PM Modi's government announces implementation of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) [Post Updated #85]

[big_gamer007]

You really have to ask? Look around. There are separate threads on this topic. The same media you point us to when you want to talk about Pakistan’s issues, I’ll point you to as well. It is talking about India turning into a Hindu nationalist state.

I have asked this question in different threads to both Indians and now you a Pakistani poster talking about it.

What does Hindu Rashtra mean?
No one is able to tell me, the Indian media doesn’t know the specifics either, they just use the term to polarise voters in favour of BJP.

Give me specifics what being Hindu Rashtra means? How the constitution will be changed, what laws will change? How the life of normal citizens will change?

Also, you might be clubbing me with other posters, I have referred you or anyone to Indian media, I have maintained the mainstream media is not media at all but propagandist and comedians.

 

[Stewie]

I have asked this question in different threads to both Indians and now you a Pakistani poster talking about it.

What does Hindu Rashtra mean?
No one is able to tell me, the Indian media doesn’t know the specifics either, they just use the term to polarise voters in favour of BJP.

Give me specifics what being Hindu Rashtra means? How the constitution will be changed, what laws will change? How the life of normal citizens will change?

Also, you might be clubbing me with other posters, I have referred you or anyone to Indian media, I have maintained the mainstream media is not media at all but propagandist and comedians.

Where the rights of Hindu majority take precedence over others. One example is how Muslims cannot sacrifice cow in some states. Another example is the demolition of an existing masjid to build a Hindu temple and other such future plans for similar Hindu temples.

Don’t take my word for it.

India is still an officially secular nation, but maybe not for long

Modi's inauguration of Hindu temple marks triumph of BJP quest

asia.nikkei.com

 

[big_gamer007]

Where the rights of Hindu majority take precedence over others. One example is how Muslims cannot sacrifice cow in some states. Another example is the demolition of an existing masjid to build a Hindu temple and other such future plans for similar Hindu temples.

Don’t take my word for it.

India is still an officially secular nation, but maybe not for long

Modi's inauguration of Hindu temple marks triumph of BJP quest

asia.nikkei.com

Cow thing I already pointed out in my previous post.
The temple issue is going on even before India was formed as a nation. During the British rule the issue was raised and it has continued since then.

The temple judgement was given by the Supreme Court, the other party was given 5 acre+ land to build their holy site.
I would imagine being a Hindu Rashtra means the state would have decided the outcome of the temple/mosque verdict instead of the courts. However, that was not the case here.
Or do you mean the supreme court in India is run by the government?

 

[Stewie]

Cow thing I already pointed out in my previous post.
The temple issue is going on even before India was formed as a nation. During the British rule the issue was raised and it has continued since then.

The temple judgement was given by the Supreme Court, the other party was given 5 acre+ land to build their holy site.
I would imagine being a Hindu Rashtra means the state would have decided the outcome of the temple/mosque verdict instead of the courts. However, that was not the case here.
Or do you mean the supreme court in India is run by the government?

I think the courts the world over are biased and they do have the pulse of the public in mind. You see a similar dynamic here in the US where the gun issue is a big thing and the conservatives have made a big deal out of it and want to hang on to their right to guns. Inspite of so many shootings and incidents, the courts refuse to put detailed background checks in place or ban automatic weapons.

This is just an example. The courts always indicate the pulse of the nation.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I think the courts the world over are biased and they do have the pulse of the public in mind. You see a similar dynamic here in the US where the gun issue is a big thing and the conservatives have made a big deal out of it and want to hang on to their right to guns. Inspite of so many shootings and incidents, the courts refuse to put detailed background checks in place or ban automatic weapons.

This is just an example. The courts always indicate the pulse of the nation.

might want i look up Mulford act, the first gun control legislation in US

Mulford Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sponsered and passed by Reagan (u know the librul) and authored by.... the NRA

Of course their target were the black panthers.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Using religious extremism to counter the Soviets was a ploy of the CIA. Zia was a tool for them and he used their strategies to his benefit in fighting off any opposition to his rule in Pakistan by portraying himself as a protector of the religion. But giving him the sole credit for this evil is perhaps wrong. I think the blame is shared. The americans did not want to fight the Soviets themselves and weaponized religion to tap into a supply of free labor that will help them keep the Soviete influence at bay in the region. They are asm uhc to blame for extremism as the mulla. THere is no difference. Both use the name of religion to achieve their goals.

Islamic extremism was already present and encouraged by Zia well before soviat invasion of Afghanistan.

CIA chose to fund the insurgency against Soviets. they didn't care if it was religious extremism or not.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Says who? The fallout was the worst. Maybe I am older than most here. I grew up in the 80s and experienced the whole thing first hand. Once the guns, drugs, paajeros come in, the whole country is fair game, Karachi in particular faced the brunt of it.

I honestly don’t think the Indian posters have any clue about the whole situation. The Afghans with the assistance of CIA funded their war through poppy and heroin. It got supplied world wide. Pakistan was drowning in drugs and still is. Post Afghan war the war lords set their sights on areas of Pakistan close to the border to make it their territory. Then the taliban stepped in and took over. As long as we didn’t bother them, they would not bother us which is why we made peace with them and the whole world blames us for it.


