Question To Indians Who Want Uniform Civil Code - How Do You MORALLY Justify Beef Ban?

[tempus123]

I don't think that comes under hate speech, even if of slightly poor taste. There shouldn't be restrictions on it, the distinction is very clear.

It definitely comes under hate speech.. a cartoon will not be made without attacking an ideology.. cartoon will be made depicting (just for the sake of explaining) Mohammad sahab's (alleged) face in a comical sense, showing him making a stand/comment which make people laugh.

I am 100% sure, this will offend muslims in India, and not for wrong reasons.

 

[Yatoo]

No. That's not.

Its just like laws for defamation.

A person can't spout hatred over someone else or his company and then argue in court that its just the right to speech. He will be taken to the cleaners in a good judicial system.

Of course, what defines as mocking and what's perfectly fine must be defined so what is abuse must be carefully and clearly worded.

Your last paragraph is what I'm trying to point out since start. There is no inconsistency really for one demanding UCC for strengthining secularism and ban on cow slaughter because he sees it as "mocking" to his religion.


Debate should be whether cow slaughter is mocking or not?
Only when we can reach to a conclusion that it's not then one demanding UCC and cow slaughter is inconsistent

 

[endymion248]

It definitely comes under hate speech.. a cartoon will not be made without attacking an ideology.. cartoon will be made depicting (just for the sake of explaining) Mohammad sahab's (alleged) face in a comical sense, showing him making a stand/comment which make people laugh.

I am 100% sure, this will offend muslims in India, and not for wrong reasons.

Then it's simply insensitive and, if not made with the intention to offend, the publishers will just retract it.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Your last paragraph is what I'm trying to point out since start. There is no inconsistency really for one demanding UCC for strengthining secularism and ban on cow slaughter because he sees it as "mocking" to his religion.

Debate should be whether cow slaughter is mocking or not?

Only when we can reach to a conclusion that it's not then one demanding UCC and cow slaughter is inconsistent

I think you got confused.

Cow slaughter ain't mocking to Hindus. Others eat it cos they want to have it. Hindus (some of them) get offended by the fact that cows are killed (for whatever reason). Regardless of whether the word mocking is used or not, those who eat beef eat cos they want to and not cos they wanna mock.

So its not mocking and your statement here is from where my thread STARTS.

Only when we can reach to a conclusion that it's not then one demanding UCC and cow slaughter is inconsistent

By the way, are you that Saqib Yousuf Yatoo from Srinagar and changed your username?

 

[tempus123]

Then it's simply insensitive and, if not made with the intention to offend, the publishers will just retract it.

Insensitive on the part of ?

 

[Yatoo]

I think you got confused.

Cow slaughter ain't mocking to Hindus. Others eat it cos they want to have it. Hindus (some of them) get offended by the fact that cows are killed (for whatever reason). Regardless of whether the word mocking is used or not, those who eat beef eat cos they want to and not cos they wanna mock.

So its not mocking and your statement here is from where my thread STARTS.



By the way, are you that Saqib Yousuf Yatoo from Srinagar and changed your username?

Its your opinion that its not mocking. Even I agree on this.
But countless Indians, mostly Hindus don't agree with you and I. We can't just label them inconsistent just because they don't agree with us. Because there argument is that right to abuse is not a right. And cow slaughter is abuse. And this should be banned. This doesn't not harm there secular credentials.


Yes. Same guy.

 

[endymion248]

Insensitive on the part of ?

Both parties. Multicultural societies require tact from everyone.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Its your opinion that its not mocking. Even I agree on this.
But countless Indians, mostly Hindus don't agree with you and I. We can't just label them inconsistent just because they don't agree with us. Because there argument is that right to abuse is not a right. And cow slaughter is abuse. And this should be banned. This doesn't not harm there secular credentials.

Yes. Same guy.

Cool.

Bro..many use the word mocking as a way of expression and not literally. Surely no sane guy is thinking beef eaters are mocking them.

Plus when 2 ideas clash, the one which doesn't affect the others physically is given preference.

Many Hindus follow caste system and it offends them when people from mixed caste marry. Can we bring in a crazy law for that? Same situation..another example is Christians/Hindus/Muslims and gays.

 

[tempus123]

Cool.

Bro..many use the word mocking as a way of expression and not literally. Surely no sane guy is thinking beef eaters are mocking them.

Plus when 2 ideas clash, the one which doesn't affect the others physically is given preference.

Many Hindus follow caste system and it offends them when people from mixed caste marry. Can we bring in a crazy law for that? Same situation..another example is Christians/Hindus/Muslims and gays.

