[VIDEOS] No Muslim representation in India’s cabinet as Modi starts third term, is this finally the dawn of a complete hindu rashtra?

[GLORY OF '92]

Unfortunately the Indian Muslims are an illiterate, weak and poor people. There's no rescuing them.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Western secularism is suicidal.

Do you mean the French Concept of Secularism? Complete delinking of state and religion. Why is that suicidal?

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Unfortunately the Indian Muslims are an illiterate, weak and poor people. There's no rescuing them.

Really?? The fall behind their countrymen in education and there are reasons for that but I would say a decent chunk of them certainly live far better quality of life then peeps in west of Wagah.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Do you mean the French Concept of Secularism? Complete delinking of state and religion. Why is that suicidal?

To me secularism does not mean losing nation’s cultural identity. West is going that way. It’s a deliberate move by globalists and far left to eradicate all kinds of cultural and gender identities that west has.

All religions can coexist but the original culture must still remain and should be the default culture of the country.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Unfortunately the Indian Muslims are an illiterate, weak and poor people. There's no rescuing them.

No one in India is stopping Indian Muslims from education and jobs. They are backward because it is mostly self inflicted. They do not prioritize education. They are shackled up by their own culture.

There are millions of Muslims in India who are quite affluent and modern. But they are still in minority. They constantly get judged by people for their behavior and dressing in public.

 

[rpant_gabba]

To me secularism does not mean losing nation’s cultural identity. West is going that way. It’s a deliberate move by globalists and far left to eradicate all kinds of cultural and gender identities that west has.

All religions can coexist but the original culture must still remain and should be the default culture of the country.

define original culture.

Is sanatana dharma original to tamilnadu?

Diwali celebration in south is naraksuara's death and in north it is about Rama's return. which one is original?

 

[Hextro]

You did exactly what I told you were doing it before. Making the same mistake again.

You are using linguistic aspect and others are using sociological aspect. Now let's dive in:

This is from your own quote: The term "minority group" has different usages, depending on the context. This very line exactly shows what I was writing before.

The very next line of your quoted words in the wiki page:

You are correct. I intentionally included that portion in the quote because I didn't want to be selective with the sources I shared. This is why I am asking you to provide a credible source that interprets the minority status of Muslims in India the same way you do. The arguments you are making could be used to claim that Christians and Sikhs are some sort of majority if we narrow the definition of the word to an extreme degree, as you are doing.

Interestingly, even under the sociological context, Muslims in India are considered a minority. Can you provide any factors that support the notion that Muslims are a majority in any context? I would like you to start by giving some examples. In what way are they not a minority? Are you referring to their political, social, economic, or cultural positions? What exactly excludes them from the minority label, which your government assigns to them?

The core of your argument(or the start of it) was that I misinterpreted what one of the Indian posters said. Here is what that poster actually stated.

When the population is negligible compared to the majority population.

Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are minorities in India.

Christians are borderline minority. Their numbers are drastically increasing and soon they should not be considered minority.

According to this poster, Christians, who constitute 2.37% of India's population based on the latest survey, are on the verge of no longer being considered a minority. It seems the poster believes that once Christians reach 2.5-3% of the population, they should no longer hold minority status. Can you explain the sociological logic behind this argument? You mentioned that I misinterpreted the poster in your first reply, so please help me understand their perspective correctly.

Oh, and Sikhs make up 1.72% of India's population, yet the focus seems to be on Christians. Can you clarify why this is the case?

You guys are very unique, I'll give you that.

And make sure to return with a credible source that supports the claim that Muslims in India are not considered a minority.

You really do believe that people are that stupid to be arguing about logics that your own reasoning is flawed of? You either skipped in some excitement or you have very selective reading to fulfil some agendas.

That's quite ironic coming from you. You completely overlooked half of my post and ignored the fact that even your own government disagrees with your interpretation legally. Allow me to refresh your memory.

Minority doesn't ONLY mean religious minority. Identities can be forged in many ways. A brahmin is a minority. Even less than numbers than muslims in India.

We're discussing religious minorities, not arbitrary titles assigned by Indians to each other.

Muslims are the second largest religious majority. Do you deny this?

Christians are the third-largest religious group in India. Are they still considered a minority? Think before you write next time. Or should I say, "dO yE dENy tHiS?" Lol.

Majority and minority are loaded terms and misused. They imply just because your community is less in numbers, you are weak. But that is not true. Do you deny that?

We're in a thread titled 'No Muslim representation in India’s cabinet'. Does that convey a sense of power to you or weakness? Let's be serious here.

The lengths you go to for your tomfoolery...

Raise your level, and stop reducing the argument to "cambridge says minority means less in number, so my peepuls are minority".

Cambridge holds more authority on the English language than any of your 'peepuls' in history.

Also, please don't categorize me as one of your people next time. Muslim Indians are Indians ultimately, but I assure you, I'm not Indian.

 

[Statpadder Inc]

Cambridge holds more authority on the English language than any of your 'peepuls' in history.

Also, please don't categorize me as one of your people next time. Muslim Indians are Indians ultimately, but I assure you, I'm not Indian.

Ironic coming from the boys played well gang.

And for your 2nd point, well thank God for that

 

[Champ_Pal]

define original culture.

Is sanatana dharma original to tamilnadu?

Diwali celebration in south is naraksuara's death and in north it is about Rama's return. which one is original?

Both are original.

Diwali celebrations have existed in India for centuries or even millennia.

Any culture that exists in a country for several centuries and it is followed by the majority natives is the original culture. Not hard to understand I believe.

 

[CricketCartoons]

We're discussing religious minorities, not arbitrary titles assigned by Indians to each other.

Why only religious minorities? why not ethnic, linguistic, caste minorities ?

If you think these are arbitrary, then may I remind you of fall of Dacca. Which "arbitrary" identity was central to it?

 

[Hextro]

Ironic coming from the boys played well gang.

I don't know any of the Pakistani players, so why are you attributing their English skills (or lack thereof) to me? By that logic, would you consider yourself part of the more popular "call center" stereotype?

And for your 2nd point, well thank God for that

I agree, thank god.

Why only religious minorities? why not ethnic, linguistic, caste minorities ?

If you think these are arbitrary, then may I remind you of fall of Dacca. Which "arbitrary" identity was central to it?

Could you please remind me of the thread's title? The thread focuses on a religious minority, and you're questioning why I'm discussing the very topic at hand. Have you been following the conversation? If anyone denied that any of the groups you've listed are not minorities, I'd disagree and argue with them too.

Do you acknowledge that Muslims in India are a minority? If not, could you provide clear reasons for that perspective? So far, you've only mentioned other minority groups and questioned whether they also qualify as minorities. Yes, those groups are minorities too.

Now, can you finally answer the question?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Both are original.

Diwali celebrations have existed in India for centuries or even millennia.

Any culture that exists in a country for several centuries and it is followed by the majority natives is the original culture. Not hard to understand I believe.

what an intellectually dishonest answer.

 

[Itachi]

You are correct. I intentionally included that portion in the quote because I didn't want to be selective with the sources I shared. This is why I am asking you to provide a credible source that interprets the minority status of Muslims in India the same way you do.