Same thing happened with the Arab spring in the Middle East, where CIA funded the push for democracy but didn’t see it through and in the end we got ISIS.

The west fuels wars for their benefit in these regions and the people here have to face the brunt of it. Be thankful you are geographically protected from it all.

Indians like me all to well remember the Khalistani movement funded/stirred up by Pakistan in the 80's and terrorists attacks all over india.

Once US funding for Pakistan dried up in the late 80's, Khalistani movement died in India. Weird correlation.

Wasn't afghan opium a known issue for almost a century. British fed the opium from Afghanistan into china to ruin that country.

Why did Zia sign up for the afghan war?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Cow thing I already pointed out in my previous post.
The temple issue is going on even before India was formed as a nation. During the British rule the issue was raised and it has continued since then.

The temple judgement was given by the Supreme Court, the other party was given 5 acre+ land to build their holy site.
I would imagine being a Hindu Rashtra means the state would have decided the outcome of the temple/mosque verdict instead of the courts. However, that was not the case here.
Or do you mean the supreme court in India is run by the government?

That was injustice. The occupier being appeased. Even then they would be crying injustice, because the justice is only when it works in their favour, otherwise it is all injustice. You will keep appeasing them but they will want you to keep conceding.

Like that relative who always wants money from you, and the day you say that you have other expenses and cannot support them this one time, they will go to town complaining about you. To the opresser and occupier, equality feels injustice.

 

[Vikram1989]

Where the rights of Hindu majority take precedence over others. One example is how Muslims cannot sacrifice cow in some states. Another example is the demolition of an existing masjid to build a Hindu temple and other such future plans for similar Hindu temples.

U can see the excavation explanation and its process by senior ASI official

 

[CricketCartoons]

U can see the excavation explanation and its process by senior ASI official

Do you think he reads any judgement to form his opinion? He has not read the masjid-e-janmasthan judgement nor the CAA and just makes up his own lies. They don't need the truth. They only need to know whether it is net loss or net gain for them. That is the only criteria for forming an opinion on anything. facts be damned.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Lautenberg Amendment

The Lautenberg Amendment has allowed HIAS to bring tens of thousands of refugees from persecuted religious groups to safety in the U.S.

hias.org

The Lautenberg Amendment, first enacted in 1990 to facilitate the resettlement of Jews from the former Soviet Union, has allowed HIAS to bring tens of thousands of refugees to safety. As the worldwide refugee situation changed, the Lautenberg Amendment, originally proposed by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey, was later expanded to include persecuted religious minorities in other countries, such as Jews, Christians, Baha’is, Sabaean-Mandaeans, and Zoroastrians from Iran

Guess US is not secular either

 

[big_gamer007]

I think the courts the world over are biased and they do have the pulse of the public in mind. You see a similar dynamic here in the US where the gun issue is a big thing and the conservatives have made a big deal out of it and want to hang on to their right to guns. Inspite of so many shootings and incidents, the courts refuse to put detailed background checks in place or ban automatic weapons.

This is just an example. The courts always indicate the pulse of the nation.

Ok, so that’s what you think the court was biased in their judgement, the Archaelogical survey of India report in presence of Muslims who oversaw the extraction process was also biased. That’s why India is a Hindu Rashtra?

I don’t know if you see the fallacy of your own argument or not. Declaring a state a Hindu Rashtra by just 2 examples, one of the examples isn’t even factual it’s just your “thinking”, isn’t how things are in real life.

I’ll ask again. You claimed India is a Hindu Rashtra, can you give examples of that from states perspective which makes India a Hindu Rashtra?

One example can be beef ban in some states which panders to Hindu appeasement.
Other than that any other example? Any other law which gives benefits of Hindu or any other constitutional right reserved for Hindus?


The pulse of the nation doesn’t mean India is Hindu Rashtra or turning a Hindu Rashtra.
Ask the same people who you think are part of the pulse what does Hindu Rashtra even mean and none of them would be able to answer.

Can you or anyone give me 10 changes which will be in a Hindu Rashtra compared to what it is in India right now?

Don’t fall for propaganda, fed by political parties for their own gain. Hindu Rashtra concept is for political gain of a political part which you seem to dislike, why believe in their propaganda?

If there is factual evidence of what being a Hindu Rashtra will actually mean, e.g. BJP has shared a list of constitutional changes/changes to existing laws etc which they will implement after making India a Hindu Rashtra then please share that and we can debate further.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Don’t fall for propaganda, fed by political parties for their own gain. Hindu Rashtra concept is for political gain of a political part which you seem to dislike, why believe in their propaganda?

If there is factual evidence of what being a Hindu Rashtra will actually mean, e.g. BJP has shared a list of constitutional changes/changes to existing laws etc which they will implement after making India a Hindu Rashtra then please share that and we can debate further.

These propagandists have a very low bar for themselves. And they have a very high bar for everyone else. They will deflect any light showing how low their own bar is, and will spend hours saying you do not meet your bar.

I am yet to see any such propagandist advocating for secularism for their own countries/countries of origin for even 10% of the effort they put in demanding it from other countries.

 

[cricketjoshila]

What are the standards which make India a Hindu state?
Can you name those standards?