What's the definition of physical harm ?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

What's the definition of physical harm ?

Didn't know what exact term to use but the context should make the meaning clear.

In the sense...Christians/Hindus/Muslims can live and do their day to day activities (unaffected) even if gays are married.

Hindus can live and do their day to day activities (unaffected) even if people from different castes marry.

Muslims can live and do their day to day activities (unaffected) even if normal cartoons are drawn.

Offensive religious stuff is a real thing (like defamation laws) and guidelines must be set for that.

I know you feel all cartoons are offensive (cos the affected community may not like it). I feel that though affected community may not like all cartoons...they won't be sick to the core as in case of truly offensive ones. I guess we have a difference of view there.

 

[tempus123]

Didn't know what exact term to use but the context should make the meaning clear.

In the sense...Christians/Hindus/Muslims can live and do their day to day activities (unaffected) even if gays are married.

Hindus can live and do their day to day activities (unaffected) even if people from different castes marry.

Muslims can live and do their day to day activities (unaffected) even if normal cartoons are drawn.

Offensive religious stuff is a real thing (like defamation laws) and guidelines must be set for that.

I know you feel all cartoons are offensive (cos the affected community may not like it). I feel that though affected community may not like all cartoons...they won't be sick to the core as in case of truly offensive ones. I guess we have a difference of view there.

What's your view on MF Hussain's painting of Hindu Goddesses ? What's your view on the reaction of Hindutva groups on it and the way he had to go to Qatar for last days of his life ?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

What's your view on MF Hussain's painting of Hindu Goddesses ? What's your view on the reaction of Hindutva groups on it and the way he had to go to Qatar for last days of his life ?

Personally for me, I don't give a damn about what this MF dude does. Just like if I were a Muslim, I wouldn't give a damn about what cartoons someone draws (offensive or not).

But in a society, I do understand the sensitivity of religion and some guidelines must be there and just like any laws it will be periodically modified to close out any loopholes.

I haven't made up my mind about books like Satanic Verses or any anti Hindu book but I think I don't find anything wrong with it. I don't give a damn. But again, have to think about it. Maybe any work intended as pure hate rather than stuff that has some logical argument can be taken out. What constitues as hate and what's not is a bit complicated when it comes to religion and it will be an evolving thing.

As for MF's going to Qatar...I am afraid I am not fully aware of the whole story in detail. If he was threatened by Hindutva groups and had to go outside for the fear of his life, it was wrong. Whatever must be done...must be resorted in a court battle.

 

[tempus123]

Personally for me, I don't give a damn about what this MF dude does. Just like if I were a Muslim, I wouldn't give a damn about what cartoons someone draws (offensive or not).

But in a society, I do understand the sensitivity of religion and some guidelines must be there and just like any laws it will be periodically modified to close out any loopholes.

I haven't made up my mind about books like Satanic Verses or any anti Hindu book but I think I don't find anything wrong with it. I don't give a damn. But again, have to think about it. Maybe any work intended as pure hate rather than stuff that has some logical argument can be taken out. What constitues as hate and what's not is a bit complicated when it comes to religion and it will be an evolving thing.

As for MF's going to Qatar...I am afraid I am not fully aware of the whole story in detail. If he was threatened by Hindutva groups and had to go outside for the fear of his life, it was wrong. Whatever must be done...must be resorted in a court battle.

Should a secular state punish MFH since none of his paintings were doing any physical harm to any other person ? He was just being his artistic self.. and no, his supporters also argued that his purpose was never to offend Hindus.. he was just using his right of artistic expression freedom.

Now, if a secular state punishes MFH, it would mean he was not allowed to do something in his individual capacity as an artist, even though he didn't harm anyone in particular physically or mentally. Wouldn't the state be accused of punishing someone for the purpose of taking care of religious sentiments ?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Should a secular state punish MFH since none of his paintings were doing any physical harm to any other person ? He was just being his artistic self.. and no, his supporters also argued that his purpose was never to offend Hindus.. he was just using his right of artistic expression freedom.

Now, if a secular state punishes MFH, it would mean he was not allowed to do something in his individual capacity as an artist, even though he didn't harm anyone in particular physically or mentally. Wouldn't the state be accused of punishing someone for the purpose of taking care of religious sentiments ?

It depends on whats considered as hate stuff by law.

Just like what constitues defamation or hate speech (and whats freedom of expression).

That is a separate topic in itself.

But existence of law is valid. Details debatable and evolving.

