[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Extremism, Violence and Brutality on the Rise in India

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

You are right.

This is where it gets confusing to non Hindus.

Sometimes they appear flexible. Other times they appear not to be.

But I think guys like @cricketjoshila probably have their finger on the pulse of mainstream belief.

Analogy to Abrahamic religions is hard because the fundamental basis of the religions are different. Take this analogy with caution.

Treat Hinduism as a whole like your Abrahamic Umbrella of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as one unit. But instead of sharply divided differences, in Jews, Christains and Muslims, within Hinduism the differences are not that sharp. There is mutual respect and worship between various sects but each sect might follow their own specific traditions and part of the scriptures.
Just like the Holy books in Abrahamic religions are different, There are basic central Holy books but varied sects have chosen their own preferred texts and guidelines.

So instead of Abrahamic religions having 3 separate religions and tens of sects under them, you have 100s of separate sects in Hinduism. but the differences are not so stark and rigid as Abrahamic religions this particular aspect leads to confusion to many outsiders about the "flexible aspect of Hinduism".

I dont know If have made it clear or muddled it further

 

[Stewie]

Finally, It took some posts to come to the crux of the matter isn't it? I am not going into the matter of whether its just or not, fair or not. I have been only pointing to that as per Islamic traditions halal meat has to be sourced from animal slaughtered by a person of the book. There is a firm religious restriction on "who" slaughters the animal in the supply chain of a halal meat.

In post 113, you very call out "discrimination based on religion". Here is the difference, The discriminatory aspects of Hindu laws have been outlawed by the Constitution but similar Islamic traditions have been allowed to survive in the name of minority protections. World has evolved and moved forward to discourage the discriminatory aspects of most religions but Islam has remained steadfast to preserve its 7th Century Arabic outlook.

Coming to current topic: There are tons of scriptures on who can cook, when to cook, how to cook, who can handle the food, who can serve the food and who cannot, it will make your head spin. And before we jump the gun, there are millions and millions those who follow that religiously. These "Kanwar yatri" belong to a particular group and have been very aggressive at slight objection to their beliefs system during their religious pilgrimage. Do we have the right to ignore belief system of their sect?


Your point about "what aboutism is very well right".
These BJP/RSS nutjobs instead of assimilating the positives of other religions are looking at the ugliest of the ugly aspects of other cultures/religions and saying to themselves "why can't we do that too!! "

Oh and by the way, the post you referred to, why don't you look at my posts subsequent to it. I did not understand the concept of satwik, just like you did not understand the concept of niyah. Look at my posts and tell me if I am claiming discrimination.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

I am glad I was able to educate you. I hope you continue this progress and keep at it and don't give up while trying to learn other people's beliefs and cultures.

That being said, look up the definition of "discrimination". I will explain where I am heading with this.

While you do that, let me ask you another question: I want to put up a flag in my front yard. I go looking for poles. One guy is selling a wooden pole and another is selling one made of metal. If I decide to buy the wooden pole, am I discriminating against the guy selling the metal pole?

Think long and hard about this: this point is critical to what I am trying to communicate.

Now let me rephrase, If you need a metal pole and you refuse to buy it because of the religion/skin color/gender etc of the person. That's discrimination.

Please remember in all our discussion all the parameters are the same, except the religion of the person. So two persons with wood and metal are not in line with our discussion.

 

[Stewie]

Now let me rephrase, If you need a metal pole and you refuse to buy it because of the religion/skin color/gender etc of the person. That's discrimination.

Please remember in all our discussion all the parameters are the same, except the religion of the person. So two persons with wood and metal are not in line with our discussion.

I think what you are failing to understand is the difference in product. We have already proven the concept of niyah exists and my religion dictates me to follow the guidance based on the concept. If it did not have this requirement of me and I still chose to prefer a product sold by xyz of abc color, faith, religion, sex, etc then it would be discrimination.

Did you look up the meaning of discrimination by the way? It means prejudicial and unfair treatment of a person. what you are insinuating is for example, I am discriminating hiring someone with one arm to climb a pole to hang my flag. I am not discriminating, I am making a decision based on certain requirements in place. I need someone with two arms to do the job. That's not discrimination. Just like Hindus are not discriminating against Muslims if they don't eat food served by them because they eat their beef. They are well within their rights to do so.

Hope that makes sense to you.

 

[Itachi]

On what principles and grounds will Hindu community decide? When you say I do not have any base , and constitution , any authority to follow?

The traditional beliefs. That is why you'll see different interactions in different states.

 

[Red-Indian]

A Hindus niyat is not the same as a Muslim’s because they pray to different gods and not Allah or God as in the abrahamic tradition.

Discrimination is a word which means unjust or prejudicial treatment of someone based on a criteria.

Can you explain to me how it’s unjust for me to say a Hindu cannot slaughter a cow for me if my faith is dictating to me it needs to be a Muslim who does it?

I’m just following my faith. Or are you one of those atheists who believe all religions are discriminatory by principle and refuse to accept that people should have freedom of faith and religion?

I think the problem with this logic ( though it seems fair on the face of it) is that eventually leads to the conclusion that non-Muslims should not be taking butcher jobs in Muslim majority countries and Muslims should not be taking chef jobs in Hindu majority countries.

Then we're down to the question of how much discrimination is permissible due to religious reasons. As a resident of a developing country, I'm willing to accept some. I guess as a resident of a developed country, you're not willing to accept any

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

I think what you are failing to understand is the difference in product. We have already proven the concept of niyah exists and my religion dictates me to follow the guidance based on the concept. If it did not have this requirement of me and I still chose to prefer a product sold by xyz of abc color, faith, religion, sex, etc then it would be discrimination.

Did you look up the meaning of discrimination by the way? It means prejudicial and unfair treatment of a person. what you are insinuating is for example, I am discriminating hiring someone with one arm to climb a pole to hang my flag. I am not discriminating, I am making a decision based on certain requirements in place. I need someone with two arms to do the job. That's not discrimination. Just like Hindus are not discriminating against Muslims if they don't eat food served by them because they eat their beef. They are well within their rights to do so.