One you would probably say is Beef is banned in most states, other than that?

Beef isn't banned. Cow slaughtering is banned. Cow is a protected animal.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Where the rights of Hindu majority take precedence over others. One example is how Muslims cannot sacrifice cow in some states. Another example is the demolition of an existing masjid to build a Hindu temple and other such future plans for similar Hindu temples.

Don’t take my word for it.

India is still an officially secular nation, but maybe not for long

Modi's inauguration of Hindu temple marks triumph of BJP quest

asia.nikkei.com

Cow is holy to Hindus. Is sacrificing cows essential for Muslims?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Cow thing I already pointed out in my previous post.
The temple issue is going on even before India was formed as a nation. During the British rule the issue was raised and it has continued since then.

The temple judgement was given by the Supreme Court, the other party was given 5 acre+ land to build their holy site.
I would imagine being a Hindu Rashtra means the state would have decided the outcome of the temple/mosque verdict instead of the courts. However, that was not the case here.
Or do you mean the supreme court in India is run by the government?

Way before that, Sardar Patel with Mahatma Gandhi's concurrence removed the mosque in Somnath and rebuilt the temple there. Nehru ofcourse tried to stop it.

The temple issues as you say originate way before the republic came into being. Hindus have always been fighting to get back their temples.

 

[cricketjoshila]

U can see the excavation explanation and its process by senior ASI official

This guy said he doesn't trust the institutions and courts in India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lautenberg Amendment

The Lautenberg Amendment has allowed HIAS to bring tens of thousands of refugees from persecuted religious groups to safety in the U.S.

hias.org

The Lautenberg Amendment, first enacted in 1990 to facilitate the resettlement of Jews from the former Soviet Union, has allowed HIAS to bring tens of thousands of refugees to safety. As the worldwide refugee situation changed, the Lautenberg Amendment, originally proposed by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey, was later expanded to include persecuted religious minorities in other countries, such as Jews, Christians, Baha’is, Sabaean-Mandaeans, and Zoroastrians from Iran

Guess US is not secular either

There are also the

Specter Amendment of 2004 for minorities of Iran.

Then the Vanick Jackson Amendment.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Cow is holy to Hindus. Is sacrificing cows essential for Muslims?

It is not a religious requirement at all. It is just a dietary thing. I remember how I never had lunch/snacks in front of my muslim colleagues when they were fasting. But you will find plenty muslims who will use beef reference to mock a hindu.

Forget cows, even too much meat eating is not recommended for muslims. It is not a sunnah. The Prophet pbuh ate meat in moderation, but many modern muslims have made it seem like gluttony is a virtue.

Using cow meat ban as an anti muslim thing is a false debate. It is not part of their religion at all. It is just something that muslims, and people of other religions, or atheists, or some hindus like to eat as part of their diet. Not because their religion says that this meat is essential for your religion.

 

[big_gamer007]

That was injustice. The occupier being appeased. Even then they would be crying injustice, because the justice is only when it works in their favour, otherwise it is all injustice. You will keep appeasing them but they will want you to keep conceding.

Like that relative who always wants money from you, and the day you say that you have other expenses and cannot support them this one time, they will go to town complaining about you. To the opresser and occupier, equality feels injustice.

These propagandists have a very low bar for themselves. And they have a very high bar for everyone else. They will deflect any light showing how low their own bar is, and will spend hours saying you do not meet your bar.

I am yet to see any such propagandist advocating for secularism for their own countries/countries of origin for even 10% of the effort they put in demanding it from other countries.

It’s interesting to listen to other’s viewpoints, most of them don’t even realise how their mind is controlled by their religious bias.
Nevertheless, it’s interesting to hear their viewpoint and see if they can eventually grow out of the control religion has over them.

 

[big_gamer007]

Way before that, Sardar Patel with Mahatma Gandhi's concurrence removed the mosque in Somnath and rebuilt the temple there. Nehru ofcourse tried to stop it.

The temple issues as you say originate way before the republic came into being. Hindus have always been fighting to get back their temples.

The argument @Stewie is making is not about Hindus demanding their temples back or not.

He said India is a Hindu Rashtra, I asked for evidence of that claim or what does that even mean in relation to constitution and laws?

He hasn’t provided any yet.

 

[CricketCartoons]

It’s interesting to listen to other’s viewpoints, most of them don’t even realise how their mind is controlled by their religious bias.
Nevertheless, it’s interesting to hear their viewpoint and see if they can eventually grow out of the control religion has over them.

I am beyond that phase where their viewpoints interest me, because their viewpoints are all predictable.

They will never grown out of this viewpoint which is based on what is there for me and my community. It is we who need to grow out of this mentality of trying to be balanced and fair and putting truth above everything, including our own interests. We need to change, no one else.

 

[rpant_gabba]

The argument @Stewie is making is not about Hindus demanding their temples back or not.

He said India is a Hindu Rashtra, I asked for evidence of that claim or what does that even mean in relation to constitution and laws?

He hasn’t provided any yet.

good luck

he will call your points as rubbish and run away.

you might have to give them a break. They are going thro a very emotinal divorce with their establishment

 

[big_gamer007]

Beef isn't banned. Cow slaughtering is banned. Cow is a protected animal.