 

[Yatoo]

It depends on whats considered as hate stuff by law.

Just like what constitues defamation or hate speech (and whats freedom of expression).

That is a separate topic in itself.

But existence of law is valid. Details debatable and evolving.

This is what I have been saying since start. If you believe in democracy, then in democracy what majority thinks is right becomes law.
Majority Indians consider cow slaughter as offensive and maybe even mocking. You have right to political disent. You can believe these laws to be stupid. Others have right to disagree.

I believe without God, there is no objective morality. That's why I was pointing out that you can't question the moral ground of a act, expression etc if you don't agree on from where to derive your morality.

Personally I neither believe in democracy nor ucc

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

This is what I have been saying since start. If you believe in democracy, then in democracy what majority thinks is right becomes law. Majority Indians consider cow slaughter as offensive and maybe even mocking. You have right to political disent. You can believe these laws to be stupid. Others have right to disagree.

I believe without God, there is no objective morality. That's why I was pointing out that you can't question the moral ground of a act, expression etc if you don't agree on from where to derive your morality.

Personally I neither believe in democracy nor ucc

What majority says isn't the law. They have the right to elect representatives who will decide the plan of action of the country. After every 5 years, they will review and take action.

Tomorrow in economic policy, majority may have a hare brained view but that doesn't mean it should be implemented.

Hypothetical examples:

If majority in India wants all caste system to come back in India (legally), will that be right? If majority in Pakistan want all minorities to convert, will that be right (considering Pak govt is elected this time)? If most in Europe want immigrants thrown out, will that be right?

It doesn't work that way.

India strives to be both democratic and secular.

You are just confusing several issues bro.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

This is what I have been saying since start. If you believe in democracy, then in democracy what majority thinks is right becomes law.
Majority Indians consider cow slaughter as offensive and maybe even mocking. You have right to political disent. You can believe these laws to be stupid. Others have right to disagree.

I believe without God, there is no objective morality. That's why I was pointing out that you can't question the moral ground of a act, expression etc if you don't agree on from where to derive your morality.

Personally I neither believe in democracy nor ucc

I understand this point. Morality isn't being questioned based on one instance alone.

Its based on reaction to several instances.

As you yourself said, if its not mocking, the moral views are not consistent.

Every sane guy would say its not mocking, so in that issue, its not consistent.

 

[Yatoo]

What majority says isn't the law. They have the right to elect representatives who will decide the plan of action of the country. After every 5 years, they will review and take action.

Tomorrow in economic policy, majority may have a hare brained view but that doesn't mean it should be implemented.

Hypothetical examples:

If majority in India wants all caste system to come back in India (legally), will that be right? If majority in Pakistan want all minorities to convert, will that be right (considering Pak govt is elected this time)? If most in Europe want immigrants thrown out, will that be right?

It doesn't work that way.

India strives to be both democratic and secular.

You are just confusing several issues bro.

Had we been texting here 100 years ago, you would have asked the following question.
If majority want gay marriage to be legal, will it be right.

 

[Yatoo]

What majority says isn't the law. They have the right to elect representatives who will decide the plan of action of the country. After every 5 years, they will review and take action.

Tomorrow in economic policy, majority may have a hare brained view but that doesn't mean it should be implemented.

Hypothetical examples:

If majority in India wants all caste system to come back in India (legally), will that be right? If majority in Pakistan want all minorities to convert, will that be right (considering Pak govt is elected this time)? If most in Europe want immigrants thrown out, will that be right?

It doesn't work that way.

India strives to be both democratic and secular.

You are just confusing several issues bro.

By your caste question, I remembered divergent. You never know when for "survival of human race " fraction system of divergent will become right

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

By your caste question, I remembered divergent. You never know when for "survival of human race " fraction system of divergent will become right

Had we been texting here 100 years ago, you would have asked the following question.
If majority want gay marriage to be legal, will it be right.

True bro. I may have asked it.

That time our religion would be the frame of reference.

Then eventually reference changed (while the religious practice went private).

What we believe is right in the worldly logic level...we may not believe in in overall level (where God comes into the equation too).

Which means we will argue for something we don't believe (in overall level) cos we believe it to be applicable in current worldly level.

 

[walsh_ambrose]

Then why u portray yourself as a biggest secular Nation on earth. Why my friend, when you can't even protect & provide basic necessity food to minorities.

Thats a matter of economics. Do you not realize that or you muddling stuff up on purpose.

 

[walsh_ambrose]

True bro. I may have asked it.

