most dominant party on the back of its ideology of muscular Hinduism, underlined by the campaign to build the Ram temple on the site of a 16th-century mosque.

Its landslide victories since 2014 in a series of general and state elections, India's stellar economic growth and Modi's huge personal popularity may have led to over-confidence, analysts said.

"In a state like Uttar Pradesh, the temple is not the only deciding factor any more (unlike) development issues...and unemployment," said Surendra Kumar Dwivedi, a former head of the political science department at Lucknow University.

Unemployment and inflation were the two biggest reasons nationally for people to go against Modi's alliance, according to a survey of 20,000 voters by the CSDS-Lokniti polling agency for the Hindu newspaper. Some 30% of the voters were worried about inflation, a jump from the 20% prior to the election, while unemployment was a factor for 27%.

The unemployment rate in India rose to 8.1% in April from 7.4% in March, according to the private think-tank Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, compared with around 6% before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Modi first came to power in 2014 on the promise of creating 20 million jobs a year, but has fallen far short of that.

While headline inflation hovering around 5% is relatively low, food inflation of above 8% since November 2023 has hit the poor hard. Prices of vegetables and cereals have risen by double digits for most of the last year.

"You are not going to vote because you are swayed by the temple's inauguration," said Ghanshyam Tiwari, spokesperson for the Samajwadi Party that unseated the BJP as the dominant party in Uttar Pradesh.

"You are going to vote because you are uncomfortable about your job situation, you are uncomfortable about the fact that there aren't basic amenities in your house, you are uncomfortable that the government is not doing enough."

To be sure, the BJP swept the neighbouring state of Madhya Pradesh, which analysts say was partly because the opposition alliance did not have a strong local player like Samajwadi in Uttar Pradesh to capitalise on any discontent there.

But the BJP also won all seven seats in the capital Delhi and did well in other states bordering Uttar Pradesh.

Overall, the BJP won 240 seats in India's 543-member lower house of parliament, while its National Democratic Alliance (NDA) won 293, clearly above the 272 majority.

"The 2024 election could be just a pause for the BJP, not a setback," wrote BJP parliamentarian Rakesh Sinha in the Indian Express newspaper.

"The 2024 mandate is for Modi to govern the country for a third consecutive term. He remains the undisputed and most acceptable leader both in his party and the NDA."

In Ayodhya, where large cut-outs of Lord Ram dot the roads and hundreds of people were swarming into the temple despite the scorching summer heat, residents saw things differently.

"They spent crores (millions) of rupees for the temple's inauguration," said Awadhesh Prasad, the Samajwadi candidate who won the Faizabad parliamentary seat where Ayodhya is located. "There is so much poverty in our country, this kind of showing off is not for a democracy like ours."

Long-time BJP voter Krishna Shankar Pandey, a 65-year old Hindu priest, said about the party that "whatever votes they got, they got in Ram's name".

"Otherwise they would not have got any," he said, sitting on the street outside his home, shirt-less and clad in a white linen sarong.

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/modis-stronghold-jobs-prices-overshadow-hindu-card-voters-2024-06-06/?taid=6662ffa5acd5750001e06e24&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

 

[captain.hansolo]

You got your visa?

Yes, I got one last year. Under religion which they have no business asking, I listed Atheist.

 

[Stewie]

Steview is fine when he says he prefers some laws for indian muslims. Everyone wants to further their civilization and that is totally fine.

Where he is being dishonest is when he says those laws have no special benefit for muslims. Really, then there should not be any objection if it is taken away?

At least stop pretending that it is not any way preferential towards muslims. It is totally OK to support something that benefits you, your community or your civilization. No need to do mental gymnastics to defend it.

I dont live in India. I have been asking for many to enlighten me as to how they benefit Muslims unfairly. Is asking a question dishonest?

What's this waqf board? I don't even know why RW Hindus are so chaffed up over some of this stuff. This question is part of the discussion. So before you make such laughable claims, perhaps try to present your POV properly and articulately so others here can understand.

 

[Stewie]

Ex. waqf board hogging public land. Use of temple property by govt, while mosque money is not regulated . Many example so this

Not sure how that supports your position.

Also, I guess they are realizing Sharia law is barbaric?