If you can’t kill cow how will you eat beef? I mean it’s technically the same isn’t it?

99% people won’t have the money to afford imported beef so it’s as good as being banned?

Or can the cows be slaughtered in Kerala, Goa etc and that beef be sent to Hindi belt states and people can eat it? If there’s no law against doing that then even the Beef ban isn’t a thing as per constitution and laws laid out by the government.

People don’t do it for xyz reason is another issue.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Please stay on topic guys. No irrelevant topic to be discussed here.

 

[Vikram1989]

This guy said he doesn't trust the institutions and courts in India.

Yeah that's y video evidence from the horse mouth rt .Excavations are also done by Muslims and Muslim deputy head

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yeah that's y video evidence from the horse mouth rt .Excavations are also done by Muslims and Muslim deputy head

You may think that we need to have muslim archaeologists and muslim judges to show that we are on the side of truth, but the other side will dismiss it as them being sell out muslims, because according to them a muslim should always speak in favour of their own community.

No matter how much extra you go to show that you are unbiased, it will always fall short of their demands.

 

[Vikram1989]

,but the other side will dismiss it as them being sell out muslims, because according to them a muslim should always speak in favour of their own community.
.

Yeah i see even that archiologist auto biography was all about that point(His book name will give u the Idea)

 

[CricketCartoons]

Most likely the supreme court will put a stay, or ask to add extra clauses. Then things will get interesting.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The argument @Stewie is making is not about Hindus demanding their temples back or not.

He said India is a Hindu Rashtra, I asked for evidence of that claim or what does that even mean in relation to constitution and laws?

He hasn’t provided any yet.

Anything that isn't in to the liking of Muslims is bad and makes India a Hindu rashtra.

 

[Red-Indian]

Misleading graphic. Japan was a industrialized nation which was a world power.

They were also protected by US and not much to worry about territorial security

Same goes for South Korea

Both had US as a major economic benefactor

India on the other hand was bled dry, barely could feed itself. Throw in the idiocy of mohandas and his starvation tantrums combined with ideological lunacy of Nehru, it’s a bit of miracle India survived at all

I did think about whether Japan should be included given it's middle power status prior to WW2 but by all accounts, it was nearly bombed into the stone age to the extent that nothing was left of it's industrial capacity. Also it had lost almost half it's able bodied men of working age in the war. Given that, I thought it fair to say it was starting almost on level ground with the newly independent colonial nations. The rest you can't quibble with.

What you're describing about South Korea is one of the factors we should consider in predicting economic growth i.e. how much being under the shadow of a benevolent superpower helps. Keep in mind it has to be a superpower. Eastern Europe had USSR but it didn't help since it was only pretending to be a superpower.

The rest of your vague assertions about Gandhi and Nehru, I'll ignore.

 

[RexRex]

Refreshing to see Indians are at least admitting the challenges of sharing a border with Afghanistan.

How would India sharing a border with modern-day Afghanistan be any different from sharing a border with Pakistan ? What are these challenges u mention?

 

[RexRex]

Cow is holy to Hindus. Is sacrificing cows essential for Muslims?

Cow beef is essential diet for many Indians. Why deprive them of it ? You are forcing your religion down other people's throats, the same thing you accuse of Muslims.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I’ll ask again. You claimed India is a Hindu Rashtra, can you give examples of that from states perspective which makes India a Hindu Rashtra?

One example can be beef ban in some states which panders to Hindu appeasement.
Other than that any other example? Any other law which gives benefits of Hindu or any other constitutional right reserved for Hindus?


The pulse of the nation doesn’t mean India is Hindu Rashtra or turning a Hindu Rashtra.
Ask the same people who you think are part of the pulse what does Hindu Rashtra even mean and none of them would be able to answer.

Can you or anyone give me 10 changes which will be in a Hindu Rashtra compared to what it is in India right now?

Don’t fall for propaganda, fed by political parties for their own gain. Hindu Rashtra concept is for political gain of a political part which you seem to dislike, why believe in their propaganda?

If there is factual evidence of what being a Hindu Rashtra will actually mean, e.g. BJP has shared a list of constitutional changes/changes to existing laws etc which they will implement after making India a Hindu Rashtra then please share that and we can debate further.

What about the law in question re the OP?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Cow beef is essential diet for many Indians. Why deprive them of it ? You are forcing your religion down other people's throats, the same thing you accuse of Muslims.

Religious rights supersede dietary rights.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

How would India sharing a border with modern-day Afghanistan be any different from sharing a border with Pakistan ? What are these challenges u mention?

Pakistan provides a de facto buffer between India and Afghanistan. Whatever terror strikes are taking place in FATA areas of Pakistan would effectively be taking place on Indian territory pre-partition.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Pakistan provides a de facto buffer between India and Afghanistan. Whatever terror strikes are taking place in FATA areas of Pakistan would effectively be taking place on Indian territory pre-partition.

Pakistan has always been been the first destination of invaders, and most of the killings happened in the fields of pakistan, before the invaders moved further in India.

 

[CricketCartoons]

What about the law in question re the OP?

The law in OP includes many minority religions. So cannot be used as an indicator of Hindu Rashtra.