That time our religion would be the frame of reference.

Then eventually reference changed (while the religious practice went private).

What we believe is right in the worldly logic level...we may not believe in in overall level (where God comes into the equation too).

Which means we will argue for something we don't believe (in overall level) cos we believe it to be applicable in current worldly level.

SIF you come thro as a genuine WKK. If you notice, he completely ignored your question and diverted the topic with a lame joke and you went along with it.

Sounds like the Ind-Pak Track 2 Chai-biskoot diplomacy

 

[jusarrived]

Please officially name sif 'drama queen' of PP

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

+1000

Self loather to the highest degree .

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

SIF you come thro as a genuine WKK. If you notice, he completely ignored your question and diverted the topic with a lame joke and you went along with it.

Sounds like the Ind-Pak Track 2 Chai-biskoot diplomacy

What does WKK mean?

And sometimes a topic ends. If they have anything to add, they will add.

 

[walsh_ambrose]

What you're describing is NOT a perfectly secular society or even a moderately secular one. The essence of secularism is that it respects NO religion, not ALL religions. In a perfectly secular society, laws would be drafted purely on the basis of logic and scientific merit even if they offend the religious sensitivities of the followers of one or more religions. In

Truer words have never been spoken. The closest in this regard is the 1st amendment in US Constitution.

Religious nutbags in US hate it!

 

[filthyfulltoss]

It's funny to see how eager supporters of the beef ban are to equate it with caricatures. Eating beef has nothing to do with Hindus, billions of people do it and many have never heard of hinduism. The finality of caricatures is muslims. A secular society can and will ban hate speech since there is no such thing as ''the right to offend''. A secular society will not impose the belief of the few to police behaviours that have nothing to do with them. A caricature is 100% about muslims, eating beef is 0% about hindus.

Wow the arrogance of this post. 10/10 for arrogance.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

And lol at people who call me self loather.

If they meet me in real life, they will be shocked to see what kinda person I am.

But its internet and people think they have figured out others all right.

)

And by the way, my thread was valid and I was questions to both sides cos I find inconsistencies in views from many on both sides (barring a few who have their views and are consistent with it in all cases).

 

[jusarrived]

Then why u portray yourself as a biggest secular Nation on earth. Why my friend, when you can't even protect & provide basic necessity food to minorities.

Why do Pakistanis portray itsellf as a true Islamic state while its only associated with unhumane & un-islamic activities contributing only to damage the image of Islam in the process ?

 

[jusarrived]

And lol at people who call me self loather.

If they meet me in real life, they will be shocked to see what kinda person I am.

But its internet and people think they have figured out others all right.

)

And by the way, my thread was valid and I was questions to both sides cos I find inconsistencies in views from many on both sides (barring a few who have their views and are consistent with it in all cases).

Firstly , no one has the time here to figure you out . Its immaterial how you are in real life . In your posts all you do is self loath , be it your country , team or relegion .
You say different things in your real life and on this forum then that makes you a troll and a hypocrite .

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Firstly , no one has the time here to figure you out . Its immaterial how you are in real life . In your posts all you do is self loath , be it your country , team or relegion . You say different things in your real life and on this forum then that makes you a troll and a hypocrite .

+10000000000 for your INCREDIBLE COMPREHENSION SKILLS.

 

[Yatoo]

True bro. I may have asked it.

That time our religion would be the frame of reference.

Then eventually reference changed (while the religious practice went private).

What we believe is right in the worldly logic level...we may not believe in in overall level (where God comes into the equation too).

Which means we will argue for something we don't believe (in overall level) cos we believe it to be applicable in current worldly level.

100 years from now, you never know, world may have even made incest morally and legally right.

 

[endymion248]

Wow the arrogance of this post. 10/10 for arrogance.

10/10 for the constructive post.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Firstly , no one has the time here to figure you out . Its immaterial how you are in real life . In your posts all you do is self loath , be it your country , team or relegion .
You say different things in your real life and on this forum then that makes you a troll and a hypocrite .

Do you want all indian posters to play blind patriots? We need at least one poster who can show that not all of us are blind nationalists. like me.

 

[filthyfulltoss]

10/10 for the constructive post.

I find it hard to be constructive of a post where you define in absolutes what a tremendously diverse religion believes and ought to be offended by, as if you wrote the manual on that religion's code of conduct.

 

[Stallion__]

I would rather prefer a self-loather, hypocrite, troll and a drama queen over a nation's pride defender on online forum who likes to throw stones on others than tolerating (let alone contributing to) any constructive criticism.