Hope that makes sense to you.

Again, all parameters are same and you are selecting based on religion of the person.

One can post all the lengthy requirements they like, if it boils down to the selecting based on religion of the person. Its discrimination under common law.
Common law allows religious freedom and it has been going well so far. When discriminations become mainstream under the garb of religious freedom, it clashes with fundamental rights of equality under common law. This is an open question of law that our society as whole is debating. Permissibility to discriminatory traditions under the protection of religious freedom opens a whole can of other worms.
I guess, that will seriously divert the topic here.

More or less, I think we have made out points and hopefully understand where we stand.
Plenty of nutty events will happen anyways, to trigger our discussions in the future

 

[Stewie]

I think the problem with this logic ( though it seems fair on the face of it) is that eventually leads to the conclusion that non-Muslims should not be taking butcher jobs in Muslim majority countries and Muslims should not be taking chef jobs in Hindu majority countries.

Then we're down to the question of how much discrimination is permissible due to religious reasons. As a resident of a developing country, I'm willing to accept some. I guess as a resident of a developed country, you're not willing to accept any

Let me preface with what I am about to say with "I don't believe either is discriminatory based on the definition of the word discrimination"

That being said, a non Muslim cannot be the butcher but you can be the one to skin the animal, cut it once its been slaughtered, clean it, cook it, serve it, there are a number of things here where Islamic jurisprudence is not imposing any restrictions for Muslims. Its perfectly acceptable for them to have a non Muslim doing the jobs I mentioned at zabeeha khanas.

If you want my personal opinion, I would say that of the two the Islamic requirement is a lot more "flexible" than the Hindu one. The Hindu requirement states you cannot play any part in the process of preparing and serving the food.

I AM PERFECTLY OK WITH THEIR HIRING PRACTICE of hiring only vegeterian people. I feel if the business is catering to a particular faith, they are well within their right to keep their employment open only for certain people. You cannot openly publicize it as such in a developed country but those are the hiring decisions based on interviews and kept confidential. LOL.

The part I am not willing to accept is with the blatant singling out of those who Hindus may consider non satwicks. I have a problem with them asking businesses to post lists of names of their employees. I feel there should be a better way of doing this. Maybe audit the business owner periodically to ensure they hire only vegetarian employees? I don't know, that would be a tough question.

 

[Itachi]

I think the problem with this logic ( though it seems fair on the face of it) is that eventually leads to the conclusion that non-Muslims should not be taking butcher jobs in Muslim majority countries and Muslims should not be taking chef jobs in Hindu majority countries.

Then we're down to the question of how much discrimination is permissible due to religious reasons. As a resident of a developing country, I'm willing to accept some. I guess as a resident of a developed country, you're not willing to accept any

The issue here is, discrimination is subjective. For most people here, it isn't a discrimination if it's written in the books.

If anyone will show the clause in vedas where it is written that hindus can not eat foods prepared by non Hindus, then these same people will accept it as non discrimination.

But taking the word of scripture is a small parameter in this whole picture.

Most abrahamic religion, as I see it, dictates every aspect of life. It has its positives and negatives. Positive is that people doesn't need to think. They just need to go to some scholar and get their answers.

But it has a repercussions that, you may lose the ability to think outside of the box. Since from childhood, you are taught one route, one principle, same activity..... It makes you habituated and institutionalised. That's why, one can see how many ppers here finding it very difficult to accept how people can bond when there may not be a religious element.

On the other hand, Hinduism, Buddhism has more of variety and comes with its own positive and negatives. Due to variations, outsiders will often see hindus as clueless and at times, people are in terms of religious activities because ypu have so many options that you ought to mix up and left with some hybrid structure. But in the process, you also learn to think out of the box.

This factor is getting clearer and clearer more the thread progresses.

 

[Stewie]

Again, all parameters are same and you are selecting based on religion of the person.

One can post all the lengthy requirements they like, if it boils down to the selecting based on religion of the person. Its discrimination under common law.
Common law allows religious freedom and it has been going well so far. When discriminations become mainstream under the garb of religious freedom, it clashes with fundamental rights of equality under common law. This is an open question of law that our society as whole is debating. Permissibility to discriminatory traditions under the protection of religious freedom opens a whole can of other worms.
I guess, that will seriously divert the topic here.

More or less, I think we have made out points and hopefully understand where we stand.
Plenty of nutty events will happen anyways, to trigger our discussions in the future

Let us agree to disagree. Your understanding of discrimination is totally different from mine.

Basically what you are stating is that you should be able to apply for and get hired for the post of a Catholic priest who performs baptisms at a Catholic church, but you are a Hindu or a Muslim. How much sense does that make?

If that's discrimination under common law, it happens all the time in the developed western nations. LOL

 

[Red-Indian]

Let me preface with what I am about to say with "I don't believe either is discriminatory based on the definition of the word discrimination"

That being said, a non Muslim cannot be the butcher but you can be the one to skin the animal, cut it once its been slaughtered, clean it, cook it, serve it, there are a number of things here where Islamic jurisprudence is not imposing any restrictions for Muslims. Its perfectly acceptable for them to have a non Muslim doing the jobs I mentioned at zabeeha khanas.

If you want my personal opinion, I would say that of the two the Islamic requirement is a lot more "flexible" than the Hindu one. The Hindu requirement states you cannot play any part in the process of preparing and serving the food.

I AM PERFECTLY OK WITH THEIR HIRING PRACTICE of hiring only vegeterian people. I feel if the business is catering to a particular faith, they are well within their right to keep their employment open only for certain people. You cannot openly publicize it as such in a developed country but those are the hiring decisions based on interviews and kept confidential. LOL.

The part I am not willing to accept is with the blatant singling out of those who Hindus may consider non satwicks. I have a problem with them asking businesses to post lists of names of their employees. I feel there should be a better way of doing this. Maybe audit the business owner periodically to ensure they hire only vegetarian employees? I don't know, that would be a tough question.

I think we've almost reached a point of perfect alignment - despite you being a Muslim theist and me an ex-Hindu atheist.