Read my posts again. I never shared my view of minority in the first place. I only wrote about the different perspective of linguistics and sociological context.

The arguments you are making could be used to claim that Christians and Sikhs are some sort of majority if we narrow the definition of the word to an extreme degree, as you are doing.

It's not narrow. It is called interpretive methodology where you define one criteria based upon various parameters. For example, as an ethnic group, brahmins will be minority. But will you say that as na ethnic group, brahmins are discriminated too?

You are looking at only numbers and making conclusions. This is called positivist methodology which was used by Comte, Laplace, Simon etc... in the 19th century. But it was fallen out of favor after 19th century because while it does make sense applying it in homogenous western culture but it fails in heterogenous society where context plays a very important part.
Then we have Garfinkel, weber or even mead who proposed intepretive methodology so that context could also be taken under consideration.

Apply the same argument of brahmins as ethnic minority..... but use interpretive methodology this time. You'll see the difference automatically.

Interestingly, even under the sociological context, Muslims in India are considered a minority. Can you provide any factors that support the notion that Muslims are a majority in any context? I would like you to start by giving some examples. In what way are they not a minority? Are you referring to their political, social, economic, or cultural positions? What exactly excludes them from the minority label, which your government assigns to them?

The core of your argument(or the start of it) was that I misinterpreted what one of the Indian posters said. Here is what that poster actually stated.

I don't use the term minority or majority because in my opinion, in doesn't make any sense. For example, let's take x community and Y community in terms of Karl Marx's perspective. In a region there can be 50 bourgeoisie (Owner of means of production) from the X community against 1000 proleteriat (worker) from the Y community. By numbers, X is a minority. But if we are talking from oppression perspective, the word minority here doesn't reflect the same as you are using in this thread. because minority != oppression.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Really?? The fall behind their countrymen in education and there are reasons for that but I would say a decent chunk of them certainly live far better quality of life then peeps in west of Wagah.

Residents outraged after muslim woman gets government flat, massive protests erupts in Gujarat's Vadodara

What are the reasons for this protest?

 

[Champ_Pal]

what an intellectually dishonest answer.

What is dishonest about that? Please explain.

 

[rpant_gabba]

What is dishonest about that? Please explain.

if you have to ask that, we are wasting each others time.

 

[Hextro]

Read my posts again. I never shared my view of minority in the first place. I only wrote about the different perspective of linguistics and sociological context.

Try not to deflect. Why are you attempting to correct me on something you don't even have an opinion on? That doesn't seem very logical, does it?

You jumped in and accused me of not understanding your countrymen's perspective. If you weren't aware of the context of the discussion, you shouldn't have intervened but we can address that later if you want.

-----

I keep asking you the same questions, and you haven't attempted to answer them. First, I asked why the Indian government classifies Muslims as a minority, and you've refused to respond. That’s fine (maybe the government didn't consider the sociological complexities of India's demographics). However, my issue is that you keep insisting I don't understand the context, even though the user I replied to didn't say anything to suggest a deeper meaning.

Here's the comment I first replied to -

When the population is negligible compared to the majority population.

Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are minorities in India.

Christians are borderline minority. Their numbers are drastically increasing and soon they should not be considered minority.

Hindus are the majority and Muslims are the 2nd largest majority.

In Pakistan, Muslims are 98% of the population. So anyone who does not follow Islam will become a minority.

There's no hidden meaning here. This person genuinely believes that Muslims, and soon Christians, should be considered a majority. I was hoping you'd elaborate on their behalf given that I'm misinterpating the sociological aspects of their comment.

But I'll set aside why you started this discussion and move on to your actual points.

It's not narrow. It is called interpretive methodology where you define one criteria based upon various parameters. For example, as an ethnic group, brahmins will be minority. But will you say that as na ethnic group, brahmins are discriminated too?

I've already clarified the point about Brahmins in this thread. Ethnically, they are a minority, while Muslims are a minority in a religious sense.

Apologies if I misunderstand what Brahmins are, but from what I know, they are a Hindu caste. I'm not very familiar with the caste system, but I referred to them as an ethnic group because, from what I've read, almost all of them are born into their caste, meaning that there's a genetic aspect.

You've repeatedly mentioned that multiple parameters determine whether a group is discriminated against. Could you name a few parameters that would sociologically classify Muslims in India as not being a minority?

The main flaw in your argument is disregarding that Brahmins are still part of the majority Hindu population, despite their caste placing them at the top of the hierarchy. It's similar to how American billionaires are a minority in terms of their numbers, yet they typically belong to the broader population demographics of being white and male. A stronger argument would be that Dalits face discrimination despite being part of the Hindu majority. You could bring out a sociology textbook to support that case.

Apply the same argument of brahmins as ethnic minority..... but use interpretive methodology this time. You'll see the difference automatically.

Looks like I was right about Brahmins being considered an ethnic group, nice.

You are looking at only numbers and making conclusions. This is called positivist methodology which was used by Comte, Laplace, Simon etc... in the 19th century. But it was fallen out of favor after 19th century because while it does make sense applying it in homogenous western culture but it fails in heterogenous society where context plays a very important part.
Then we have Garfinkel, weber or even mead who proposed intepretive methodology so that context could also be taken under consideration.

Apply the same argument of brahmins as ethnic minority..... but use interpretive methodology this time. You'll see the difference
automatically.

I don't use the term minority or majority because in my opinion, in doesn't make any sense. For example, let's take x community and Y community in terms of Karl Marx's perspective. In a region there can be 50 bourgeoisie (Owner of means of production) from the X community against 1000 proleteriat (worker) from the Y community. By numbers, X is a minority. But if we are talking from oppression perspective, the word minority here doesn't reflect the same as you are using in this thread.

But if we apply 'interpretive methodology,' could we then argue that Dalits are a majority group that isn't discriminated against or a minority group that doesn't face unique hardships? We know these statements aren't true, but could someone manipulate certain parameters to support such claims by interpreting things differently? Or do you want to discard the words "minority" and "majority" completely?

As I mentioned with the billionaire example, you can break down groups into castes and sects to find specific answers. However, in most cases, religious and ethnic minorities face discrimination, especially in developing countries.

Not all minorities are uniform. Many from the top 1% can fit into the broader 80% population in some ways. However, when it comes to religious minorities, the distinction is clear.

But if we are talking from oppression perspective, the word minority here doesn't reflect the same as you are using in this thread.

Don't forget that you guys brought up the oppression angle in the first place. It's only right that you justify your position.

because minority != oppression.

So, do you agree with your government that Muslims in India are a minority? It seems many people here got defensive, thinking I'm discussing discrimination when I'm(or was) talking about minority status. The discrimination aspect is obvious.

 

[Itachi]

Try not to deflect. Why are you attempting to correct me on something you don't even have an opinion on? That doesn't seem very logical, does it?

Where did i say I don't have an opinion? I said, I haven't shared in this thread. I agree with another poster here that you argue in the mode of kindergarten arguements.

You jumped in and accused me of not understanding your countrymen's perspective.