 

[endymion248]

I find it hard to be constructive of a post where you define in absolutes what a tremendously diverse religion believes and ought to be offended by, as if you wrote the manual on that religion's code of conduct.

Not sure what you're talking about. Care to elaborate?

 

[Moh@n]

A bit off topic. We have had a couple of incidents here in Bangalore where people have tried to cook and consume a dog.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/3-students-held-for-killing-cooking-pet-dog/#

Now where exactly do we draw the line? People here may argue that if someone wants to eat dog meat, why not let him eat it.

 

[tempus123]

It depends on whats considered as hate stuff by law.

Just like what constitues defamation or hate speech (and whats freedom of expression).

That is a separate topic in itself.

But existence of law is valid. Details debatable and evolving.

The truth lies in the details and boundaries. I am drawing this picture to show that it's not much different in concept to the Cow slaughter. Calling people who are against cow slaughter stupid is not correct if you don't call the people calling for ban on MFH's paintings (not talking about violent activists who destroyed the paintings).

 

[tempus123]

What majority says isn't the law. They have the right to elect representatives who will decide the plan of action of the country. After every 5 years, they will review and take action.

Tomorrow in economic policy, majority may have a hare brained view but that doesn't mean it should be implemented.

Hypothetical examples:

If majority in India wants all caste system to come back in India (legally), will that be right? If majority in Pakistan want all minorities to convert, will that be right (considering Pak govt is elected this time)? If most in Europe want immigrants thrown out, will that be right?

It doesn't work that way.

India strives to be both democratic and secular.

You are just confusing several issues bro.

Sorry, but if majority wants, it can change the constitution, except possibly the very core of it (some laws like minority protection etc.) . You can change the laws in a democracy with 66% majority in both the houses, which actually in turn means the majority can change the way a country is run.

 

[tempus123]

Do you want all indian posters to play blind patriots? We need at least one poster who can show that not all of us are blind nationalists. like me.

With the highlighted part, did you mean you were blind nationalist or reverse ?

 

[CricketCartoons]

A bit off topic. We have had a couple of incidents here in Bangalore where people have tried to cook and consume a dog.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/3-students-held-for-killing-cooking-pet-dog/#

Now where exactly do we draw the line? People here may argue that if someone wants to eat dog meat, why not let him eat it.

Dog is just another animal. Don't know why it is holy for some western wannabes. I would love to eat biryani made of tender puppy meat.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The truth lies in the details and boundaries. I am drawing this picture to show that it's not much different in concept to the Cow slaughter. Calling people who are against cow slaughter stupid is not correct if you don't call the people calling for ban on MFH's paintings (not talking about violent activists who destroyed the paintings).

Who called people who are against cow slaughter as stupid?

Its about consistency of views which was the point of my thread.

 

[tempus123]

Who called people who are against cow slaughter as stupid?

Its about consistency of views which was the point of my thread.

In other threads you called them (not exactly stupid, but similar) . This thread you have been polite..

 

[Ottoman]

Why do Pakistanis portray itsellf as a true Islamic state while its only associated with unhumane & un-islamic activities contributing only to damage the image of Islam in the process ?

Please Inform this forum what unhumane & un-Islamic activities Pakistan Government is doing and supporting?

 

[Abhilash93]

Unlike the Western concept of secularism which envisions a separation of religion and state, the concept of secularism in India envisions acceptance of religious laws as binding on the state, and equal participation of state in different religions.

So, I dont see a problem with having a few different laws for different religions. We shouldn't compare with Western countries because their concept of secularism is a little different. In that light, I am OK with not having the Uniform Civil Code.

 

[Yatoo]

Unlike the Western concept of secularism which envisions a separation of religion and state, the concept of secularism in India envisions acceptance of religious laws as binding on the state, and equal participation of state in different religions.

So, I dont see a problem with having a few different laws for different religions. We shouldn't compare with Western countries because their concept of secularism is a little different. In that light, I am OK with not having the Uniform Civil Code.

You remind me of my polity teacher which whom you share a name

 

[sshakir411]

Unlike the Western concept of secularism which envisions a separation of religion and state, the concept of secularism in India envisions acceptance of religious laws as binding on the state, and equal participation of state in different religions.

So, I dont see a problem with having a few different laws for different religions. We shouldn't compare with Western countries because their concept of secularism is a little different. In that light, I am OK with not having the Uniform Civil Code.

great. lets create a new definition of secularism that suits India. Bohot achay!