Yes religious folks are allowed to 'discriminate' on who handles their food. As long as they are willing to accept good faith and self declaration and don't impose onerous and dangerous compliance requirements on those serving them. They are not required to prove their faith requirements based on specific clauses in their scriptures.

We're setting a bad example to religious folks and atheists agreeing this way (assuming you do).

 

[Stewie]

The issue here is, discrimination is subjective. For most people here, it isn't a discrimination if it's written in the books.

If anyone will show the clause in vedas where it is written that hindus can not eat foods prepared by non Hindus, then these same people will accept it as non discrimination.

But taking the word of scripture is a small parameter in this whole picture.

Most abrahamic religion, as I see it, dictates every aspect of life. It has its positives and negatives. Positive is that people doesn't need to think. They just need to go to some scholar and get their answers.

But it has a repercussions that, you may lose the ability to think outside of the box. Since from childhood, you are taught one route, one principle, same activity..... It makes you habituated and institutionalised. That's why, one can see how many ppers here finding it very difficult to accept how people can bond when there may not be a religious element.

On the other hand, Hinduism, Buddhism has more of variety and comes with its own positive and negatives. Due to variations, outsiders will often see hindus as clueless and at times, people are in terms of religious activities because ypu have so many options that you ought to mix up and left with some hybrid structure. But in the process, you also learn to think out of the box.

This factor is getting clearer and clearer more the thread progresses.

There are pros to the Abrahamic faiths strict guidelines as well. What you are suggesting as a restriction or limitation, is viewed by us as a framework that gives us a set of standards to follow.

Out of the box thinking is great in other aspects of life but let us say, someone decides to drive on the wrong side of the road to get to his destination earlier, the act would be considered illegal and a crime anywhere and not considered "out of the box thinking"

Within certain things if we are allowed to do as we please, there will be chaos. There is a reason the concept of "franchise" is so successful.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Let us agree to disagree. Your understanding of discrimination is totally different from mine.

Basically what you are stating is that you should be able to apply for and get hired for the post of a Catholic priest who performs baptisms at a Catholic church, but you are a Hindu or a Muslim. How much sense does that make?

If that's discrimination under common law, it happens all the time in the developed western nations. LOL

Agreed to disagree

I have already pointed out that total religious freedom in their puritan forms will always run counter to modern common law and human rights.

The Western nations are already dealing with the spillover of letting religious freedom run wild with Creationism creeping into science classes, discrimination against LGBTQ being permitted under the cloak of religious freedom.

You are comfortable with the convenience as long as they are not affecting you directly, I am seeing the slippery slopes we are sliding down, the broader picture.

 

[Stewie]

I think we've almost reached a point of perfect alignment - despite you being a Muslim theist and me an ex-Hindu atheist.

Yes religious folks are allowed to 'discriminate' on who handles their food. As long as they are willing to accept good faith and self declaration and don't impose onerous and dangerous compliance requirements on those serving them. They are not required to prove their faith requirements based on specific clauses in their scriptures.

We're setting a bad example to religious folks and atheists agreeing this way (assuming you do).

That's just participating in a civilized debate.

 

[Stewie]

Agreed to disagree

I have already pointed out that total religious freedom in their puritan forms will always run counter to modern common law and human rights.

The Western nations are already dealing with the spillover of letting religious freedom run wild with Creationism creeping into science classes, discrimination against LGBTQ being permitted under the cloak of religious freedom.

You are comfortable with the convenience as long as they are not affecting you directly, I am seeing the slippery slopes we are sliding down, the broader picture.

I am actually not a very religious person. I eat non-zabeeha, I don’t eat haram though. So the presence or absence of what you call a convenience does not impact me. I call it a basic right. Atheists who love to shove their ideology down others throats are no different from radical religious extremists.. Nothing is perfect in this world. But religion is a necessity in this world as is religious freedom. The only slippery slope I am seeing is the extravagant shoving of the LGBtQ agenda down our children’s throats.

Agreed to disagree

I have already pointed out that total religious freedom in their puritan forms will always run counter to modern common law and human rights.

The Western nations are already dealing with the spillover of letting religious freedom run wild with Creationism creeping into science classes, discrimination against LGBTQ being permitted under the cloak of religious freedom.

You are comfortable with the

 

[Justcrazy]

The traditional beliefs. That is why you'll see different interactions in different states.

What if someone rejects those traditional beliefs? Every state , society , caste etc have there own traditional beliefs.

 

[Justcrazy]

Who said i am not bound? Where are you getting this?

So tomorrow if a hindu starts worshiping a tree in his garden or field , will other hindus object to that ?

 

[Justcrazy]

That's a matter of the Hindu community. No?

Yes , that is there own matter , but when they claim that they are free to interpret whatever they want then you have to agree that they do not have concepts of dos and don't.

 

[Justcrazy]

Almost all Hindu traditions comes from the main Hindu scriptures Vedas (literally mean knowledge) and upanishads. The thing is practicing Hindus doesn't need to read these books. The knowledge is ingrained into their daily traditions and practices. Kind of auto-pilot. The knowledge has been passed down orally (Oral tradition).

These books are not authorities btw these are merely a guide to realise oneself. There are other schools of thoughts in Hinduism. Hindus religiously follow these traditions knowingly or unknowingly.

Do you not think that your first and second paragraphs contradict?

 

[Stewie]

Do you not think that your first and second paragraphs contradict?

I think that’s why he said “almost”.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Do you not think that your first and second paragraphs contradict?

What contradiction do you see here?

 

[Justcrazy]

What contradiction do you see here?

You say hindu traditions come from Vedas , knowledge is gained by daily practice , but then you say books are not authorities.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes , that is there own matter , but when they claim that they are free to interpret whatever they want then you have to agree that they do not have concepts of dos and don't.

Its a matter of the Hindu community. They can decide whichever way they can. How does it affect anyone else?

 

[cricketjoshila]

You say hindu traditions come from Vedas , knowledge is gained by daily practice , but then you say books are not authorities.