Accused? Just because I write a different opinion that doesn't mean I am accusing you. There's some serious insecurity needs to be involved here where you bring difference of opinion to accuse.

If you weren't aware of the context of the discussion, you shouldn't have intervened but we can address that later if you want.

You were asking people about minority and their definition.

-----

I keep asking you the same questions, and you haven't attempted to answer them. First, I asked why the Indian government classifies Muslims as a minority, and you've refused to respond.

I don't know why Indian gvt. does it. Better ask them because I am not representing Indian govt. here nor I am claiming. Am I?

That’s fine (maybe the government didn't consider the sociological complexities of India's demographics). However, my issue is that you keep insisting I don't understand the context, even though the user I replied to didn't say anything to suggest a deeper meaning.

Quote his reply because it's a long thread and I don't know you are talking about whom.

Here's the comment I first replied to -



There's no hidden meaning here. This person genuinely believes that Muslims, and soon Christians, should be considered a majority. I was hoping you'd elaborate on their behalf given that I'm misinterpating the sociological aspects of their comment.

But I'll set aside why you started this discussion and move on to your actual points.



I've already clarified the point about Brahmins in this thread. Ethnically, they are a minority, while Muslims are a minority in a religious sense.

You haven't. I already put out two different perspective in societal aspect. Positivist and interpretive. It's not my problem that you didn't address any of those. I want from sociological perspective because I already told before, I don't support positivist method that you are opting for and it has been already debunked 100 years ago.

Apologies if I misunderstand what Brahmins are, but from what I know, they are a Hindu caste. I'm not very familiar with the caste system, but I referred to them as an ethnic group because, from what I've read, almost all of them are born into their caste, meaning that there's a genetic aspect.

You've repeatedly mentioned that multiple parameters determine whether a group is discriminated against. Could you name a few parameters that would sociologically classify Muslims in India as not being a minority?

The main flaw in your argument is disregarding that Brahmins are still part of the majority Hindu population, despite their caste placing them at the top of the hierarchy. It's similar to how American billionaires are a minority in terms of their numbers, yet they typically belong to the broader population demographics of being white and male. A stronger argument would be that Dalits face discrimination despite being part of the Hindu majority. You could bring out a sociology textbook to support that case.

I am not talking about religion. I am talking about ethnic group. Both are totally different aspect.

All you can talk about is religion. But human society doesn't revolve around only religion as parameter. That's your biggest flaw in your argument.

Looks like I was right about Brahmins being considered an ethnic group, nice.



But if we apply 'interpretive methodology,' could we then argue that Dalits are a majority group that isn't discriminated against or a minority group that doesn't face unique hardships? We know these statements aren't true, but could someone manipulate certain parameters to support such claims by interpreting things differently? Or do you want to discard the words "minority" and "majority" completely?

I already stated before. I don't use minority/majority because it is ambiguous. If you want to mention them, then you'll have to bring the subjective context alongwith it. Otherwise it makes no sense.

As I mentioned with the billionaire example, you can break down groups into castes and sects to find specific answers. However, in most cases, religious and ethnic minorities face discrimination, especially in developing countries.

In every countries, majority/minority everyone faces discrimination. You see one side of the coin, but I see society as a whole and I see discrimination on both.

In muslim countries, there's gender discrimination. Why women are facing discrimination? Because women are less in number?

Not all minorities are uniform. Many from the top 1% can fit into the broader 80% population in some ways. However, when it comes to religious minorities, the distinction is clear.

How?

Don't forget that you guys brought up the oppression angle in the first place. It's only right that you justify your position.

Heh? Then what was your point about "minority" in the first place then?

So, do you agree with your government that Muslims in India are a minority? It seems many people here got defensive, thinking I'm discussing discrimination when I'm(or was) talking about minority status. The discrimination aspect is obvious.

I have already said multiple times before. I don't even use the words majority/minority for obvious reasons. They make no sense from interpretive societal perspective. Since I don't even use the term, how can I agree/disagree with it?

 

[HalBass9]

Is Hindutva still attempting to reconquer India after Modi's third re-election? One might expect that following the RSS supreme bigot's second re-election, India would already be under Hindutva influence. The moral regression of India appears sluggish despite being the fifth-largest economy, India should face no challenges in accelerating its moral decline, as Hindutva proponents claim indifference towards international perceptions of the country.

 

[Hextro]

Read my posts again. I never shared my view of minority in the first place. I only wrote about the different perspective of linguistics and sociological context.

Where did i say I don't have an opinion? I said, I haven't shared in this thread. I agree with another poster here that you argue in the mode of kindergarten arguements.

Wait, so you do have a 'view of minority' (which I assume means an opinion), but you just haven't shared it yet?

If you feel that you haven't shared your 'view of minority' in your most recent reply, feel free to share it in your next one.

kindergarten arguements.

Isn't your argument just denial? Where does that rank grade-wise, university?

Accused? Just because I write a different opinion that doesn't mean I am accusing you. There's some serious insecurity needs to be involved here where you bring difference of opinion to accuse.

I hate that I have to explain English words to you guys over and over again.

Accuse definition - "a claim that (someone) has done something wrong."

In your second reply -

You are using linguistic aspect and others are using sociological aspect. Now let's dive in:

You accused me of misinterpreting the user I was replying to, implying that I did something wrong. This perfectly fits the definition.

Do you no longer believe in the word 'accuse'? Do you want to talk about the sociological interpretation of the word?

You were asking people about minority and their definition.

I don't know why Indian gvt. does it. Better ask them because I am not representing Indian govt. here nor I am claiming. Am I?

Do you think they're wrong? Given that they are the authority in India on this matter, wouldn't they know better than you? Do you believe that all religious minority groups in India should lose their minority status? You've made it clear you don't believe in the concept of 'minority', so shouldn't you be advocating for such a change? You should make your opinion clear if you do.

Quote his reply because it's a long thread and I don't know you are talking about whom.

Did you even read the comment you're replying to? I quoted the person in the very next line.

However, my issue is that you keep insisting I don't understand the context, even though the user I replied to didn't say anything to suggest a deeper meaning.

Here's the comment I first replied to -

When the population is negligible compared to the majority population.

Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are minorities in India.

Christians are borderline minority. Their numbers are drastically increasing and soon they should not be considered minority.

Hindus are the majority and Muslims are the 2nd largest majority.

In Pakistan, Muslims are 98% of the population. So anyone who does not follow Islam will become a minority.

At least try to pretend you're paying attention.

You haven't. I already put out two different perspective in societal aspect. Positivist and interpretive. It's not my problem that you didn't address any of those. I want from sociological perspective because I already told before, I don't support positivist method that you are opting for and it has been already debunked 100 years ago.

You're confused. I didn't point out any 'method.' I simply referred to acknowledging different demographics by comparing the population percentages of smaller groups with the largest group. E.g. minority, majority.

I am not talking about religion. I am talking about ethnic group. Both are totally different aspect.

All you can talk about is religion. But human society doesn't revolve around only religion as parameter. That's your biggest flaw in your argument.

