"Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was a Brahmin, but he ate beef and was a non-vegetarian": Congress leader Dinesh Gundu Rao

[FearlessRoar]

Congress leader and Karnataka Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao sparked a controversy with his remarks on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar being a non-vegetarian and not against cow slaughter.

At an event in Bengaluru organised to mark Gandhi Jayanti, Dinesh Gundu Rao claimed that Savarkar was not only a meat-eater, who consumed beef, but also propagated the practice publicly.

The Congress minister said that Savarkar, despite being a Brahmin, did not adhere to traditional dietary restrictions and was a modernist. Dinesh Gundu Rao said, “Savarkar was a Brahmin, but he ate beef and was a non-vegetarian. He did not oppose cow slaughter; in fact, he was quite a modernist on that topic."

The minister also contrasted Savarkar’s views with those of Mahatma Gandhi, emphasizing that Savarkar’s ideology leaned toward fundamentalism, whereas, Gandhi’s beliefs were deeply democratic.

“Gandhi was a strict vegetarian with a deep belief in Hindu cultural conservatism. He was a democratic person in his approach,” Dinesh Gundu Rao said, highlighting a stark difference in ideologies between the two leaders.

According to Rao, Gandhi’s actions included tolerance and inclusiveness, characteristics that set him apart from Savarkar’s fundamentalist thinking.

Dinesh Gundu Rao also commented on Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who he claimed represented another extreme. Rao said that Jinnah was never a hard-core Islamist, with some claiming that he even ate pork.

Gundu Rao said, “Jinnah became an icon for Muslims. He was never a fundamentalist, but Savarkar was.”

BJP HITS BACK AT CONGRESS​

Responding to the controversial remarks by the Congress minister, BJP leader R Ashok questioned why the Congress was always targeting Hindus.

Ashok said: “Congress' God is Tipu Sultan. Why are you Congress people always targeting Hindus? Why not Muslims? The Congress mindset is like this. Hindus have given a verdict in the elections. Every Hindu will teach them a lesson.”

Maharashtra deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis also slammed the Congress, and said that Rahul Gandhi started defaming Savarkar and now others are just taking his narrative forward.

Fadnavis said, “These people do not know anything about Savarkar. They insult Savarkar ji again and again. Savarkar ji has expressed his views on cows very well. He has said that the cow helps the farmer from his birth till his death, hence we have given the status of a god to the cow.”

Rahul Gandhi was recently summoned by a court in Maharashtra’s Nashik district in a defamation case filed against him for his alleged objectionable remarks on Savarkar. According to the complainant, Gandhi had said that ‘Savarkar is BJP and RSS Jin’ and that ‘with a folding hand Savarkar prayed for release and later on promised to work for the British Government’.

Savarkar wasn't against cow slaughter, ate beef: Karnataka Minister sparks row

Congress leader and Karnataka health minister Dinesh Gundu Rao said Savarkar was a meat-eater who consumed beef. He also claimed that Savarkar did not oppose cow slaughter and publicly propagated the practice.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[Local.Dada]

It doesn’t matter, Jinnah Saab was a wine conniesur. It’s the philosophy that matters I guess.

 

[Champ_Pal]

For Savarkar, Cow is not sacred. There is no evidence that he ate beef and he did not condemn beef eaters.
Savarkar was a massive reformist of Hindu society which went too orthodox when it came to worship, caste system and treating animals as sacred.

Savarkar believed in science and he was evidence driven. He believed that science holds the true key to progress. He was born a Brahmin, but he is a borderline atheist. I will not be surprised if he ate beef. But there is no evidence that he ate beef. I don't know from where this Congress leader got this idea that Savarkar ate beef. Many Brahmins I know eat non-veggie food. No one cares what a Brahmin should do in this day and age. Time to move on from age old practices.

 

[Champ_Pal]

It doesn’t matter, Jinnah Saab was a wine conniesur. It’s the philosophy that matters I guess.