However, there are many existing laws which favour muslims, as in giving them special rights denied to hindus. But I don't see similar arguments that pro muslim laws make india a muslim state.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Pakistan has always been been the first destination of invaders, and most of the killings happened in the fields of pakistan, before the invaders moved further in India.

I said specifically pre-Partition, that would mean no such place as Pakistan existed. The war would be directly taking place between India and Afghanistan as per historic periods down the centuries. Unless we are referring to Ancient Pakistan, a term which was coined I believe by one of our more creative former posters.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The law in OP includes many minority religions. So cannot be used as an indicator of Hindu Rashtra.

However, there are many existing laws which favour muslims, as in giving them special rights denied to hindus. But I don't see similar arguments that pro muslim laws make india a muslim state.

It specifically excludes Muslims. The conclusion which may be drawn is that other minority religions are easier to assimilate into an eventual hindu rashtra, Islamic creed is more problematic. I wouldn't disagree with that prognosis, although Muslims would probably argue rather than problematic, their mission is salvation.

 

[CricketCartoons]

It specifically excludes Muslims. The conclusion which may be drawn is that other minority religions are easier to assimilate into an eventual hindu rashtra, Islamic creed is more problematic. I wouldn't disagree with that prognosis, although Muslims would probably argue rather than problematic, their mission is salvation.

Yes, it excludes muslims from PK/BD/AFG. They can still apply according to the existing law. This special law is especially for religious minorities. Too bad AFG/PK/BD muslims are not religious minorities.

Also law should treat all its citizens equally, irrespective of their religion.

BUT, any nation has the right to treat foreigners differently. And here those foreigners are those who are in majority muslim. Can a majority foreigner cry discrimination for a law made to favour minorities?

 

[CricketCartoons]

I find it hilarous that PK muslims, who own laws treat their own citizens differently based on religion are offended by a law in India which treats foreigners differently in a law meant especially for religious minorities.

As I have been saying, their entire viewpoint is not based on morality or ethics, but by whether it helps their community or not. That is the only criteria for them.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Most likely the supreme court will put a stay, or ask to add extra clauses. Then things will get interesting.

It didn't.

Cow beef is essential diet for many Indians. Why deprive them of it ? You are forcing your religion down other people's throats, the same thing you accuse of Muslims.

Essential diet? Please quote any book that says cow meat is essential diet.

Cow is a protected animal in India for centuries. Long before any muslim arrived here.

And if anyone needs cow meat he can get imported cow meat.

 

[CricketCartoons]

It didn't.

They only gave 3 weeks for the govt, and no citizenship will be granted in these 3 weeks.

 

[RexRex]

Cow is a protected animal in India for centuries. Long before any muslim arrived here.

And if anyone needs cow meat he can get imported cow meat.

Cow has also been diet for centuries for many non-hindus. Who r u to decide what is essential for them, don't need a book to say that.

You are selfish, shoving your religion on others and forcing them to change their diet to suit your own needs, you r a hypocrite. Admit it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Cow has also been diet for centuries for many non-hindus. Who r u to decide what is essential for them, don't need a book to say that.

You are selfish, shoving your religion on others and forcing them to change their diet to suit your own needs, you r a hypocrite. Admit it.

Yes you need a book to say its essential if its to be used under essential practice of a religion.

Doesn't matter if cow was eaten else where. In India it was a protected animal and remains so.

There is no ban on eating cow meat. Import and eat.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes, it excludes muslims from PK/BD/AFG. They can still apply according to the existing law. This special law is especially for religious minorities. Too bad AFG/PK/BD muslims are not religious minorities.

Also law should treat all its citizens equally, irrespective of their religion.

BUT, any nation has the right to treat foreigners differently. And here those foreigners are those who are in majority muslim. Can a majority foreigner cry discrimination for a law made to favour minorities?

It is not good or bad that PK/AFG/BD are excluded from refugee status. I am just commenting that it does facilitate the eventual consolidation of a hindu rashtra. Not that it is a bad thing, after all, why else would the Indian people vote for the BJP in the first place?

 

[Stewie]

The argument @Stewie is making is not about Hindus demanding their temples back or not.

He said India is a Hindu Rashtra, I asked for evidence of that claim or what does that even mean in relation to constitution and laws?

He hasn’t provided any yet.

This is going to take a bit to explain and I admit I am derailing the thread but here goes:

So what makes it a Muslim state? or Christian state? Or any theological state for that matter? Your question is asking about specific evidence. I think its more than simply digging up any legislation, constitution or laws that clearly spell out "HINDU STATE OF INDIA" It does not work that way but give it time. Maybe we will get there.

India always tooted its horn for being a "secular" state. They claimed Pakistan is a THEOLOGICAL state, which I agree is also due to some BS spread by Pakistanis but the truth is otherwise. Pakistani never had sharia law, the consitution was never fully Sharai, it was always a mix of the british constitution and handpicked Islamic laws, so do we have claim on that title? No.. but we put it in our name, and acted like we are, so fine, I will accept it, but we all know the truth. And I think this is very important to keep in mind when we talk about modern day India as well.