Take a moment to read the title of this thread. Does it mention an ethnic group having zero representation in the cabinet, or does it say a religious group has zero representation?

What made you think this discussion was about ethnic groups? This is why I said you shouldn't have jumped into a discussion without understanding the context. This thread is specifically about a religious minority. Sadly, you're not the first person to bring up this irrelevant point.

I've repeatedly stated that both ethnic groups and religious groups can be minorities. If you want to discuss ethnic groups, open a new thread on that topic, and you'll find I'd make the same argument there too.

You guys keep accusing me of some imaginary bias. A mirror would come in handy in this case.

I already stated before. I don't use minority/majority because it is ambiguous.

You find it ambiguous because you're stubborn and insist on bringing up parameters that you can't clearly state or justify, all because you want to deny the straightforward meaning and importance of two words.

It's that simple.

If you want to mention them, then you'll have to bring the subjective context alongwith it. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Such as their population compared to the majority population?

In every countries, majority/minority everyone faces discrimination. You see one side of the coin, but I see society as a whole and I see discrimination on both.

Who brought up discrimination? Oh, right, you did.

It's not narrow. It is called interpretive methodology where you define one criteria based upon various parameters. For example, as an ethnic group, brahmins will be minority. But will you say that as na ethnic group, brahmins are discriminated too?

This is you using the word discrimination in our conversation for the first time, while I didn't bring up anything of the sort.

Don't forget that you guys brought up the oppression angle in the first place. It's only right that you justify your position.

Now it makes sense. You all assumed I was talking about discrimination from the beginning, which is why you were so defensive. Not a good look.

It reeks of insecurity.

In muslim countries, there's gender discrimination. Why women are facing discrimination? Because women are less in number?

Bruh, we're discussing whether Muslims are a 'majority' in India, and you're bringing up societal misogyny. The final boss of whataboutism.

How?

What do you think of when you hear '1%' and '80%' together? I'm clearly referring to wealthy individuals in this context—they can belong to broader ethnic and religious demographics while also being in the top 1% financially.

Heh? Then what was your point about "minority" in the first place then?

The user stated that Muslims should be considered a majority in India. I simply clarified the definition of the word 'majority.' You can understand the context by reading my initial comment in this thread.

I probably shouldn't have engaged in your 'sociology' discussion and instead made the context clear from the beginning. It's surprising you didn't realize this yourself.

I have already said multiple times before. I don't even use the words majority/minority for obvious reasons. They make no sense from interpretive societal perspective. Since I don't even use the term, how can I agree/disagree with it?

Dude, stop being stubborn, I'm asking a straightforward question, not a philosophical one, so don't try to make it something it is not. If you answer 'yes,' you're acknowledging that all religious groups other than Hindus in India are minorities. I can't imagine any reasonable person denying something so obvious.

If you're fixated on avoiding a direct answer, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Could you please remind me of the thread's title? The thread focuses on a religious minority, and you're questioning why I'm discussing the very topic at hand. Have you been following the conversation? If anyone denied that any of the groups you've listed are not minorities, I'd disagree and argue with them too.

Do you acknowledge that Muslims in India are a minority? If not, could you provide clear reasons for that perspective? So far, you've only mentioned other minority groups and questioned whether they also qualify as minorities. Yes, those groups are minorities too.

Now, can you finally answer the question?

Thread just talks about muslim representation. It is you who is bringing religious minority angle. If say, 15% of elected MPs are muslims, that will satisfy you as you have religion filter, but will those muslims be true representatives of all indian muslims? Or will it again like sheikhs, mirzas and syeds taking ownership of julahas, ansari and pasmandas?

Thread title NO where mentions religious minorities. You are projecting your own biases and taking it as the truth.

Do you deny that muslims as a group are the second largest religious majority? If yes, then why?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Is Hindutva still attempting to reconquer India after Modi's third re-election? One might expect that following the RSS supreme bigot's second re-election, India would already be under Hindutva influence. The moral regression of India appears sluggish despite being the fifth-largest economy, India should face no challenges in accelerating its moral decline, as Hindutva proponents claim indifference towards international perceptions of the country.

What moral decline?

 

[uppercut]

Democracy is the government of the people,from the people for the people as Abraham Lincoln once said, but there is a concept of tyranny of majority that depicts majoritarianism. That is to impose the will of majority on all no matter whether it harms a community or not. While in democracy you have to be considerate towards everyone and find a middle way to follow the wills of electorate and safeguarding the minorities.

What is the worst that happened in the last 10 years due to this tyranny?

I have asked this question numerous times... and yet to receive a proper facts based answer from any Pakistani poster yet.

 

[Hextro]

Thread just talks about muslim representation. It is you who is bringing religious minority angle.

No, it was one of your group who brought that up, as you can clearly see here.

When the population is negligible compared to the majority population.

Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are minorities in India.

Christians are borderline minority. Their numbers are drastically increasing and soon they should not be considered minority.

Hindus are the majority and Muslims are the 2nd largest majority.

In Pakistan, Muslims are 98% of the population. So anyone who does not follow Islam will become a minority.

It's shocking how many of you can't grasp the meaning of two simple words.

If say, 15% of elected MPs are muslims, that will satisfy you as you have religion filter, but will those muslims be true representatives of all indian muslims? Or will it again like sheikhs, mirzas and syeds taking ownership of julahas, ansari and pasmandas?

Use your brain and try to comprehend the conversation you chose to jump into. I didn't once mention 'discrimination' in the context of this conversation—it was your side's insecurity that brought that up mid-conversation.

I know it's hard for you (and others like you) to understand simple things, but try to wrap your head around this: claiming that Muslims are a majority in India is pure stupidity.

It's shameful that you have the audacity to call me biased.

Thread title NO where mentions religious minorities. You are projecting your own biases and taking it as the truth.

One of your countrymen didn't even understand the meaning of the word 'majority'. What's so wrong about pointing that out? Where's the bias in correcting someone's misuse of a word?

Do you deny that muslims as a group are the second largest religious majority? If yes, then why?

Why do you keep asking the same questions that I've already answered? Are you experiencing memory loss?

Your question -

Muslims are the second largest religious majority. Do you deny this?

My answer -

Christians are the third-largest religious group in India. Are they still considered a minority? Think before you write next time. Or should I say, "dO yE dENy tHiS?" Lol.

That was such a silly question that it hardly deserved a serious answer, but I indulged, just for you, Cartoon.

 

[CricketCartoons]

No, it was one of your group who brought that up, as you can clearly see here.



It's shocking how many of you can't grasp the meaning of two simple words.



Use your brain and try to comprehend the conversation you chose to jump into. I didn't once mention 'discrimination' in the context of this conversation—it was your side's insecurity that brought that up mid-conversation.

I know it's hard for you (and others like you) to understand simple things, but try to wrap your head around this: claiming that Muslims are a majority in India is pure stupidity.

It's shameful that you have the audacity to call me biased.



One of your countrymen didn't even understand the meaning of the word 'majority'. What's so wrong about pointing that out? Where's the bias in correcting someone's misuse of a word?



Why do you keep asking the same questions that I've already answered? Are you experiencing memory loss?