Mr. Jinnah used to eat Ham sandwiches too. But he stood for Muslims of Indian subcontinent.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Savarkar is one of the most confused character in Indian politics and even BJP can't fully endorse him as some of his actions were not in congruence with the Hindu right wing dogma too.

 

[JaDed]

Lets put both his quotes in the thread title:

“Dinesh Gundu Rao also commented on Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who he claimed represented another extreme. Rao said that Jinnah was never a hard-core Islamist, with some claiming that he even ate pork.”

 

[JaDed]

Savarkar is one of the most confused character in Indian politics and even BJP can't fully endorse him as some of his actions were not in congruence with the Hindu right wing dogma too.

In line with Mr. Jinnah

 

[The Bald Eagle]

In line with Mr. Jinnah

Nope it's a sweeping statement. One become a founder of a nation and the other died as a relative nobody with posthumous glorification.

 

[Local.Dada]

Nope it's a sweeping statement. One become a founder of a nation and the other died as a relative nobody with posthumous glorification.

Savarakar is probably a relative nobody to you because you might have discovered internet in Pakistan late in life and ability to google even more later.

Not mocking you, I used to think Jinnah was extremely religious guy who wrote Urdu poetry and was in jail fighting the British. Reading books ( one advantage probably I might have), internet etc told me he was a English speaking anglicized Gujju who was a hot shot corporate lawyer, drank wine and ate pork but wanted “Islamic Pakistan” to save Muslim from Hindus.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

(allegedly) Eating pork is haram for Muslims

(Openly) Eating beef is blasphemy for staunch Hindus.

A Muslim will not beat up or kill a non Muslim for eating pork. But a Hindu will to a beef eating Muslim.

There is a big difference. We have been taught this point by our Hindu friends on PP that we can't equate pork and beef. For Hindus it's not a dietary issue but more than that.

The equivalent to this fella eating beef would be if Jinnah went to a Mandir and did Puja. Apart from that all sin is forgiveable in Islam and if Jinnah transgressed then his successes outweigh his transgressions.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Savarakar is probably a relative nobody to you because you might have discovered internet in Pakistan late in life and ability to google even more later.

Not mocking you, I used to think Jinnah was extremely religious guy who wrote Urdu poetry and was in jail fighting the British. Reading books ( one advantage probably I might have), internet etc told me he was a English speaking anglicized Gujju who was a hot shot corporate lawyer, drank wine and ate pork but wanted “Islamic Pakistan” to save Muslim from Hindus.

The greatest achievement of Jinnah was that he realized a homeland for Muslims of India. The man never went to prison like Gandhi and his gang. He never got hit even once in his life. He is no freedom fighter.
Jinnah was a successful lawyer and a rich one at that. He was pretty English in his outlook and habits. He had no love for his motherland.

Its a shame that Jinnah gets more of a mention in our textbooks while names like Savarkar never even got a mention. I only came to know about Savarkar after I was done with my schooling.

 

[Champ_Pal]

(allegedly) Eating pork is haram for Muslims

(Openly) Eating beef is blasphemy for staunch Hindus.

A Muslim will not beat up or kill a non Muslim for eating pork. But a Hindu will to a beef eating Muslim.

There is a big difference. We have been taught this point by our Hindu friends on PP that we can't equate pork and beef. For Hindus it's not a dietary issue but more than that.

The equivalent to this fella eating beef would be if Jinnah went to a Mandir and did Puja. Apart from that all sin is forgiveable in Islam and if Jinnah transgressed then his successes outweigh his transgressions.

Because Beef and Pork carry different meanings for both religions. Apples and Oranges.

A Muslim can and will beat up others for other reasons. Most Hindus will not do that.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Because Beef and Pork carry different meanings for both religions. Apples and Oranges.

A Muslim can and will beat up others for other reasons. Most Hindus will not do that.