Now let us talk about that. As I said, it was claimed India is secular but that school of thought gradually changed because majority Hindus believed secular stands for "appeasement of Muslims". I hope you wont ask me for any evidence for this statement because it is here there everywhere on this forum, openly admitted to by most indian hindu posters here.
I think this part is important to understand. There is a very deep seated apprehension, distrust, and dare I say outright hatred of Muslims within quite a few Indian hindus. (I am not singling out you here, by the way. I do not know you enough but certain posters here, definitely fit in that mold). They believe the "secular" label is allowing Muslims to get away with gaming the system. They want any such liberties enjoyed by the Muslims to be done away with ... and this was the reason for the popularity of BJP. They portrayed themselves as anti muslim appeasers, and defenders for hindu rights, because Hindus felt Muslim rights were being given precedence over theirs.

And there is plenty of evidence for that. You have already used one example. The inaction during Gujarat riots was one. Now this act which is openly exclusive to non Muslims, THE COW SLAUGHTER ban, the Ram mandir fiasco, etc. ALL HAVE ONE THEME IN COMMON and that is they target or are designed around practiotioners of a particular faith.

So the question is "How do we really make it "Hindu" state?" I am sure you are asking a question which has left even the pandits scratching their heads. Hinduism was always more of a spiritual faith, with loosely defined ideas without any stringent lists of laws like the Abrahamic faiths. While there are definitely clearly spelt out dos and donts in Bible, Torah and Quran, there is little by way of frame of governance and divine judgment on whats not permissible in Hindu scriptures. Mostly its flexible and anything goes. So whereas Islam gives a proper book of jurisprudence and governance, a country known as Islamic Republic of Pakistan, does not actually enforce it and use it. So how can one expect a hindu code of governance as a qualifier for a Hindu state? It is virtually impossible. But much like Pakistan, it can be touted as such as a "posture", borne out of necessity due to the underlying resentment of Muslims as stated earlier.

It is the modern day anti Muslim Hindu who has allowed the extreme prejudice towards Muslims define Hinduism as a political movement. In its pure form, it was never meant to be this way. Its the overall context of this metamorphosis that one has to understand.

I am all for the majority to decide which way it wants to go. I have always maintained I have no dog in the fight. But by the same token, I expect that indians dont talk about pakistan in a smug manner when they are going the same way as pakistan. You are no better.

 

[Stewie]

How would India sharing a border with modern-day Afghanistan be any different from sharing a border with Pakistan ? What are these challenges u mention?

You may want to read up on Durand line. The Pakistan Afghanistan border is very porous and almost impossible to monitor and administer due to the terrain. The Pak-Ind border is mostly flat and there is a well established parameter and boundary for both sides to just lock everything up with minImal chance of infiltration.

So we essentually provided India with a buffer during the Soviet Afghan war, and protected them from the influx of guns, durgs and other dangerous Afghan exports.

 

[CricketCartoons]

It is not good or bad that PK/AFG/BD are excluded from refugee status. I am just commenting that it does facilitate the eventual consolidation of a hindu rashtra. Not that it is a bad thing, after all, why else would the Indian people vote for the BJP in the first place?

Those refugees are already living in India in poor condition. It was not their fault that Nehru, Mr Jinnah and British decided to draw boundaries making them a religious minority. And when they have finally crossed the border and living without being eligible for anything because of their non citizenship, people are complaining that if they get citizenship, india will turn into a hindu rashtra? And if india really wants to give them faster route to citinzenship, they must also give the faster route to those muslims who came from PK and BD? Then why was there a partition in first place? We want partition but we also want India to give faster route to citinzenship to those muslims who went to India? Having your cake and eating it to? I mean even selfishness and greed must have a limit.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You may want to read up on Durand line. The Pakistan Afghanistan border is very porous and almost impossible to monitor and administer due to the terrain. The Pak-Ind border is mostly flat and there is a well established parameter and boundary for both sides to just lock everything up with minImal chance of infiltration.

So we essentually provided India with a buffer during the Soviet Afghan war, and protected them from the influx of guns, durgs and other dangerous Afghan exports.

Yes, make a virtue out of a compulsion forced by geographical constraints.

India must also be grateful to pakistan for always being the first to be killed by invading armies. I mean why not turn weakness into a virtue.

 

[CricketCartoons]

This is going to take a bit to explain and I admit I am derailing the thread but here goes:

So what makes it a Muslim state? or Christian state? Or any theological state for that matter? Your question is asking about specific evidence. I think its more than simply digging up any legislation, constitution or laws that clearly spell out "HINDU STATE OF INDIA" It does not work that way but give it time. Maybe we will get there.

India always tooted its horn for being a "secular" state. They claimed Pakistan is a THEOLOGICAL state, which I agree is also due to some BS spread by Pakistanis but the truth is otherwise. Pakistani never had sharia law, the consitution was never fully Sharai, it was always a mix of the british constitution and handpicked Islamic laws, so do we have claim on that title? No.. but we put it in our name, and acted like we are, so fine, I will accept it, but we all know the truth. And I think this is very important to keep in mind when we talk about modern day India as well.

Islamic in the sense that muslims and Islam have the primacy. Just because you don't have full shariah laws, you cannot deny that.

And are you saying that islamic laws are inferior to secular laws?