Your question -



My answer -



That was such a silly question that it hardly deserved a serious answer, but I indulged, just for you, Cartoon.

You said you were focusing on religious minority because that is what the thread title says, but you are clearly wrong. No where it does that. And now to save face you are bringing what some other poster wrote. Why not say that in the first place, that you are discussing religious minority because someone brought it up, instead of pretending it is the thread title which does that?

You never answered that muslims are the second largest religious majority. You only used a question in response to the question. Wonder why you are going to such lengths so that you can stick the minority label to your favourite people. Is it because it brings political benefits?

 

[Champ_Pal]

Also, I am almost 100% certain that most Hindutva wear the tag of Hindutva with pride, whereas I will take an offense when anyone would call me extremist simply because I do not support mass killing and religious supremacy over any minority in any part of the world.

Because Hindutva means India and its culture first before anything else.

If you are an Indian and living in India, you should proudly wear that tag. If you are ashamed of being a Hundutvavadi, then you are ashamed of Indian culture.

 

[Hitman]

Calling to end genocide does not make any one Islamist, rather a compassionate Human being.

Not putting an ounce of blame and not a word of condemnation on Hamas for what they did on October last year makes one a compassionate human being as well, right?

 

[HalBass9]

Not putting an ounce of blame and not a word of condemnation on Hamas for what they did on October last year makes one a compassionate human being as well, right?

What did you want me to condemn?

Is it lost of life on October 7th? I do condemn that.

But condemning october 7th without condemning october 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd..... and then finding justification of continuation of killing every innocent child in Gaza makes every Hindtuva a supporter of Genocide.

Try again.

 

[HalBass9]

Because Hindutva means India and its culture first before anything else.

If you are an Indian and living in India, you should proudly wear that tag. If you are ashamed of being a Hundutvavadi, then you are ashamed of Indian culture.

Thanks for confirming your support of Hindutva supremacy as most Hindutva on this forum usually evade when ask to confirm their support for Hindutva supremacy.

I believe this conclude that India is a Hindutva rashtra since 2014.

 

[Hitman]

What did you want me to condemn?

Is it lost of life on October 7th? I do condemn that.

But condemning october 7th without condemning october 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd..... and then finding justification of continuation of killing every innocent child in Gaza makes every Hindtuva a supporter of Genocide.

Try again.

I don't support what Israel is doing. And please don't pretend. Time and again you have defected whenever the issue of Hamas's actions on October last year has been brought up. It's only when you have no option left that you compellingly say that you condemn it.​

 

[HalBass9]

I don't support what Israel is doing. And please don't pretend. Time and again you have defected whenever the issue of Hamas's actions on October last year has been brought up. It's only when you have no option left that you compellingly say that you condemn it.​

Find that quote, I challenge you. Otherwise apologize.

I do understand the reason behind what hamas did on october 7th, that is not justification of killing innocents, just as many reputable Jews scholars have explained, case in point, Noam Chomsky, Finkelstein, and many other. Guess what, they are labelled by Hindutva bigots and Zio, as Islamist sympathizer. LOL

Like I have said, try again.

 

[RexRex]

Because Hindutva means India and its culture first before anything else.

No it doesn't. That would mean people who don't subscribe to hindutva don't put India & its culture first (whatever that means) before anything else.

 

[HalBass9]

I don't support what Israel is doing. And please don't pretend. Time and again you have defected whenever the issue of Hamas's actions on October last year has been brought up. It's only when you have no option left that you compellingly say that you condemn it.​

Yes, you do, you support Israel when you ask to kill every Hamas member because the only way to end hamas is by killing every Palestinian in Gaza.

So enough of pretending that you do not support Israel actions because that is what everyone is condemning as there is no way of destroying hamas without killing every Palestinian. Palestinian will not stop resisting until they are liberated or dead and that resistance by the western world is labelled as extremism just as any past resistance were against colonialism.

Anyways, this thread isn't about Israel or Palestine, it was derailed by me when Hindtuva bigot tried to put label on anyone who highlighted Hindutva bigotry.

 

[Hextro]

You said you were focusing on religious minority because that is what the thread title says, but you are clearly wrong. No where it does that. And now to save face you are bringing what some other poster wrote. Why not say that in the first place, that you are discussing religious minority because someone brought it up, instead of pretending it is the thread title which does that?

What's the matter with you? I'm genuinely asking.

First off, because this thread is about a religious minority, I made it clear that religious minorities are indeed minorities, as the name suggests.

2nd - I've clarified many, many times that I only corrected the user's language regarding religious minorities because that was the topic they were discussing. There is nothing more to it. Why are you still having difficulty understanding this even after I have provided the context multiple times?

Both the title and the original user I replied to are the reasons why this conversation is about religious minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if you're confused about this.

You never answered that muslims are the second largest religious majority. You only used a question in response to the question.

That's because being the second-largest majority means absolutely nothing. Hindus are the second largest majority in Pakistan, does that mean they are not a minority? How could you even think that I would avoid answering such a silly question? The arguments you're trying to make are unironically below kindergarten level since even young children can understand what a minority means.

It's so silly.

Wonder why you are going to such lengths so that you can stick the minority label to your favourite people.

Again with the pathetic bias argument. First of all, I have consistently stated that all of these groups (Christians, Jains, Sikhs, and Muslims) are minorities in India. I haven't once said that Muslims are the only minority in India, only someone like you would assume that I'd have an opinion like that.

With that being said, which of the minorities I've mentioned do you think I am biased in favor of? I laughed at the first person I replied to on this thread when they stated that Christians are a borderline minority in India.

Don't try to pull the "you're biased" card again.

Is it because it brings political benefits?

I'm not Indian. Why should I care about political benefits in that country? Think about that rationally.

What bothers me the most about you is that you keep asking the same questions even after they've been thoroughly answered. What's next, are you going to try to manipulate the interpretation of my words like you and your friends tried to do with the literal meanings of "minority" and "majority"?

Some introspection would do you wonders, Cartoon.

 

[Hitman]

Yes, you do, you support Israel when you ask to kill every Hamas member because the only way to end hamas is by killing every Palestinian in Gaza.

Much like how you support every bit of what Hamas did in October laster year. You enjoyed every bit of it.

 

[HalBass9]

Much like how you support every bit of what Hamas did in October laster year. You enjoyed every bit of it.

you do not know how to justify genocide anymore while also justifying Hindutva religious seperamacy in India.

since most Hindutva have already exposed themselves so the only option and comment is left to call anyone who expose Hindutva bigotry, a terrorist or Islamist, which is so early 2000’s, ain't no one is buying it anymore.

 

[Champ_Pal]

No it doesn't. That would mean people who don't subscribe to hindutva don't put India & its culture first (whatever that means) before anything else.

If you put India and its culture first, you are a Hindutvavadi automatically.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Thanks for confirming your support of Hindutva supremacy as most Hindutva on this forum usually evade when ask to confirm their support for Hindutva supremacy.

I believe this conclude that India is a Hindutva rashtra since 2014.