It is not as if majority Muslims countries have always had Sharia laws and they are somehow phasing it out. Sharia law was never actually implemented fully in majority of the Muslim countries post colonial/Ottoman/world war II world.

The former colonial states adopted parts of the British/French whatever constitutions and incorporated Islamic laws where they felt like it.

UAE/Saudi are probably two states where its implemented fully, two states where your Hindu countrymen are living in abundance and enjoying a good quality of life.

Now kindly explain what's waqf board? Who and why is public land being used? Is there any standard regulation in India about money for religious institutions should be regulated?

Is there a central "Hindu" religious authority in India that owns temples or administers them? Is there one for Muslims? Are the bodies for the two faiths similarly organized?

 

[CricketCartoons]

I dont live in India. I have been asking for many to enlighten me as to how they benefit Muslims unfairly. Is asking a question dishonest?

What's this waqf board? I don't even know why RW Hindus are so chaffed up over some of this stuff. This question is part of the discussion. So before you make such laughable claims, perhaps try to present your POV properly and articulately so others here can understand.

One can only enlighten a combustible item. You cannot be enlightened.

But I will break it down to first principles:
If community A is asked to follow rules decided by state, while community B is asked to decide the rules for themselves. Which community is being given preferential treatment? Should be a simple answer.

 

[Champ_Pal]

It is not as if majority Muslims countries have always had Sharia laws and they are somehow phasing it out. Sharia law was never actually implemented fully in majority of the Muslim countries post colonial/Ottoman/world war II world.

The former colonial states adopted parts of the British/French whatever constitutions and incorporated Islamic laws where they felt like it.

UAE/Saudi are probably two states where its implemented fully, two states where your Hindu countrymen are living in abundance and enjoying a good quality of life.

Now kindly explain what's waqf board? Who and why is public land being used? Is there any standard regulation in India about money for religious institutions should be regulated?

Is there a central "Hindu" religious authority in India that owns or administers them? Is there one for Muslims? Are the bodies for the two faiths similarly organized?

Indians in Saudi are daily wage workers. They are not rich. Their living conditions are terrible. They need these Indians to work in the unbearable Sun of Arabia. Arabs are too soft to work there.
UAE is very liberal. That country is built on foreign investment. They cannot go Taliban style on people. Their Sheikhs are smart.

From what I know, donated temple money goes to Government. The Government does not improve the facilities at temples nor they allow Temple to use that money to spread the religion.

 

[Stewie]

Indians in Saudi are daily wage workers. They are not rich. Their living conditions are terrible. They need these Indians to work in the unbearable Sun of Arabia. Arabs are too soft to work there.
UAE is very liberal. That country is built on foreign investment. They cannot go Taliban style on people. Their Sheikhs are smart.

From what I know, donated temple money goes to Government. The Government does not improve the facilities at temples nor they allow Temple to use that money to spread the religion.

So far nothing here seems to imply Muslims are unfairly benefitting from any of that stuff. what does the waqf do?

 

[Stewie]

Indians in Saudi are daily wage workers. They are not rich. Their living conditions are terrible. They need these Indians to work in the unbearable Sun of Arabia. Arabs are too soft to work there.
UAE is very liberal. That country is built on foreign investment. They cannot go Taliban style on people. Their Sheikhs are smart.

From what I know, donated temple money goes to Government. The Government does not improve the facilities at temples nor they allow Temple to use that money to spread the religion.

Also, just so you know there is Sharia law in UAE for Muslims. For non Muslims, they use something else.

Point being, UAE and other countries use the same laws which Hindus here claim are draconian. Even in KSA, there are a lot of decent white collar jobs for Hindus and they do work there. Not all of them are blue collared labor types.

But I digress.

 

[CricketCartoons]

So far nothing here seems to imply Muslims are unfairly benefitting from any of that stuff. what does the waqf do?

You didn't answer:

X gets to decide its laws.
Y doesn't get to decide its laws.

Which of them is getting the preferential treatment?

This should be easy.

 

[Red-Indian]

From what I know, donated temple money goes to Government. The Government does not improve the facilities at temples nor they allow Temple to use that money to spread the religion.