Yes you compared apple and oranges when you made the post about Jinnah and pork. I agree, that was my point. Jinnah was a sinner ( maybe). Savarkar actions make him an open blasphemer, who may have got lynched by cow mafia ( in the eyes of staunch Hindus)

 

[JaDed]

Nope it's a sweeping statement. One become a founder of a nation and the other died as a relative nobody with posthumous glorification.

Mr. Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan is far from implemented, hijacked by others, Savarkar’s Hindutva grew on Indians and historic third term for the Modi with best shape of Indian economy in India’s independent history.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

Why special thread for this?
Any reason?

 

[JaDed]

Why special thread for this?
Any reason?

The Op probably didn’t read the entire article esp about his comments on Mr. Jinnah

 

[Champ_Pal]

Yes you compared apple and oranges when you made the post about Jinnah and pork. I agree, that was my point. Jinnah was a sinner ( maybe). Savarkar actions make him an open blasphemer, who may have got lynched by cow mafia ( in the eyes of staunch Hindus)

There is no evidence that Savarkar ate beef. He simply did not believe that Cows are sacred.

Anyways, whoever kills another human for consuming cow is a pathetic coward and a thug. If eating beef is against the law, then the person should be reported to the law enforcement. No one should take law into their own hands.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Savarkar is one of the most confused character in Indian politics and even BJP can't fully endorse him as some of his actions were not in congruence with the Hindu right wing dogma too.

Lol. Savarkar is full endorsed by BJP and entire Sangh.

Congress politicians have tried to say many things about him and nothing has stuck.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Nope it's a sweeping statement. One become a founder of a nation and the other died as a relative nobody with posthumous glorification.

Savarkar died as a nobody?

Followers of Savarkar have ruled India for 14 years out of last 24. Rule most of the states in India.

His legacy is the anti congress hindutva movement.

 

[KB]

Comparing Jinnah and Savarkar, I would say Jinnah was a liberal particularist (by liberal, I am referring to the term in its European rather than American sense), whereas Savarkar belonged to the radical right.

Jinnah is quoted as saying of his time in England to study law “The liberalism of lord Morley was then in full sway. I grasped that liberalism, which became part of my life and thrilled me very much.” In 1938, Jinnah recommended the liberal John Morley’s book, On Compromise, advising students that “I think you ought to read that book not only once but over and over again.”

Jinnah was a consistent supporter of civil liberties. A.G. Noorani, the Indian lawyer and writer, said that “Jinnah’s pronouncements on civil liberties over the years bear recalling…He never spoke without studying the subject carefully. The research is impressive. So is the incisiveness of his analysis. Most impressive of all is his consistency. Few can claim such a consistent record on civil liberties for decades on such a wide range of issues of fundamental importance.”

We need to distinguish between liberal universalism and liberal particularism. For liberal universalism we may turn to Count Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre, who famously - in 1789 - declared in the French national assembly: “To the Jews as individuals—everything; to the Jews as a nation—nothing.” Here the focus is on the individual as the ultimate building block of society and political system and a disavowal of group identities.

In contrast, liberal particularists while still committed to individual liberty are more sensitive to group rights and uniqueness of groups. Jinnah’s concern with group rights was always present, and over time his liberalism became more particularist. “For most of his political career,” writes historian, Joya Chatterji, “Jinnah struggled with what liberal political theorists recognise to be a problem at the heart of the liberal project – the place of the 'group rights' of minorities in a liberal democracy. His goal – and it was a complex one – was to see how group rights (and Muslim concerns) could be accommodated in an Indian constitution.”

As another historian, Faisal Devji has argued, Jinnah had a conceptual or abstract understanding of nationalism. Jinnah "represented a politics based on novelty rather than heredity, artifice rather than authenticity. Muslim politics in colonial India was founded upon the rejection of blood-and-soil forms of nationality, which could only define the Prophet’s followers there as a minority and not a nation.…Pakistan therefore had to be fought for in the purely ideal terms of a political logic.”