Who said that books are not authorities?

 

[cricketjoshila]

So tomorrow if a hindu starts worshiping a tree in his garden or field , will other hindus object to that ?

Hindus do have sacred trees which are worshipped.

I think you need to let Hindus decide what they want to do in their religion.

 

[IndoorCricket]

You say hindu traditions come from Vedas , knowledge is gained by daily practice , but then you say books are not authorities.

As I said there are multiple schools of thought in Hinduism. Sometimes contradictory. (Check Advaita vs Dvaitha philosophy) All teachings fail, If student doesn't follow them. The ultimate goal of Hinduism is liberation (moksha) of the soul. There are enlightened beings who didn't read any spiritual scriptures at all. The are multiple ways to reach the same summit.

You have to understand these books are only guides to reach moksha. It is not like other religions where you might end up in hell if you don't follow them. These are not commandments.

One has to understand the concept of Yoga, Reincarnation, Moksha, Gunnas etc to understand things as they are in Hinduism.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Who said that books are not authorities?

The books are authorities in a sense that a particular school of though is based out of the teachings of that book/ guru. There is no one fixed school of thought. Thats what makes Hinduism tolerant and accepted other religions easily.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The books are authorities in a sense that a particular school of though is based out of the teachings of that book/ guru. There is no one fixed school of thought. Thats what makes Hinduism tolerant and accepted other religions easily.

Vedas and Upanishads are authorities for all the major sects.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Vedas and Upanishads are authorities for all the major sects.

They are root of all sects but not sure if they are authority.

From Wiki:

The various Hindu sects and Indian philosophies have taken differing positions on the authority of the Vedas. Schools of Indian philosophy which acknowledge the authority of the Vedas are classified as "orthodox" (āstika). Other śramaṇa traditions, such as Charvaka, Ajivika, Buddhism and Jainism, which do not regard the Vedas as authorities, are referred to as "heterodox" or "non-orthodox" (nāstika) schools

Certain traditions which are often seen as being part of Hinduism also rejected the Vedas. For example, authors of the tantric Vaishnava Sahajiya tradition, like Siddha Mukundadeva, rejected the Vedas' authority. Likewise, some tantric Shaiva Agamas reject the Vedas. The Anandabhairava-tantra for example, states that "the wise man should not elect as his authority the word of the Vedas, which is full of impurity, produces but scanty and transitory fruits and is limited."

Though many religious Hindus implicitly acknowledge the authority of the Vedas, this acknowledgment is often "no more than a declaration that someone considers himself [or herself] a Hindu,"and "most Indians today pay lip service to the Veda and have no regard for the contents of the text."[239] Some Hindus challenge the authority of the Vedas, thereby implicitly acknowledging its importance to the history of Hinduism, states Lipner.

While Hindu reform movement such as Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj accept the authority of Vedas, Hindu modernists like Debendranath Tagore and Keshub Chandra Sen; and social reformers like B. R. Ambedkar reject its authority.

 

[cricketjoshila]

They are root of all sects but not sure if they are authority.

From Wiki:

Buddhism and Jainism are dharmik religions but not sects of the Sanatan in true sense.

Little is known about Ajivika. Its a lost religion.

Charvaka isn't Hinduism.

Whether Vedas are an authority for a sect or not can only be decided by the dharmaguru of that sect.

 

[Red-Indian]

Kanwariya route eateries case LIVE: Food sellers should not be compelled to display owner or staff names, says SC; case to be heard next on July 26​

Kanwariya route eateries case LIVE: Notices have been issued to the Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh governments, seeking their responses to petitions challenging the directive.​

JULY 22, 2024 / 02:33 PM IST
Kanwariya route eateries case LIVE: The Supreme Court today stayed the directive requiring eateries along the Kanwariya Yatra route to display the names of their owners. Further, notices have been issued to the Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh governments, seeking their responses to petitions challenging the directive.

Well that didn't last very long. It was obviously an illegal action. Just a pity it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Well that didn't last very long. It was obviously an illegal action. Just a pity it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

It might not be perfect but our systems do handle absurd things!

 

[Red-Indian]

It might not be perfect but our systems do handle absurd things!

Yeah it's a pity they had to resort to this dog whistle when there's legal ways to handle the pilgrim's concerns. The best way would be for some organisation to go around certifying restaurants (for a fee) who offer themselves up voluntarily for checking - "Saatvik certified by the Indian Pilgrims Association." There's a business opportunity there for someone - Zomato or Swiggy would be the obvious candidates.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Yeah it's a pity they had to resort to this dog whistle when there's legal ways to handle the pilgrim's concerns. The best way would be for some organisation to go around certifying restaurants (for a fee) who offer themselves up voluntarily for checking - "Saatvik certified by the Indian Pilgrims Association." There's a business opportunity there for someone - Zomato or Swiggy would be the obvious candidates.

Yogi is losing his head and fighting for political relevancy. Might very well get removed from CM post before the state elections.
Keshav Maurya might be able to rise to top.

 

[MP2011]

Lol.

So the outright bigotry didn't last long. Wonder how could any sane person defend this obviously communal directive?

 

[MP2011]

Looks like bisht didn't learn anything from the epic thrashing he received in LS elections. He thinks it's alright to be so blatantly communal and lol at his andhbhakts to defend even this.

When will India be rid of such bigots and their andhbhakts?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Well that didn't last very long. It was obviously an illegal action. Just a pity it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Doesn't make a difference on the ground.

Which article of constitution was violated, since you are sure it was illegal?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Lol.

So the outright bigotry didn't last long. Wonder how could any sane person defend this obviously communal directive?

This was secular directive, as it applied to all religions.

Where is the bigotry?

Nothing is going to change on the ground. Those who don't display their names will be seen with suspicion.

The directive has done its job.

 

[RexRex]

Lol.

So the outright bigotry didn't last long. Wonder how could any sane person defend this obviously communal directive?

It's appalling to see many Indian posters justify it. I've no idea what goes on in their brains.