I would say that in most cases government or semi-government institutions do a better job of managing temples, associated funds and devotee experience than self-managed temples. Do you have evidence to the contrary? It is true however that the Government in some states does not provide clear transparency on use of temple funds.

I would've thought most Hindus would be satisfied with current temple administration (though it is a bit chaotic and varies from state to state) in India. The alternative is the level of corruption and incompetence seen in opaque institutions like the Waqf boards and Catholic churches.

 

[Champ_Pal]

So far nothing here seems to imply Muslims are unfairly benefitting from any of that stuff. what does the waqf do?

I don’t know what waqf does. But they are rich. They own lots of lands. That’s all I know. Someone who is well versed with land laws can explain to us.

 

[Stewie]

I don’t know what waqf does. But they are rich. They own lots of lands. That’s all I know. Someone who is well versed with land laws can explain to us.

I think some of the anger from RW Hindu posters here and in general is probably misplaced about that then. Muslims are perhaps better organized and own a lot of land whereas Hindus don't have a central authority, maybe? Does that sound right?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Indian Muslims cannot have their cake and eat it too. They need to accept a UCC or form their own state.

 

[Red-Indian]

I think some of the anger from RW Hindu posters here and in general is probably misplaced about that then. Muslims are perhaps better organized and own a lot of land whereas Hindus don't have a central authority, maybe? Does that sound right?

There's a lot of material on this but Muslim religious institutions in India have been allowed to own and govern (very incompetently) their own endowed properties under a central law but Hindu religious properties are governed by a patchwork of state laws and in some states are completely governed by the bureaucracy/government.

 

[Stewie]

There's a lot of material on this but Muslim religious institutions in India have been allowed to own and govern (very incompetently) their own endowed properties under a central law but Hindu religious properties are governed by a patchwork of state laws and in some states are completely governed by the bureaucracy/government.

Thanks for these details. It validates my perception. I think these are changes that need to be made to be fair to all parties. being an American believing in smaller government, I think such stuff should be left to individual entities to handle and the state should not be involved in these things.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I think it was natural as He not jolted Modi only but Adani and Ambanis too
=====
Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi has demanded an investigation into a stock market crash that hit investors at the end of the general election

He accused top Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders of making misleading predictions about stock prices surging after 4 June, the day the results were announced.

Mr Gandhi, from the Congress party, claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi encouraged people to buy stocks before this, which led to them losing money when the market crashed.

Mr Modi's party, the BJP, has denied the allegations.

Mr Gandhi has demanded that a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) investigate the alleged scam and the role of Mr Modi and senior ministers.

He alleged that weeks before election results, Mr Modi, ex-Home Minister Amit Shah, and former Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman advised people to "buy stocks before 4 June", suggesting that the market would surge after, anticipating a BJP victory.

In May, Mr Shah told NDTV news channel in an interview: "Stock market crashes should not be linked with elections, but even if such a rumour has been spread, I suggest that you buy (shares) before 4 June. It will shoot up."

Mr Gandhi has labelled it "the biggest scam" in India's stock market history, alleging that the manipulation benefited certain "dubious foreign investors", causing Indians to lose trillions of rupees.

Mr Modi's departing trade minister, Piyush Goyal, has refuted the allegations, accusing Mr Gandhi of misleading investors.

Exit polls had predicted that the BJP would comfortably win a majority - securing more than 272 seats in the 543 member parliament - while together with its alliance partners, this figure would touch 360-370.

Pedestrians watch share prices on a digital broadcast outside the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) on the day of India's general election result in Mumbai on June 4, 2024

However, the results were drastically different from these predictions, with the BJP failing to reach the halfway mark on its own and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) getting just 293 seats.

Mr Gandhi has now claimed that the exit polls were "fake" and that the BJP knew that it was not going to win more that 220 seats "from its internal survey and the feedback from the intelligence agencies".

"Despite that, the exit polls were made to show that the BJP was winning a large number of seats," Mr Gandhi alleged.

This, he alleged, led to massive buying of stocks on 3 June.

Source: BBC

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes, I got one last year. Under religion which they have no business asking, I listed Atheist.

They have every right to know everything about everyone applying for a visa to my country.