If you are Pakistani, then don't you want your country men to put Pakistan and its culture first before say African or Japanese or Chinese?

If the citizens of a country do not put their countries culture in higher importance, then that country will lose its identity. Every country should have citizens that should be proud of their culture and put their culture first before any foreign culture.

 

[uppercut]

What did you want me to condemn?

Is it lost of life on October 7th? I do condemn that.

But condemning october 7th without condemning october 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd..... and then finding justification of continuation of killing every innocent child in Gaza makes every Hindtuva a supporter of Genocide.

Try again.

Sure lets do that ... lets go all the way back to 632AD. Pretty sure you will come up with "Creative" means to dodge what is plainly visible: Complete eradication of Jews from vast swaths of land in the entire middle east and north africa.

Its quite astonishing and really eye opening how even the educated Muslims have absolutely no qualms about Islamic rule and what it meant to non-muslims and still does to this day!!

And then to top it off you have the cheek to claim moral highground on this topic??? Shameful to say the least.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Sure lets do that ... lets go all the way back to 632AD. Pretty sure you will come up with "Creative" means to dodge what is plainly visible: Complete eradication of Jews from vast swaths of land in the entire middle east and north africa.

Its quite astonishing and really eye opening how even the educated Muslims have absolutely no qualms about Islamic rule and what it meant to non-muslims and still does to this day!!

And then to top it off you have the cheek to claim moral highground on this topic??? Shameful to say the least.

I have said it many times

When in majority its Muslim rule first. When in minority its all about minority and human rights.

Most muslim majority nations put Islam first and treat minorities poorly.

But posters here have the gall to talk about "Tyranny of Majority" Secularism Hindutva etc etc etc.

Their hypocrisy is being exposed all over the world and it reflects in the rise of RW politics around the world.

 

[deltexas]

A list of secular countries in the world :

Secular state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How many are Islamic majority countries in this? That answers your query. No single country in the middle east is on the list. When it's an Islamic majority - secularism goes out the window and minorities are treated like dust and have no rights pretty much. Truth is bitter I guess. For all those complaining , Ind has been Hindu majority forever and it's still secular when they could have changed the constitution to a Hindu one. Personally , no country should be a religious country. In the USA here , you can practice whatever you want and everyone has equal rights. And Ind should forever be a secular democracy as well and therein lies its greatest strength. Never want Ind to be a Hindu state where religion controls your whole life like the Islamic nations.

 

[HalBass9]

Sure lets do that ... lets go all the way back to 632AD. Pretty sure you will come up with "Creative" means to dodge what is plainly visible: Complete eradication of Jews from vast swaths of land in the entire middle east and north africa.

Its quite astonishing and really eye opening how even the educated Muslims have absolutely no qualms about Islamic rule and what it meant to non-muslims and still does to this day!!

And then to top it off you have the cheek to claim moral highground on this topic??? Shameful to say the least.

Damn bro! Must be difficult for you to grow upon a hateful narrator and live among over billion Muslims. I guess it must be miserable gathering where people have to sit with someone like yourself.

Stop being miserable to justify genocide in 2024 with whatever reason.

Do you realize except Hindutva bigots ain't no one take you seriously. Lol

 

[CricketCartoons]

What's the matter with you? I'm genuinely asking.

First off, because this thread is about a religious minority, I made it clear that religious minorities are indeed minorities, as the name suggests.

2nd - I've clarified many, many times that I only corrected the user's language regarding religious minorities because that was the topic they were discussing. There is nothing more to it. Why are you still having difficulty understanding this even after I have provided the context multiple times?

Both the title and the original user I replied to are the reasons why this conversation is about religious minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if you're confused about this.



That's because being the second-largest majority means absolutely nothing. Hindus are the second largest majority in Pakistan, does that mean they are not a minority? How could you even think that I would avoid answering such a silly question? The arguments you're trying to make are unironically below kindergarten level since even young children can understand what a minority means.

It's so silly.



Again with the pathetic bias argument. First of all, I have consistently stated that all of these groups (Christians, Jains, Sikhs, and Muslims) are minorities in India. I haven't once said that Muslims are the only minority in India, only someone like you would assume that I'd have an opinion like that.

With that being said, which of the minorities I've mentioned do you think I am biased in favor of? I laughed at the first person I replied to on this thread when they stated that Christians are a borderline minority in India.

Don't try to pull the "you're biased" card again.



I'm not Indian. Why should I care about political benefits in that country? Think about that rationally.

What bothers me the most about you is that you keep asking the same questions even after they've been thoroughly answered. What's next, are you going to try to manipulate the interpretation of my words like you and your friends tried to do with the literal meanings of "minority" and "majority"?

Some introspection would do you wonders, Cartoon.

This thread is about muslim representation. You are making it into a religious minority debate, instead of seeking what will be the true muslim representation. Does the Waqf Board, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board etc represent indian muslims or are they fiefdoms of a select communities?

Instead of asking the real questions, your only agenda is to win the minority tag for your favourite community because that label comes with many added benefits, and behind that label the select communities can carry on exploiting muslims emotions for their personal benefits.

 

[Hitman]

you do not know how to justify genocide anymore while also justifying Hindutva religious seperamacy in India.

since most Hindutva have already exposed themselves so the only option and comment is left to call anyone who expose Hindutva bigotry, a terrorist or Islamist, which is so early 2000’s, ain't no one is buying it anymore.

It's not a war that concerns my country. Although I do want it to end.​

 

[BouncerGuy]

GUYS, No more personal remarks now.

Stay on topic or else please leave this threads for a healthy conversation. THanks

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

The only wiping out of pre-existing civilizations and cultures in the last 2000 years in the South Asia, Central Asia have been by rulers from a particular religion that emerged about 1400 years ago and is now a majority in most of the countries in these regions.

 

[RexRex]

If you put India and its culture first, you are a Hindutvavadi automatically.

If you put Hinduism (not India) first, you become a hindutvavadi.

 

[HalBass9]

The only wiping out of pre-existing civilizations and cultures in the last 2000 years in the South Asia, Central Asia have been by rulers from a particular religion that emerged about 1400 years ago and is now a majority in most of the countries in these regions.

Wonderful. Now enlighten us how does any of this justify genocide, ethnic cleansing, and famine of Muslims in 2024.

If Hindutva wish they can go as far back as 3.5 billions years to a first simple single organism but please explain how does any of since then is a justification of genocide in 2024.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Wonderful. Now enlighten us how does any of this justify genocide, ethnic cleansing, and famine of Muslims in 2024.

If Hindutva wish they can go as far back as 3.5 billions years to a first simple single organism but please explain how does any of since then is a justification of genocide in 2024.

Genocide? Ethnic cleansing. Muslims population is increasing year over year in India. You must not know meaning of those words. If you have data do present with such.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Wonderful. Now enlighten us how does any of this justify genocide, ethnic cleansing, and famine of Muslims in 2024.

If Hindutva wish they can go as far back as 3.5 billions years to a first simple single organism but please explain how does any of since then is a justification of genocide in 2024.