 

[MP2011]

Read this in an article,

6.3 lakh Hindus undertook the Amarnath Yatra in 2011, the most ever. In 2024, with three lakh devotees visiting the holy cave for a glimpse of the stunning natural ice ‘shivling’ in the first two weeks of the 45-day pilgrimage, the 2011 record may be broken.

But who carries these lakhs of pilgrims in ‘palkis’ from Baltal to the Amarnath cave? Who are the pony owners who have taken pilgrims from Pahalgam to Amarnath for decades? Who cooks and serves at the community kitchens and food stalls that dot the entire route?

Yeh Jo India Hai Na: Kanwar Yatra Order is Bigotry in the Name of ‘Law & Order’

6.3 lakh Hindus did the Amarnath Yatra in 2011, the most ever. In 2024, with 3 lakh devotees visiting the holy cave for a glimpse of the stunning natural ice ‘shivling’ in the first two weeks of the 45-day pilgrimage, the 2011 record may be broken.

www.thequint.com

 

[MP2011]

It's appalling to see many Indian posters justify it. I've no idea what goes on in their brains.

It is so obvious why these gullible people kowtow whatever their masters tell them. That's because they hate anything that has remotely anything to do with a Muslim.

 

[CricketCartoons]

It is so obvious why these gullible people kowtow whatever their masters tell them. That's because they hate anything that has remotely anything to do with a Muslim.

I thought hatred was defeated and there was more oxygen in the air for the seculars?

 

[Stewie]

We are 4 pages into this thing. For the first three, I had at least half a dozen Hindus argue with me trying to justify this directive.

Now that it is being overturned, they are all singing a different tune. So why the antagonism towards my views? Is it because a Muslim was expressing those words, you guys had to abandon all logic and reason and oppose it no matter what?

What red-indian suggested in post #273, I already suggested that in post #155 on page 2 but it seems to me that was also taken as a slide.

Some genius, who will remain nameless asked me to provide evidence what labor laws are violated and how is this action discriminatory. For the record, I did provide Article VII of US labor laws that speak to this particular issue.

There is a lesson somewhere in there for the andh bhakts. Its better to listen and read calmly. Regardless of what you are told, not all Muslims are out to get you. lol

 

[RexRex]

Now that it is being overturned, they are all singing a different tune. So why the antagonism towards my views? Is it because a Muslim was expressing those words, you guys had to abandon all logic and reason and oppose it no matter what?

Who is singing a different tune ? Nobody here has changed their stance.

 

[CricketCartoons]

We are 4 pages into this thing. For the first three, I had at least half a dozen Hindus argue with me trying to justify this directive.

Now that it is being overturned, they are all singing a different tune. So why the antagonism towards my views? Is it because a Muslim was expressing those words, you guys had to abandon all logic and reason and oppose it no matter what?

What red-indian suggested in post #273, I already suggested that in post #155 on page 2 but it seems to me that was also taken as a slide.

Some genius, who will remain nameless asked me to provide evidence what labor laws are violated and how is this action discriminatory. For the record, I did provide Article VII of US labor laws that speak to this particular issue.

There is a lesson somewhere in there for the andh bhakts. Its better to listen and read calmly. Regardless of what you are told, not all Muslims are out to get you. lol

Who changed their tune?

You only provided some law which applies to employers. There is no law for customers.

I challenge you to provide any law from any country which dictates how customers should buy otherwise charges them for discrimination. Go on genius, go and find it.

Supreme court has not overturned anything. They have put an interim stay till Friday. Regardless of what they say, it is not going to change anything on the ground. At best they can stop state from asking every eatery to display the owners and staff names, they cannot dictate who the people purchase from.

If you have so much faith in the supreme court of india, then you must be supporting them on the masjid-e-janmasthan verdict too?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You asked for consensus and I just gave you examples on how tough consensus is in any religion. Just because people of the book are able to have some unified perspective on food, doesn't mean others can or should have too. Religions should have their own freedoms or you don't believe in religious freedom?

Again this is a red herring argument. The dispute hasn't arisen due to freedom of religion, it has arisen because of confusion due to new requirements being introduced recently where eateries have to display the names of their employees due to alleged sensitivity of hindu patrons. There is nothing wrong with this per se if it was an established hindu principle, but it clearly isn't because those regulations weren't required previously.

So I guess the relevant question becomes: why now? Surely if hindus could only eat food prepared by hindus then there should have been some stipulation long before now and it should have been common knowledge?

 

[Stewie]

Again this is a red herring argument. The dispute hasn't arisen due to freedom of religion, it has arisen because of confusion due to new requirements being introduced recently where eateries have to display the names of their employees due to alleged sensitivity of hindu patrons. There is nothing wrong with this per se if it was an established hindu principle, but it clearly isn't because those regulations weren't required previously.

So I guess the relevant question becomes: why now? Surely if hindus could only eat food prepared by hindus then there should have been some stipulation long before now and it should have been common knowledge?

That is a great question. But I guess the defenders here will have an answer for everything.

If you ask this question of Hindus, they will start posting sarcastic comments like "you know more Hinduism than we do, maybe we should be asking you" and other nonsense.

I respect people's beliefs and I did ask earlier if this requirement can be backed by Hindu scriptures. The response I got was, "just because in Islam you follow scripture, doesn't mean in Hinduism we have to as well". Which is fair enough, every faith can have its own path. To me it sounds like Hinduism belief system is evolving. Its loosely defined parameters can be molded with changing times to ones views, needs and desires.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes he should just like Muslims and Jews shouldn't crib about getting donated pork if they're a bit hungry and don't have the money to buy anything else.

How is eating a carrot the same as eating pork ? One is an animal forbidden & the other is a vegetable acceptable to eat .

Do you ask the supermarket assistant if he eats beef before buying a tomato ?

 

[CricketCartoons]

That is a great question. But I guess the defenders here will have an answer for everything.

If you ask this question of Hindus, they will start posting sarcastic comments like "you know more Hinduism than we do, maybe we should be asking you" and other nonsense.