 

[Yatoo]

great. lets create a new definition of secularism that suits India. Bohot achay!

That has already been done. Indian secularism is called assimilative secularism and is different from western secularism

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Once again the debate for Uniform Civil Code heats up in the country. Personally, i think it's high time we embrace the western concept of secularism and get rid of personal laws and have one law for all.

 

[Thivagar]

First I am not in support of Beef ban.. in an ideal situation it shouldn't be a discussion. This is another kind of bull.. which religion brings.

But..

Suppose there exists a perfect secular society.. i.e. respects every religion and is mindful of all the things that offends each and every religion, ..will it ban books by authors such as Salman Rushdie and tasleema nasreen?..yes, cause it hurts Muslim sentiments.. should it happen? No..
Will the society ban pictures or cartoon that offends a religion ..yes..should it happen?? No..
Will the society ban cow slaughter that offends a religion? Yes.. should it happen?? No..

We should just curse our society that thrives to be secular instead of atheism. That's the issue

India is already a secular society, if you look at the nut jobs, they are all 50 to 60+ years old. Wait a decade for them to become inactive. India is a progressive society that needs some tingering, other than it is a good society.

 

[Justcrazy]

And I dont understand these religious fanatics..

Why these Hindu groups don't show the same empathy to these cows when they live in the worst conditions, roam around the city roads blocking everything, they also have to eat from the city dumps.. why don't they take care of them why don't they install cow shelter in every city if they are so concerned about them? And to rub salt in their wounds doubt they know india exports cows in one form or another?

And why these Muslim groups have a problem in that? It's not as if Quran has ordered them to eat beef otherwise they would burn in hell instead of having fun with the hoors. There are lots of goats, chicken, fish, ducks, turkeys in the world to feast. And these are healthier options to beef. Out of all people in the world I thought Muslims will be least interested in this. Cause I have seen more Christians eat beef than a average Muslim. And guess what no Christian group has raised any voice

No eating beef is not a condition to be a Muslim . A muslim can be a vegetarian.

The Muslims generally eat beef , because it is cheaper than Mutton.

 

[big_gamer007]

Vote bank politics people fall for it so politicians keep doing it.. Eventually it will end when a younger generation of politicians take control..

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

India is already a secular society, if you look at the nut jobs, they are all 50 to 60+ years old. Wait a decade for them to become inactive. India is a progressive society that needs some tingering, other than it is a good society.

It's getting better so no need to worry about this I agree. Let's move along now, nothing to see here.

 

[anuk]

sorry i haven't read this thread but not sure why this is any worse than muslims banning pork or alcohol? is there any difference except that india strives to be a secular, democratic nation?

 

[Thivagar]

sorry i haven't read this thread but not sure why this is any worse than muslims banning pork or alcohol? is there any difference except that india strives to be a secular, democratic nation?

I agree with you my dearest friend. Cow is sacred according to majority of India's population, what is so wrong about a government banning the consumption of its holy animal ? I think Pakistan's law of banning pork is ridiculous.

 

[Slog]

I agree with you my dearest friend. Cow is sacred according to majority of India's population, what is so wrong about a government banning the consumption of its holy animal ? I think Pakistan's law of banning pork is ridiculous.

Another day. Another apologist post for Jndia by Thivagar whose allegiance is to his Tamil roots rather than Sri Lanka his country of origin

Anyways Pork is banned in Pakistan? There's no demand actually. Yes alcohol is banned but non Muslims are still allowed. In any case Pakistan never takes the moral high ground of being a secular society

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Another day. Another apologist post for Jndia by Thivagar whose allegiance is to his Tamil roots rather than Sri Lanka his country of origin

Anyways Pork is banned in Pakistan? There's no demand actually. Yes alcohol is banned but non Muslims are still allowed. In any case Pakistan never takes the moral high ground of being a secular society

This is the key point. It could be argued that Pakistan would be better off by taking the the high ground of being a secular society, in which case the focus towards China rather than India certainly makes sense.

 

[anuk]

Another day. Another apologist post for Jndia by Thivagar whose allegiance is to his Tamil roots rather than Sri Lanka his country of origin

Anyways Pork is banned in Pakistan? There's no demand actually. Yes alcohol is banned but non Muslims are still allowed. In any case Pakistan never takes the moral high ground of being a secular society

thanks, did not realize this.