Genocide is a big big word.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and even India. No one is doing ethnic cleansing of Muslims in India. While there are several other actual ethnic wipeouts happening in many parts of the world.
and thanks for taking history beyond 1400 years that sets discussion on neutral time frame finally.

PS: Nothing justifies killing in the name of imaginary Gods in the sky, its something humans have been doing since time immemorial but still not justified.

 

[HalBass9]

Genocide is a big big word. Go learn the definition without the hyperbole which ever tom dick and Harry uses on Tik Tok!
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and even India. No one is doing ethnic cleansing of Muslims in India. While there are several other actual ethnic wipeouts happening in many parts of the world.
And nice Segway from accepting any responsibilities of the dumb nut fanatics in your religion. and thanks for taking history beyond 1400 years that sets discussion on neutral time frame finally.

PS: Nothing justifies killing in the name of imaginary Gods in the sky, its something humans have been doing since time immemorial but still not justified.

Gaza. Fellow Muslim hating Hindutva from India. Lol

 

[rpant_gabba]

Genocide is a big big word.

Its an interesting twist. most of the western islamists spend time bemoaning the laws against Genocide/holocaust denial and how freedom of speech is fake

 

[HalBass9]

Its an interesting twist. most of the western islamists spend time bemoaning the laws against Genocide/holocaust denial and how freedom of speech is fake

I understand that Hindutva has to call anyone who do not agree with their bigotry as Islamist but no one is Islamist here. A term used to characterize Muslim as extremist.

One does not become a extremist for protesting against genocide nor calling out Hindutva for justifying genocide using whatever excuse going back as far as 3.5 billion years.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Gaza. Fellow Muslim hating Hindutva from India. Lol

Whats the topic of the thread?

Is Gaza the only place Muslims are being ethnically cleansed?? Xingjiang, Myanmar, Sudan, Yemen, Syria. I guess ethnic cleansing is fine if its your friends doing it or the other Muslims themselves.

How is India responsible for Gaza war. By your logic, you should get blamed for the Oct 7 attack where 1200+ civilians were killed in one go? or anything or every terror attack committed by ISIS or Al Qaeda because some nut jobs in Islam truly cheer those dastardly acts of killings.

 

[BouncerGuy]

This thread is not about GAZA or mulsim ethnic cleansing ETC....

Please do not derail the thread

 

[rpant_gabba]

This thread is not about GAZA or mulsim ethnic cleansing ETC....

Please do not derail the thread

So why not address the specific poster or remove his posts?

 

[BouncerGuy]

So why not address the specific poster or remove his posts?

all such posts will be removed and some of them have already been removed.

This is for everybody who wants to come and comment in this thread, PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC

 

[Local.Dada]

I understand that Hindutva has to call anyone who do not agree with their bigotry as Islamist but no one is Islamist here. A term used to characterize Muslim as extremist.

One does not become an extremist for protesting against genocide nor calling out Hindutva for justifying genocide using whatever excuse going back as far as 3.5 billion years.

What is your understanding of the word “genocide” and how do you think it is applicable to India or in Indian context these days?

Explain your thoughts to me in very simple terms.

 

[Champ_Pal]

If you put Hinduism (not India) first, you become a hindutvavadi.

Hindutva tries to
1) Puts Indian culture first.
2) Seeks to abolish Jati Varna system AKA Caste system.
3) Seeks to eliminate Race as a factor. He wanted a uniform nation for all its citizens.

Savarkar the father of Hindutva did not believe in Hinduism. He criticized Hindu practices and wrote disparagingly about Cow worship. He did not even do the funeral rites of his deceased wife as he did not believe in any of those practices. He was an Atheist.
Does it look like Hindutva means putting Hinduism first to you? This is like saying a Protestant Christian is someone who puts Pope and his supremacy first.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Hindutva tries to
1) Puts Indian culture first.
2) Seeks to abolish Jati Varna system AKA Caste system.
3) Seeks to eliminate Race as a factor. He wanted a uniform nation for all its citizens.

Savarkar the father of Hindutva did not believe in Hinduism. He criticized Hindu practices and wrote disparagingly about Cow worship. He did not even do the funeral rites of his deceased wife as he did not believe in any of those practices. He was an Atheist.
Does it look like Hindutva means putting Hinduism first to you? This is like saying a Protestant Christian is someone who puts Pope and his supremacy first.

In what universe is Hindutva by RSS, VHP etc. trying to abolish caste system. They are anti-reservation yes, but I dont see them trying to address casteism in Indian society one bit. I would be amazed if BJP tries to promote inter caste marriages. Sometimes even the judges dont provide protection to inter caste or inter faith couples.

We are pretty racist in behavior. Just see how African students are treated in Indian universities.

 

[cricketjoshila]

If you put Hinduism (not India) first, you become a hindutvavadi.

The very concept of Hinduism says that the Motherland is holy and is to be worshipped.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The very concept of Hinduism says that the Motherland is holy and is to be worshipped.

Do they worship what is now Pakistan too?

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Do they worship what is now Pakistan too?

Very much so, Its part of "Akhand" Bharat!

 

[Champ_Pal]

In what universe is Hindutva by RSS, VHP etc. trying to abolish caste system. They are anti-reservation yes, but I dont see them trying to address casteism in Indian society one bit. I would be amazed if BJP tries to promote inter caste marriages. Sometimes even the judges dont provide protection to inter caste or inter faith couples.

We are pretty racist in behavior. Just see how African students are treated in Indian universities.

I gave you the vision of Hindutva of Savarkar.

What political parties like BJP does has nothing to do with Hindutva. BJP tip toes around it and like any political outfit it uses parts of it when it suits their needs.
Why would political parties try to promote inter caste marriages? They neither support it nor oppose it.

Regarding RSS, this is their stance on Caste - https://thequint.com/news/rss-chief...caste-system-dignity-of-work-critics-question

If any Judge is against inter caste marriages, then he is clearly not following the law and should be fired. There is no law that prohibits someone from marrying a person from different caste or religion according to the constitution of India.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Do they worship what is now Pakistan too?

Pakistan also has Hindu holy sites. If religious tourism is allowed, I am sure you will see many Hindus and Sikhs from India visiting Pak Punjab and Sindh quite regularly.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Very much so, Its part of "Akhand" Bharat!

It's an interesting concept - they worship the land but hand the entity on the land.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Pakistan also has Hindu holy sites. If religious tourism is allowed, I am sure you will see many Hindus and Sikhs from India visiting Pak Punjab and Sindh quite regularly.

Lots of sikhs go to Lahore but I think they are mainly NRI or Canadians. The number would definitley increase if it was made easier for Punjabis to go.

Im aware there are some holy sites I just wasn't aware that the land itself was holy.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

I gave you the vision of Hindutva of Savarkar.

What political parties like BJP does has nothing to do with Hindutva. BJP tip toes around it and like any political outfit it uses parts of it when it suits their needs.
Why would political parties try to promote inter caste marriages? They neither support it nor oppose it.

Regarding RSS, this is their stance on Caste - https://thequint.com/news/rss-chief...caste-system-dignity-of-work-critics-question

If any Judge is against inter caste marriages, then he is clearly not following the law and should be fired. There is no law that prohibits someone from marrying a person from different caste or religion according to the constitution of India.