Are you saying islamic laws have a lower bar to human rights and secular laws have higher bar for human rights?

I know you will not answer, because you are caught in your own defense. Your post is only saying that hey, we have muslim laws, so please lower the bar and don't hold us accountable for human rights.

No wonder you keep running away from me.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Those refugees are already living in India in poor condition. It was not their fault that Nehru, Mr Jinnah and British decided to draw boundaries making them a religious minority. And when they have finally crossed the border and living without being eligible for anything because of their non citizenship, people are complaining that if they get citizenship, india will turn into a hindu rashtra? And if india really wants to give them faster route to citinzenship, they must also give the faster route to those muslims who came from PK and BD? Then why was there a partition in first place? We want partition but we also want India to give faster route to citinzenship to those muslims who went to India? Having your cake and eating it to? I mean even selfishness and greed must have a limit.

Non-Muslims already made the decision to stay in Pakistan during partition, we are not talking about those who have been in India before that. India is already overcrowded, but if you feel you need more bodies to cram into they mix then knock yourselves out. I assume Pakistan has no problem with it if the process has taken place.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Non-Muslims already made the decision to stay in Pakistan during partition, we are not talking about those who have been in India before that. India is already overcrowded, but if you feel you need more bodies to cram into they mix then knock yourselves out. I assume Pakistan has no problem with it if the process has taken place.

If those non muslims already made the "decision" to stay in Pakistan, what made them cross the border and live as refugees in India?

What is their crime that Pakistanis have problem with non muslim pakistanis who have already crossed over to India and living as refugees from getting citizenship?

What overcrowded? They are ALREADY living here. I have been correcting you in the past but you keep forgetting this.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If those non muslims already made the "decision" to stay in Pakistan, what made them cross the border and live as refugees in India?

What is their crime that Pakistanis have problem with non muslim pakistanis who have already crossed over to India and living as refugees from getting citizenship?

What overcrowded? They are ALREADY living here. I have been correcting you in the past but you keep forgetting this.

But I don't have any problem with refugees getting Indian citizenship once they have crossed the border with full acceptance of Pakistan authorities. My only query was the motive for India to invite non-Muslims from Muslim countries in the first place considering that India is indeed overcrowded and a poor country not able to feed it's own population let alone citizens of other countries.

 

[CricketCartoons]

But I don't have any problem with refugees getting Indian citizenship once they have crossed the border with full acceptance of Pakistan authorities. My only query was the motive for India to invite non-Muslims from Muslim countries in the first place considering that India is indeed overcrowded and a poor country not able to feed it's own population let alone citizens of other countries.

Can you show the invitation which was sent, and when it was sent?

In the past there was Nehru Liaquat Pact, are you talking about that?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Can you show the invitation which was sent, and when it was sent?

In the past there was Nehru Liaquat Pact, are you talking about that?

Actually you are correct, those who who are being given Indian citizenship are in fact refugees who had already fled Muslim countries, including Muslims who might have fled countries like Afghanistan because they feared retribution from the Taliban. India has every right to refuse such people citizenship. It could be argued that if they were taking part in dissension in their own countries, why should they be trusted in a foreign one?

 

[RexRex]

Religious rights supersede dietary rights.

Then alcohol should be banned for everyone in India because Islam prohibits it.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Actually you are correct, those who who are being given Indian citizenship are in fact refugees who had already fled Muslim countries, including Muslims who might have fled countries like Afghanistan because they feared retribution from the Taliban. India has every right to refuse such people citizenship. It could be argued that if they were taking part in dissension in their own countries, why should they be trusted in a foreign one?

There is no refusal. There are two ways of citizenship. The normal process where after certain number of years they are eligible for citizenship, and this expedited ones which is only for religious minorities from those countries.

One Baloch muslim has filed a petition that why this expedited law does not apply to him.

No law is ever perfect. Laws are fine if they can minimize the false positives and the false negatives. So the baloch may indeed have escaped from Pakistani army persecution, but you cannot make everyone happy. Especially when religion was the basis of partition. The case for the non muslims is more clear cut.

But instead of thinking that ok, we wish these former pakistanis well in the new country they have chosen, the discussion is centered around hey india is becoming hindu rashtra.

No modicum of concern for those pakistani who had to forgo their citizenship (albeit second class) to live as refugees without any citizenship. Because hey, our heart only bleeds for only muslims.

 

[RexRex]

Pakistan provides a de facto buffer between India and Afghanistan. Whatever terror strikes are taking place in FATA areas of Pakistan would effectively be taking place on Indian territory pre-partition.

The terror strikes in FATA take place due to Pakistan's recent history. They sided with the US post 9/11 in the War on Terror and the Taliban have never forgiven them for that. Afgh has no such beef with India.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Then alcohol should be banned for everyone in India because Islam prohibits it.

Wrong example.

The right example will be making caricatures of islamic holy figures should be banned ( and indeed they are righty so) because even if a non muslim does it, it offends a muslims sensibilities.

A non muslim consuming alcohol does not affect muslims religious sensibilities.

 

[RexRex]

A non muslim consuming alcohol does not affect muslims religious sensibilities.

Why does consuming beef affect hindu religious sensibilities if non-hindus are doing it in the privacy of their homes ?