 

[Thivagar]

Another day. Another apologist post for Jndia by Thivagar whose allegiance is to his Tamil roots rather than Sri Lanka his country of origin

Anyways Pork is banned in Pakistan? There's no demand actually. Yes alcohol is banned but non Muslims are still allowed. In any case Pakistan never takes the moral high ground of being a secular society

So it is okay to be proud and identify yourself to islam, have your hearts bleed when Muslims elsewhere are discriminated, but I can't be proud of my culture and language that is one of the oldest language in the world ? You have no problem with Kashmiris not associating themselves to India, but when I do that with SL, it is a crime right ? I will identify myself as whatever I am and I have to kinda laugh at you that you bring that up as a negative matter. Next time think twice before saying something absurd and hypocritical.

 

[Slog]

So it is okay to be proud and identify yourself to islam, have your hearts bleed when Muslims elsewhere are discriminated, but I can't be proud of my culture and language that is one of the oldest language in the world ? You have no problem with Kashmiris not associating themselves to India, but when I do that with SL, it is a crime right ? I will identify myself as whatever I am and I have to kinda laugh at you that you bring that up as a negative matter. Next time think twice before saying something absurd and hypocritical.

no i dont care either way who you identify with

but dont try to present yourself as some neutral, third party in the discussion because you arent.

 

[Thivagar]

no i dont care either way who you identify with

but dont try to present yourself as some neutral, third party in the discussion because you arent.

You brought it up as a point and now you claim you don't care.

I'm not "neutral" or whatever you think I am. I speak common sense and when I see something wrong, I say as it is. I'm not the Ban Ki Moon of PP. You have plenty of others who can do that.

 

[Slog]

You brought it up as a point and now you claim you don't care.

I'm not "neutral" or whatever you think I am. I speak common sense and when I see something wrong, I say as it is. I'm not the Ban Ki Moon of PP. You have plenty of others who can do that.

Yeah I don't care who you identify with

Doesn't mean I won't point out the hypocrisy when I see it

 

[Thivagar]

Yeah I don't care who you identify with

Doesn't mean I won't point out the hypocrisy when I see it

Oh so im the hypocrite ? Cool

 

[jusarrived]

I dont support the beef ban , its a big mistake imo .

 

[jusarrived]

I agree with you my dearest friend. Cow is sacred according to majority of India's population, what is so wrong about a government banning the consumption of its holy animal ? I think Pakistan's law of banning pork is ridiculous.

its sacred only for Hindus . it should not matter how Muslims or Christians treat cows .

 

[CricketCartoons]

its sacred only for Hindus . it should not matter how Muslims or Christians treat cows .

Wow. So how is it sacred if I don't ask Muslims or Christians to respect my beliefs? They are free to do anything as long as my beliefs are respected.

 

[jusarrived]

Another day. Another apologist post for Jndia by Thivagar whose allegiance is to his Tamil roots rather than Sri Lanka his country of origin

Anyways Pork is banned in Pakistan? There's no demand actually. Yes alcohol is banned but non Muslims are still allowed. In any case Pakistan never takes the moral high ground of being a secular society

Are you serious about no demand for bacon and pork chops ?

the bolded part is actually a stupid argument .
How about I kill a person and say am not trying to be a good Human being , so its all ok ?

 

[jusarrived]

Wow. So how is it sacred if I don't ask Muslims or Christians to respect my beliefs? They are free to do anything as long as my beliefs are respected.

My beliefs are behind my closed doors .
You are just asking to force my beliefs on Muslims and Christians , thats no respecting it .

The one thing am proud of my community is that we have moved on from lot of backward thinking and blind beliefs , most of us are allowed to live the way we want without being judged . This ban is actually a step backward and disappointing .

 

[CricketCartoons]

My beliefs are behind my closed doors .
You are just asking to force my beliefs on Muslims and Christians , thats no respecting it .

The one thing am proud of my community is that we have moved on from lot of backward thinking and blind beliefs , most of us are allowed to live the way we want without being judged . This ban is actually a step backward and disappointing .

if my beliefs are behind closed doors then their belief should also be behind closed doors. No slaughtering in open and selling beef biryani in open. Goose and gander.

 

[jusarrived]

if my beliefs are behind closed doors then their belief should also be behind closed doors. No slaughtering in open and selling beef biryani in open. Goose and gander.

Or I could just avoid places where they are slaughtered and sell Biryani . That cant be too difficult .

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

My beliefs are behind my closed doors .
You are just asking to force my beliefs on Muslims and Christians , thats no respecting it .

The one thing am proud of my community is that we have moved on from lot of backward thinking and blind beliefs , most of us are allowed to live the way we want without being judged . This ban is actually a step backward and disappointing .