I respect people's beliefs and I did ask earlier if this requirement can be backed by Hindu scriptures. The response I got was, "just because in Islam you follow scripture, doesn't mean in Hinduism we have to as well". Which is fair enough, every faith can have its own path. To me it sounds like Hinduism belief system is evolving. Its loosely defined parameters can be molded with changing times to ones views, needs and desires.

When are you going to present laws from any country of your choice that dictates that customers cannot discriminate where they want to purchase from?

"I am still searching and will get back to you in a few days" will also be accepted for now.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lol.

So the outright bigotry didn't last long. Wonder how could any sane person defend this obviously communal directive?

You are a pure vegetarian. How many times have you eaten at a shop serving meat? Do your family members eat in these shops?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Well that didn't last very long. It was obviously an illegal action. Just a pity it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Its only an interim stay. If the supreme court tries to force Hindus into eating at muslim places it will either force the government to bring law in the parliament to force owners to reveal names or it will ban any kind of food description except veg or non veg, including halal description.

 

[cricketjoshila]

We are 4 pages into this thing. For the first three, I had at least half a dozen Hindus argue with me trying to justify this directive.

Now that it is being overturned, they are all singing a different tune. So why the antagonism towards my views? Is it because a Muslim was expressing those words, you guys had to abandon all logic and reason and oppose it no matter what?

What red-indian suggested in post #273, I already suggested that in post #155 on page 2 but it seems to me that was also taken as a slide.

Some genius, who will remain nameless asked me to provide evidence what labor laws are violated and how is this action discriminatory. For the record, I did provide Article VII of US labor laws that speak to this particular issue.

There is a lesson somewhere in there for the andh bhakts. Its better to listen and read calmly. Regardless of what you are told, not all Muslims are out to get you. lol

Its only an interim stay. The government will put forward its point on 26th.

What US law? US law can force a customer to give up his choice of choosing the business he wants give his money to.

 

[Red-Indian]

Again this is a red herring argument. The dispute hasn't arisen due to freedom of religion, it has arisen because of confusion due to new requirements being introduced recently where eateries have to display the names of their employees due to alleged sensitivity of hindu patrons. There is nothing wrong with this per se if it was an established hindu principle, but it clearly isn't because those regulations weren't required previously.

So I guess the relevant question becomes: why now? Surely if hindus could only eat food prepared by hindus then there should have been some stipulation long before now and it should have been common knowledge?

That's an argument that can only be made by a foreigner.

Of course there's never been (and shouldn't be) a law forcing restaurants to declare the religions and food habits of their employees but the code words have always been there and universally accepted - a restaurant name on a pilgrimage route that says "Vaishno Dhaba" clearly implies only vegetarian food served under all the stipulations that would be acceptable to the pilgrims (including only Hindu employees).

There's been a couple of anecdotal news reports (I'm not even sure if they're accurate) reporting that some of these accepted social conventions were being violated by certain restaurant owners and in the current politicised climate, that led to the cops stepping in and officiously trying to force all restaurants to display the names.

 

[cricketjoshila]

How is eating a carrot the same as eating pork ? One is an animal forbidden & the other is a vegetable acceptable to eat .

Do you ask the supermarket assistant if he eats beef before buying a tomato ?

Is tomato cooked food?

They are washed and cleaned before eaten.

That's why i said, raw fruits and vegetables are fine as they can be washed and cleaned.

 

[Stewie]

Its only an interim stay. The government will put forward its point on 26th.

What US law? US law can force a customer to give up his choice of choosing the business he wants give his money to.

Maybe go back and look at my previous post of how something like this violated labor laws in the US. I feel like you guys are too stubborn to read and understand the POV of others.

 

[cricketjoshila]

That's an argument that can only be made by a foreigner.

Of course there's never been (and shouldn't be) a law forcing restaurants to declare the religions and food habits of their employees but the code words have always been there and universally accepted - a restaurant name on a pilgrimage route that says "Vaishno Dhaba" clearly implies only vegetarian food served under all the stipulations that would be acceptable to the pilgrims (including only Hindu employees).

There's been a couple of anecdotal news reports (I'm not even sure if they're accurate) reporting that some of these accepted social conventions were being violated by certain restaurant owners and in the current politicised climate, that led to the cops stepping in and officiously trying to force all restaurants to display the names.

One Vaishno Dhaba was owned by one Usman in Muzaffarnagar. That was the incident that started this.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Is tomato cooked food?

They are washed and cleaned before eaten.

That's why i said, raw fruits and vegetables are fine as they can be washed and cleaned.

Most tomatoes are used in cooking .

What’s the difference between a raw or cooked tomato in a vegetable cooked dish ?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Maybe go back and look at my previous post of how something like this violated labor laws in the US. I feel like you guys are too stubborn to read and understand the POV of others.

What labor law?

Labour laws applies to customers?

@CricketCartoons asked you the same question.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Most tomatoes are used in cooking .

What’s the difference between a raw or cooked tomato in a vegetable cooked dish ?

Any raw fruit and vegetable can be bought from anyone. Because its washed and cleaned before use, so who handled it doesn't matter.

 

[Red-Indian]

Its only an interim stay. If the supreme court tries to force Hindus into eating at muslim places it will either force the government to bring law in the parliament to force owners to reveal names or it will ban any kind of food description except veg or non veg, including halal description.

Of course nobody can force anybody into eating anything or anywhere. I assume the Supreme court has only put a stay on this rule because it perceives malafide intentions in the government's order forcing restaurants to publicly reveal the name of every employee.

If a restaurant chooses to do it on it's own, I'm pretty sure the Court will not intervene. If this particular requirement (eating only food prepared by Hindu vegetarians) is so important to certain pilgrims, they can then choose to patronise only restaurants that are prepared to reveal the names and post them outside. There is no regulation (and there never will be) preventing them from making this choice.

 

[Stewie]

That's an argument that can only be made by a foreigner.

Of course there's never been (and shouldn't be) a law forcing restaurants to declare the religions and food habits of their employees but the code words have always been there and universally accepted - a restaurant name on a pilgrimage route that says "Vaishno Dhaba" clearly implies only vegetarian food served under all the stipulations that would be acceptable to the pilgrims (including only Hindu employees).