 

[RexRex]

You didn't answer:

X gets to decide its laws.
Y doesn't get to decide its laws.

Which of them is getting the preferential treatment?

This should be easy.

Are the Ys upset that they don't get to decide their own law ? They are not.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Are the Ys upset that they don't get to decide their own law ? They are not.

That is not the question. The question is which group is getting preferential treatment.

 

[HARKS]

I think you are making a fool of yourself right now because your posts are full of ignorance.

It is not as if majority Muslims countries have always had Sharia laws and they are somehow phasing it out. Sharia law was never actually implemented fully in majority of the Muslim countries post colonial/Ottoman/world war II world.

The former colonial states adopted parts of the British/French whatever constitutions and incorporated Islamic laws where they felt like it.

UAE/Saudi are probably two states where its implemented fully, two states where your Hindu countrymen are living in abundance and enjoying a good quality of life.

Now kindly explain what's waqf board? Who and why is public land being used? Is there any standard regulation in India about money for religious institutions should be regulated?

Is there a central "Hindu" religious authority in India that owns temples or administers them? Is there one for Muslims? Are the bodies for the two faiths similarly organized?

So far nothing here seems to imply Muslims are unfairly benefitting from any of that stuff. what does the waqf do?

Waqf board is established by Congress government in 1995 for Muslim property related issue, Congress government gives this board sweeping powers to take away land from somebody if it belong to Muslim in the past even if current owner purchase and have documents, in Tamil nadu they claimed 1700 year temple and surrounding village as their property, if they claim we court cannot interfere and owner of the land must prove to waqf board that land is theirs.Think that temple is 1700 years old but Islam is 1400 years old .from this u can see how impartial is this. Like this method they stole and become 3rd biggest land owner in India.
All to appease the Muslims by the Congress govt. They even claimed parliament building as theirs.
Congress govt is the curse of this land and biggest enemy of hindu religion.

 

[Stewie]

Waqf board is established by Congress government in 1995 for Muslim property related issue, Congress government gives this board sweeping powers to take away land from somebody if it belong to Muslim in the past even if current owner purchase and have documents, in Tamil nadu they claimed 1700 year temple and surrounding village as their property, if they claim we court cannot interfere and owner of the land must prove to waqf board that land is theirs.Think that temple is 1700 years old but Islam is 1400 years old .from this u can see how impartial is this. Like this method they stole and become 3rd biggest land owner in India.
All to appease the Muslims by the Congress govt. They even claimed parliament building as theirs.
Congress govt is the curse of this land and biggest enemy of hindu religion.

if indeed true, there should be remediation.

This is not a case of Islamic laws though. This is more about a man made piece of legislation that is allegedly helping a minority in the name of religion (but has no roots in religion). In addition, there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan. To make a blanket statement that Muslims are beneficiaries of such schemes is ridiculous in my view. It is only benefitting a handful of people in charge of these entities and they are making merry but that will be probably less than 2% of overall Muslim population in India I think.

 

[Red-Indian]

Thanks for these details. It validates my perception. I think these are changes that need to be made to be fair to all parties. being an American believing in smaller government, I think such stuff should be left to individual entities to handle and the state should not be involved in these things.

That's probably true but as an irreligious guy, it hurts to see these evangelical pastors, gurus and mullahs fleece the gullible religious public and be all scrooge mcduck like with the money.

There's no easy solution.

I should be supporting returning temple fund control to the corrupt temple authorities like mosque and Muslim donated fund control is with corrupt and incompetent waqf boards but it's a tough pill to stomach given the massive funds involved and the public good it's doing.

 

[HARKS]

if indeed true, there should be remediation.

This is not a case of Islamic laws though. This is more about a man made piece of legislation that is allegedly helping a minority in the name of religion (but has no roots in religion).

That why UCC is need ,it will automatically amend al this stupid laws which is done in name of appeasement by kongress idiots and altteast create level playing field , now everything is so lopsided and highly unethical. This type of problems would not have come if Nehuru and gandhi the 2 idiots have implemented the complete population exchange , both the nations would have lived with out this minority this and that . Think 1 idiot itself created this much headache for our country, if other dangerous individual still lived india would have been hell hole like Syria or Libya.
we Hindus would running from place to place .