If you have moved on a lot from backward thinking, then how is it that beef bans are a new phenomena that too under a govt which was voted in as a party to champion Hindutva cause? Something doesn't add up here.

 

[jusarrived]

If you have moved on a lot from backward thinking, then how is it that beef bans are a new phenomena that too under a govt which was voted in as a party to champion Hindutva cause? Something doesn't add up here.

I hope you realise this is a country of 1.2 Billion people ,the news which gets reported and you read are just handful incidents and that does not remotely reflect how our society has evolved . its practices like Sati , child marriage, Dowry etc which have mostly moved on from , these are things which are lot more difficult to get rid off .
Beef ban can be revoked in a day and I think I already said its a step backward , the point is an average Indian bothered about these things ? I dont think so . Infact more and more Hindus eat beef these days , than they did 10 years back .

As for BJP , I support them too and like most people its for them being growth oriented and progressive in comparison to other parties . A lot of my investments depend on how business friendly the Govt is and so far they have done all the right things ( mostly) .
In spite of this trust me , they will be voted out if they bring in more stupid laws like the beef ban irrespective of how we do economically under them .

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I like how Modi fans are always quick to point to economic policies of the BJP as if the Hindutva ideology they have always campaigned on was just a sideshow nuisance. How they have pulled the wool over the eyes of the international community and continue to attempt it on social media sites like this one.

Maybe you can tell my why can't some political party campaign on just economics if the religion aspect isn't a major factor?

 

[LastManstanding]

I like how Modi fans are always quick to point to economic policies of the BJP as if the Hindutva ideology they have always campaigned on was just a sideshow nuisance. How they have pulled the wool over the eyes of the international community and continue to attempt it on social media sites like this one.

Maybe you can tell my why can't some political party campaign on just economics if the religion aspect isn't a major factor?

Of course, it was Hindutva ideology which polarized the whole Indian population (who elected "secular" Congress in 2009) to electing fascist leader Modi in 2014. Gazillions scams unearthed during Congress era had nothing to do with people opting for alternate party. Why would they care about putting food for their children when they can establish Hindu Rashtra and put muslims of India back in their place.

 

[street cricketer]

So the Uniform Civil Code has been the talk of the town in India these days. You know it is when our great Arnab talks (shouts) for 2 hours on the issue.

So what exactly is this.. does this include things like the beef ban? Or only the personal laws?

 

[Thivagar]

its sacred only for Hindus . it should not matter how Muslims or Christians treat cows .

We got an apologist over here. What kind of Hindu allows their sacred symbol to be butchered in their own country. After all, it is "Hindustan" and not "Multireligioustan". If no one can eat Pork in Pakistan because it is "Haram" in their majority religion, why should you allow your sacred symbol to be killed in your country ? Might as well write the entire India to the US government.

 

[Buffet]

We got an apologist over here. What kind of Hindu allows their sacred symbol to be butchered in their own country. After all, it is "Hindustan" and not "Multireligioustan". If no one can eat Pork in Pakistan because it is "Haram" in their majority religion, why should you allow your sacred symbol to be killed in your country ? Might as well write the entire India to the US government.

Is there any benefit of following Pakistan here? If not then it hardly matters what happens in Pakistan or some other country.

 

[Buffet]

Also, it looks like beef is eaten by lots folks who follow Hinduism as well. If you really want to convey that beef shouldn't be eaten due to religious sensitivity then first thing to do would be stop Hindus from eating beef.

 

[jusarrived]

We got an apologist over here. What kind of Hindu allows their sacred symbol to be butchered in their own country. After all, it is "Hindustan" and not "Multireligioustan". If no one can eat Pork in Pakistan because it is "Haram" in their majority religion, why should you allow your sacred symbol to be killed in your country ? Might as well write the entire India to the US government.

lol am anything but an apologist . As a Hindu and an Indian , there are lot more important issues than worrying about these trivial things . These things did not bother us for hundreds of years , why now ? Why just stop at cow , arent all living being sacred for us ?
Why should I worry about what happens in Pakistan ?

 

[Slog]

We got an apologist over here. What kind of Hindu allows their sacred symbol to be butchered in their own country. After all, it is "Hindustan" and not "Multireligioustan". If no one can eat Pork in Pakistan because it is "Haram" in their majority religion, why should you allow your sacred symbol to be killed in your country ? Might as well write the entire India to the US government.

Funny to see you throw the apologist jibe.

Anyways a question. Hop you answer. Is India officially a Hindu state or a secular state?