There's been a couple of anecdotal news reports (I'm not even sure if they're accurate) reporting that some of these accepted social conventions were being violated by certain restaurant owners and in the current politicised climate, that led to the cops stepping in and officiously trying to force all restaurants to display the names.

But the point still remains. If I understand correctly, there are Hindus who eat beef and meat as well. There are no guarantees that the food being served is truly satwick and its based on honor system. And I am sure people have been fine with it till recently. If this was such a big deal to them it should have been enforced long time ago, you would think

 

[KingKhanWC]

Any raw fruit and vegetable can be bought from anyone. Because its washed and cleaned before use, so who handled it doesn't matter.

Are you suggesting non Hindus do not know how to wash the vegetables before cooking ?

 

[MP2011]

You are a pure vegetarian. How many times have you eaten at a shop serving meat? Do your family members eat in these shops?

I'm a vegetarian but I never ask any street vendor or a restaurant owner if the food they are serving me is prepared by a Muslim or a Hindu or a Sikh.

Also, have eaten at various pizza joints, hotels etc. They serve veg as well as non vegetarian stuff. But I don't go around and ask the chef their religion.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Maybe go back and look at my previous post of how something like this violated labor laws in the US. I feel like you guys are too stubborn to read and understand the POV of others.

You are projecting yourself. You are too stubborn to read.

I am asking for laws dictating customers and you are presenting laws dictating employers.

Don't tell me that I have to explain the difference between employer and customer.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I'm a vegetarian but I never ask any street vendor or a restaurant owner if the food they are serving me is prepared by a Muslim or a Hindu or a Sikh.

Also, have eaten at various pizza joints and McDonald. They serve veg as well as non vegetarian stuff. But I don't go around and ask their religion.

What you do is your choice and no one should have a problem with you.

But why do you want others to follow you otherwise you have problem with them?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Of course nobody can force anybody into eating anything or anywhere. I assume the Supreme court has only put a stay on this rule because it perceives malafide intentions in the government's order forcing restaurants to publicly reveal the name of every employee.

If a restaurant chooses to do it on it's own, I'm pretty sure the Court will not intervene. If this particular requirement (eating only food prepared by Hindu vegetarians) is so important to certain pilgrims, they can then choose to patronise only restaurants that are prepared to reveal the names and post them outside. There is no regulation (and there never will be) preventing them from making this choice.

Govt will simply force people to display license openly. And even small thelawalas will be forced to get license.

Hindus looking for veg food are not going to go to a muslim place. Its very unlikely.

@MP2011 is a pure vegetarian. He can confirm this about his community.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Gotta feel for the folks standing up for 'Chota Fanta' Yogi's absurd decision. That's a lot of time and energy they could have spent binge-watching cow videos.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I'm a vegetarian but I never ask any street vendor or a restaurant owner if the food they are serving me is prepared by a Muslim or a Hindu or a Sikh.

Also, have eaten at various pizza joints, hotels etc. They serve veg as well as non vegetarian stuff. But I don't go around and ask the chef their religion.

You are not understanding the question.

Will most people from your community walk into a Karim's or Al Jawahar or eateries around jama masjid.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Again this is a red herring argument. The dispute hasn't arisen due to freedom of religion, it has arisen because of confusion due to new requirements being introduced recently where eateries have to display the names of their employees due to alleged sensitivity of hindu patrons. There is nothing wrong with this per se if it was an established hindu principle, but it clearly isn't because those regulations weren't required previously.

So I guess the relevant question becomes: why now? Surely if hindus could only eat food prepared by hindus then there should have been some stipulation long before now and it should have been common knowledge?

No its not a red herring.

The requirement was always there, the apparatus to bring the requirement to life at state level in public life didn't exist.

 

[Red-Indian]

But the point still remains. If I understand correctly, there are Hindus who eat beef and meat as well. There are no guarantees that the food being served is truly satwick and its based on honor system. And I am sure people have been fine with it till recently. If this was such a big deal to them it should have been enforced long time ago, you would think

I'm surprised you're still asking this question. I'll try to make it simple

- This particular rule i.e. eating only food prepared and served by Hindu vegetarians is important to some while on pilgrimage and unimportant to some others. For some it's important even outside pilgrimages.
- It's long been understood (BUT not legally enforced) that those who felt this was important could rely on certain cue words in restaurant names.
- An anecdotal news report appeared that this social contract was being broken by a Muslim owning a "Vaishno Dhaba" causing feverish speculation in WhatsApp groups
- The openly bigoted government and their controlled police instantly over-reacted by issuing an Order forcing every restaurant to display names of their employees in order to single out Muslims who might be working there. The Supreme Court has placed a stay on this Order

Everyone's an idiot in this situation but even I as an atheist would say the religious people who were just trying to live by the rules as they understood them are least to blame. Now do you want to blame the over zealous bigoted government or the dude who tried to hoodwink the pilgrims to make a buck more, I leave to you. There's plenty of blame to go round.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

What you do is your choice and no one should have a problem with you.

But why do you want others to follow you otherwise you have problem with them?

Can't you read properly? He clearly stated he doesn't care who cooks his food or what religion they follow. It's written as plainly as it could be.

 

[Stewie]

I'm surprised you're still asking this question. I'll try to make it simple

- This particular rule i.e. eating only food prepared and served by Hindu vegetarians is important to some while on pilgrimage and unimportant to some others. For some it's important even outside pilgrimages.
- It's long been understood (BUT not legally enforced) that those who felt this was important could rely on certain cue words in restaurant names.
- An anecdotal news report appeared that this social contract was being broken by a Muslim owning a "Vaishno Dhaba" causing feverish speculation in WhatsApp groups
- The openly bigoted government and their controlled police instantly over-reacted by issuing an Order forcing every restaurant to display names of their employees in order to single out Muslims who might be working there. The Supreme Court has placed a stay on this Order

Everyone's an idiot in this situation but even I as an atheist would say the religious people who were just trying to live by the rules as they understood them are least to blame. Now do you want to blame the over zealous bigoted government or the dude who tried to hoodwink the pilgrims to make a buck more, I leave to you. There's plenty of blame to go round.