Even Quran talks about equality and no compulsion of religion. The reality is whats on ground.
and whitewashing of Savarkar is kinda pathetic to say the least. Hindu Mahasabha were simply power hungry orthodox Hindus ready to plugin whenever Congress left power or resigned en-masse.
Actively opposed freedom struggle but for the sake of power had no qualms about having coalition govts with Muslim League.

Cases of dumb judicial decisions come from the Hindi heartland often.

You read the current articles and whitewashing attempts in media, I have been brought up by being made to attend RSS camps and reading the actual books RSS subscribe and their actual texts. RSS has smartened quite a bit in the last 3 decades on what to say and what to delete from its history.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

It's an interesting concept - they worship the land but hand the entity on the land.

There is a specific nuance to it, you won't understand the depth of it here.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Lots of sikhs go to Lahore but I think they are mainly NRI or Canadians. The number would definitley increase if it was made easier for Punjabis to go.

Im aware there are some holy sites I just wasn't aware that the land itself was holy.

Every atom is part of the great cosmic being. and Anything that helps life to sustain and grow is venerable and worthy of worship. thats the basic essence. Someone might word it better.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Even Quran talks about equality and no compulsion of religion. The reality is whats on ground.
and whitewashing of Savarkar is kinda pathetic to say the least. Hindu Mahasabha were simply power hungry orthodox Hindus ready to plugin whenever Congress left power or resigned en-masse.
Actively opposed freedom struggle but for the sake of power had no qualms about having coalition govts with Muslim League.

Cases of dumb judicial decisions come from the Hindi heartland often.

You read the current articles and whitewashing attempts in media, I have been brought up by being made to attend RSS camps and reading the actual books RSS subscribe and their actual texts. RSS has smartened quite a bit in the last 3 decades on what to say and what to delete from its history.

This topic is not about Quran or what it says. I will discuss with you about compulsion on religion thing if you open a new thread on it.

You are digressing about what BJP or RSS does with the Hindutva concept. To be fair to BJP and RSS, both try to unify Hindu vote bank. If there is a casteist party, its Congress, Samajwadi Party, BSP, Trinamool and a plethora of other local parties. Many of them openly say that they can win elections based on particular caste vote bank.

Can you show me a case where BJP manifesto or RSS tried to condemn inter caste marriages? I have posted the link where RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat was clearly saying that caste does not matter only deeds matter. What else you want RSS to do? Force inter caste marriages on Hindus?

You know that inter caste marriages are happening in large scale now. The situation may be different in small towns and villages. But in cities, it is quite common. Majority of my friends are married to girls who do not belong to their caste.

 

[Hextro]

Are you having trouble processing the information in my comments? Are you dense? Well, there's no doubting that anymore.

This thread is about muslim representation. You are making it into a religious minority debate, instead of seeking what will be the true muslim representation.

The real issue here is your inability to read. I've addressed this multiple times, but it seems your brain can't handle comprehending more than one sentence.

Try to read this time.

Here's an excerpt from my previous response that already addressed your "question" -

"2nd - I've clarified many, many times that I only corrected the user's language regarding religious minorities because that was the topic they were discussing. There is nothing more to it. Why are you still having difficulty understanding this even after I have provided the context multiple times?"

How is it possible that you still can't understand this after having it explained to you so many times?

Instead of asking the real questions, your only agenda is to win the minority tag for your favourite community because that label comes with many added benefits, and behind that label the select communities can carry on exploiting muslims emotions for their personal benefits.

Again, from my previous response -

"Again with the pathetic bias argument. First of all, I have consistently stated that all of these groups (Christians, Jains, Sikhs, and Muslims) are minorities in India. I haven't once said that Muslims are the only minority in India, only someone like you would assume that I'd have an opinion like that.

With that being said, which of the minorities I've mentioned do you think I am biased in favor of? I laughed at the first person I replied to on this thread when they stated that Christians are a borderline minority in India."

What's wrong with you?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Every atom is part of the great cosmic being. and Anything that helps life to sustain and grow is venerable and worthy of worship. thats the basic essence. Someone might word it better.

That was the original understanding of Hindu religion, which also of course gave rise to caste systems as part of the dharmic cosmology. Bhuddism shared a lot of the holistic ideas but stripped away some of the more objectionable parts as time passed by.

 

[Local.Dada]

Lots of sikhs go to Lahore but I think they are mainly NRI or Canadians. The number would definitley increase if it was made easier for Punjabis to go.

Im aware there are some holy sites I just wasn't aware that the land itself was holy.

Wait I am surprised to see this question on a Pakistan forum .Gaza/Palestine etc are Holy lands for people who can’t point Gaza on a map but there is confusion why Hindus or Sikhs consider some places of worship in undivided India (current day Pakistan) as holy/ holy-land? Let me know if I have misunderstood this.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Wait I am surprised to see this question on a Pakistan forum .Gaza/Palestine etc are Holy lands for people who can’t point Gaza on a map but there is confusion why Hindus or Sikhs consider some places of worship in undivided India (current day Pakistan) as holy/ holy-land? Let me know if I have misunderstood this.

Yes you have misunderstood what I meant

I am aware there is holy sites but I wasn't aware that the land in its entirety was something that many Hindus felt was an object of worship.

 

[Local.Dada]

Yes you have misunderstood what I meant

I am aware there is holy sites but I wasn't aware that the land in its entirety was something that many Hindus felt was an object of worship.

Is Mecca etc the entire city-region considered as holy-land or just the area where the mosque is?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Every atom is part of the great cosmic being. and Anything that helps life to sustain and grow is venerable and worthy of worship. thats the basic essence. Someone might word it better.

But this is confined only to ancient India right? Like the land of Australia isn't worthy of worship to a deeply religious Hindu.

It's an interesting concept for sure. It must hurt to see the motherland divided in such a way with many parts of it occupied by non dharmic religions who don't venerate the actual soil in the same way.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Is Mecca etc the entire area considered as holy-land or just the area where the mosque is?

Mecca is holy to us. Saudi Arabia is not.

Is Peshawar and Faisalabad holy to you?

 

[Local.Dada]

Mecca is holy to us. Saudi Arabia is not.

Is Peshawar and Faisalabad holy to you?

Right. Similarly Nankana Sahab surroundings is holy land for Sikhs not the country of Pakistan. Now if it became a suburb of Lahore in the modern era and you call it as Lahore may be not but that comes down to technical nitpicking.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Right. Similarly Nankana Sahab surroundings is holy land for Sikhs not the country of Pakistan. Now if it became a suburb of Lahore in the modern era and you call it as Lahore may be not but that comes down to technical nitpicking.

I think you are misunderstanding.

The point was made that the 'motherland' is holy and an object of worship.

That means from east to west every inch of the land is holy and worshipped.

It makes the land that the local naan seller stands on in Faisalabad next to busy traffic equally as holy to the land of Nankana Sahib.

It was this concept I queried. Not that there is holy sites within the country but that the land itself is holy.