 

[RexRex]

A non muslim consuming alcohol does not affect muslims religious sensibilities.

But it does tempt muslims to sin and drink, so they should be banned.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Why does consuming beef affect hindu religious sensibilities if non-hindus are doing it in the privacy of their homes ?

How can anything affect anyone if they are not even aware of it happening? And if they are aware, then it is not in privacy.

 

[CricketCartoons]

But it does tempt muslims to sin and drink, so they should be banned.

So eating should be banned in ramadan because it may tempt muslims?

At least bring more than 1 brain cell to the discussion.

 

[Stewie]

The terror strikes in FATA take place due to Pakistan's recent history. They sided with the US post 9/11 in the War on Terror and the Taliban have never forgiven them for that. Afgh has no such beef with India.

Famous or infamous George Bush words to the Pakistani leadership after 9/11 "Either you are with us, or against us"

We were forced into this war. I dont foresee India doing anything differently were they in the same position. The Americans were ready to go to war with the world after 9/11.

 

[RexRex]

So eating should be banned in ramadan because it may tempt muslims?

Correct .. it should be banned because 'religious rights supersede dietary rights'. Your words.

 

[RexRex]

How can anything affect anyone if they are not even aware of it happening?

Good, then we can create special zones for cow slaughter that hindus can keep away from. These zones will cater to non-hindus who want to purchase cow beef.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Correct .. it should be banned because 'religious rights supersede dietary rights'. Your words.

I keep losing some brain cell educating you. This is one of the reason for Ramadan, to test your resolve against temptation and feel hunger. don't be shah se ziada shah ke wafadar.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Good, then we can create special zones for cow slaughter that hindus can keep away from. These zones will cater to non-hindus who want to purchase cow beef.

But it won't happen in privacy if those special zones are known.

Anyway law is to catch what is known, not for something that is unknown. If someone can slaughter a cow making sure no one knows about it, good luck to them.

 

[RexRex]

I keep losing some brain cell educating you. This is one of the reason for Ramadan, to test your resolve against temptation and feel hunger. don't be shah se ziada shah ke wafadar.

You've dug yourself into a hole with 'religious rights supercede dietary rights' nonsense and you know it. I am amused.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Famous or infamous George Bush words to the Pakistani leadership after 9/11 "Either you are with us, or against us"

We were forced into this war. I dont foresee India doing anything differently were they in the same position. The Americans were ready to go to war with the world after 9/11.

Another gem of an argument. Pakistan did this, but hey if I think correctly, then ummm India would also have done the same. Therefore we have got evidence from my imagination.

 

[RexRex]

But it won't happen in privacy if those special zones are known.

Anyway law is to catch what is known, not for something that is unknown. If someone can slaughter a cow making sure no one knows about it, good luck to them.

Cow slaughter happens in some states in India and not in others, so the fact that it happens is a 'known' already. Same principle can be applied to special zones within states.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You've dug yourself into a hole with 'religious rights supercede dietary rights' nonsense and you know it. I am amused.

It is true that low IQ is my kryptonite.

Ok, banning food for non muslims is a religious right? Explain yourself. I do have trouble talking to such clever people but I am working on it.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Cow slaughter happens in some states in India and not in others, so the fact that it happens is a 'known' already. Same principle can be applied to special zones within states.

Law enforcement is a state subject, and that is why the enforcement differs.

I thought it would be common knowledge. But then you have to be an Indian first.

 

[RexRex]

I keep losing some brain cell educating you. This is one of the reason for Ramadan, to test your resolve against temptation and feel hunger. don't be shah se ziada shah ke wafadar.

Btw I believe Pakistan has banned eating in public during Ramadan. Perhaps we should implement this in India since ahem 'religious rights supercede dietary rights.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Btw I believe Pakistan has banned eating in public during Ramadan. Perhaps we should implement this in India since ahem 'religious rights supercede dietary rights.

Let us talk in Indian context. Which part is religious right and which part is dietary right? I am giving you my time, so the least you can do is explain yourself clearly.

 

[RexRex]

Let us talk in Indian context. Which part is religious right and which part is dietary right? I am giving you my time, so the least you can do is explain yourself clearly.

There is nothing to explain. Ramadan is essential for muslims, so we have to cater to their sensibilities in India whether you are muslim or not .. this is bhakt cow logic.

 

[CricketCartoons]

There is nothing to explain. Ramadan is essential for muslims, so we have to cater to their sensibilities in India whether you are muslim or not .. this is bhakt cow logic.

But asking non muslims to fast is not their religious requirement. Their only religious requirement is that "MUSLIMS" should fast, and not "non muslims".

Why are you adding innovation to Islam for muslims?

What is bhakt cow logic? You are trying to insult me for my religion, I will not go down that path and insult your religion.

 

[Stewie]

There is nothing to explain. Ramadan is essential for muslims, so we have to cater to their sensibilities in India whether you are muslim or not .. this is bhakt cow logic.

By the way cow slaughter is not forbidden in hindu scriptures. but its taboo.
Cows only attained this status in hinduism over the last 2000 years or so when the actual faith has been around for a lot longer than that. during that time, hindus actually consumed beef themselves.