Understood but my question was that this cannot possibly have been the first instance where the requirement has been violated. Were people not as observant about such stuff before or were they more flexible?

I am sure Muslims have tried to sell to pilgrims before and even non Muslims and Hindus who eat beef. I find it a bit hard to believe that in a country like India, without any particular law enforced in this regard the honor system has been working flawlessly all this time

 

[CricketCartoons]

Understood but my question was that this cannot possibly have been the first instance where the requirement has been violated. Were people not as observant about such stuff before or were they more flexible?

I am sure Muslims have tried to sell to pilgrims before and even non Muslims and Hindus who eat beef. I find it a bit hard to believe that in a country like India, under any particular law enforced in this regard the honor system has been working flawlessly all this time

@Stewie when are you going to present the labor laws which apply to customers?
Remember: Customers, not employers.

 

[Red-Indian]

Understood but my question was that this cannot possibly have been the first instance where the requirement has been violated. Were people not as observant about such stuff before or were they more flexible?

I am sure Muslims have tried to sell to pilgrims before and even non Muslims and Hindus who eat beef. I find it a bit hard to believe that in a country like India, under any particular law enforced in this regard the honor system has been working flawlessly all this time

Of course I'm sure this was violated plenty - meat and beef eating Hindus and even Muslims might have been working in these restaurants. I suppose it was always a question of "Don't ask...don't tell". One the media report has come out though, there's no going back.

Just as a further illustration, in India, there is no legal backing to halal certification. There's a couple of independant bodies that that hand these out. Muslims have always trusted them by social convention. As long as nothing goes wrong that's fine. If tomorrow there's a news report that a major Halal certified meat seller was owned by a Hindu and wasn't bothering with halal rules, I expect Muslims would be horrified. There might be a call that every halal meat seller has to publish the names of their butchers. If meat manufacturers and sellers were willing to do that on their own, I'm okay. If the government tries to step in and legalise halal certification, I'm not.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That's an argument that can only be made by a foreigner.

Of course there's never been (and shouldn't be) a law forcing restaurants to declare the religions and food habits of their employees but the code words have always been there and universally accepted - a restaurant name on a pilgrimage route that says "Vaishno Dhaba" clearly implies only vegetarian food served under all the stipulations that would be acceptable to the pilgrims (including only Hindu employees).

There's been a couple of anecdotal news reports (I'm not even sure if they're accurate) reporting that some of these accepted social conventions were being violated by certain restaurant owners and in the current politicised climate, that led to the cops stepping in and officiously trying to force all restaurants to display the names.

So if I am understanding this right, the issue here is that because hindus won't accept food prepared by a Muslim, the owner of said establishment is "hoodwinking" unsuspecting hindus by presenting food as suitable for hindu pilgrims when in fact as Muslims they should not be involved in any way in the production of such food?

I guess the question that remains is have the proprietors of the establishment broken any laws by implying the food complies with pilgrim's strict codes of non-pollution of their vegetarian sustenance?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

No its not a red herring. Just because Hindus had no ghairat in the past doesn't mean that must always be the case.

The requirement was always there, the apparatus to bring the requirement to life at state level in public life didn't exist.

It still doesn't apparently.

 

[MP2011]

You are not understanding the question.

Will most people from your community walk into a Karim's or Al Jawahar or eateries around jama masjid.

Of course, I won't walk into a Karim's for obvious reasons.

But you seriously can't be comparing a Karim's with humble street vendors who sell fruits, juice, vegetarian food etc.

Their religion has never mattered to Hindus before this Tughlaqi diktat. Has anyone ever thought if his humble puchkas/gol gappas/panipuri were prepared by a Muslim or a Hindu?

This is how a society is divided on the basis of religion.

Next will be Sharmas will refuse to say from a chaat corner run by a dalit. Where will it end? Or is this discrimination only towards Muslims?

 

[Red-Indian]

So if I am understanding this right, the issue here is that because hindus won't accept food prepared by a Muslim, the owner of said establishment is "hoodwinking" unsuspecting hindus by presenting food as suitable for hindu pilgrims when in fact as Muslims they should not be involved in any way in the production of such food?

I guess the question that remains is have the proprietors of the establishment broken any laws by implying the food complies with pilgrim's strict codes of non-pollution of their vegetarian sustenance?

And the answer is NO which is why they haven't been arrested. Luckily there's still that much sense in India.

I hope we never a situation where you would break a law just by pretending your food was sattvik or halal. If you sneakily add a little beef or pork to your chicken dish and are caught, you should face boycott by the community or at worst loss of license. Not jail time.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Of course, I won't walk into a Karim's for obvious reasons.

But you seriously can't be comparing a Karim's with humble street vendors who sell fruits, juice, vegetarian food etc.

Their religion has never mattered to Hindus before this Tughlaqi diktat. Has anyone ever thought if his humble puchkas/gol gappas/panipuri were prepared by a Muslim or a Hindu?

This is how a society is divided on the basis of religion.

Next will be Sharmas will refuse to say from a chaat corner run by a dalit. Where will it end? Or is this discrimination only towards Muslims?

People are free to patronize whom they like. If muslims don't buy meat from hindu butcher that is not discrimination, that is their right.

What next? Why discriminating when not marrying from this religion and only marrying in your ethnicity and your religion?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

And the answer is NO which is why they haven't been arrested. Luckily there's still that much sense in India.

I hope we never a situation where you would break a law just by pretending your food was sattvik or halal. If you sneakily add a little beef or pork to your chicken dish and are caught, you should face boycott by the community or at worst loss of license. Not jail time.

In the UK I don't believe there are any laws directly to religious food production requirements, but we do have Halal food certification which gives customers confidence to buy meat. There might be rogue halal meat purveyors but then the onus is on the customer if they want to purchase non-certified produce.

Maybe something similar should be introduced in India rather than the somewhat cack-handed approach of demanding employee names be displayed.