Savarkar’s vision of the nation was rather different: nativist and ultra-nationalist. A ‘civic’ sense of nationality, based on legal rights, was of little interest to him; his conception was of an organic nation bound by blood and undivided loyalty to its sacred geography. His was more a vision of Hindus as an ethnic category, a belief in them being a unique people with a unique culture and unique history, than simply a vision of Hindus as religious believers.

He was deeply suspicious of Muslims and their extra-territorial allegiances which violated his idea of the need for “monogamous love” to the nation. He clearly had a visceral dislike and deep prejudice, hatred even, against Muslims. For Ashis Nandy, “Savarkar’s hatred for Muslims came not from ideas of ritual purity and impurity or caste hierarchy but from his prognosis of communities that could or could not be integrated—assimilated or dissolved—within the framework of a modern Indian state.”

He also strongly believed in violence. Historian Vinayak Chaturvedi’s argues that, “Violence is at the centre of Savarkar’s interpretation of Hindu civility, but it also defined what it meant to be a Hindu. He further argues that both bloodshed and vengeance are necessary for Hindus to eliminate injustice. Non-violence, on the other hand, was antithetical to being a Hindu.”

If not a liberal, he was not a conservative either. He was an iconoclast. He questioned authority and received wisdom. His attitude to caste was far more radical than Gandhi. He was also controversial on cow worship.

Not a liberal nor a conservative, Savarkar instead belonged to the radical right. As Janaki Bakhle, in her intellectual history of Savarkar, writes, there was a kinship with his ideas and those that were swirling around in Europe at the time:

“There was a perceptible global zeitgeist and striking resemblances between Savarkar’s concept of Hindutva and the earlier German concept of Volkisch, the subsequent cult of Romanita in Italy, or even Ferenc Szalasi’s Hungarism…All these groups romanticized a deep connection to native soil, privileged the country over the city, and advocated a palingenetic renewal of ethnic and, in some cases, racial purity alongside the removal of foreign influences.”

 

[JaDed]

@KB disagree on Savarkar being of radical right for reasons I wouldn’t define him as he was on board and even promoted reforms in Hinduism and Dharmic identity, he was a Nationalist yes, and he might have been inspired by Western ideologies but it was limited to ones along that of birth land.

Savarkar is not any different from that of Lincoln or George Washington that include reforming their own societies.

He was sidelined by Liberal Centrist Socialist governments but his attitude towards casteism was much more on point than Gandhi, Nehru.

“The practice of untouchability is a sin, a blot on humanity, and nothing can justify it." - Veer Savarkar
We yield to none in our love, admiration and respect for the Buddha-the Dharma-the Sangha. They are all ours. Their glories are ours and ours their failures." - Veer Savarkar

 

[FearlessRoar]

Rahul Gandhi summoned by Pune court in defamation case by Savarkar's grandnephew​

A Pune court on Friday summoned Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case filed by grandnephew of the late Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who had accused the Congress leader of making objectionable remarks against the Hindutva ideologue during his visit to the United Kingdom last year.

The court has asked the Gandhi scion to appear before it on October 23.

In April 2023, Satyaki Savarkar, grandson of one of Vinayak Savarkar's brothers, lodged a complaint with a Pune magistrate court regarding Rahul Gandhi's alleged defamatory comments about Vinayak Savarkar. The remarks were allegedly made by Gandhi during an event in London on March 5, 2023.

"Rahul Gandhi, for reasons best known to him, has been repeatedly defaming and abusing Savarkar on various occasions for over many years. On one such occasion, March 5, 2023, when Rahul Gandhi was addressing a gathering of the Overseas Congress in the United Kingdom, he intentionally made wild allegations against Savarkar, knowing the same to be untrue, to harm Savarkar's reputation," the complaint filed by Satyaki Savarkar read.

"Rahul Gandhi has intentionally made false, malicious and wild allegations against Savarkar, fully knowing the said allegations to be untrue, with the specific objective of harming his reputation and to defame the surname ‘Savarkar’ and to hurt the feelings of the family of the late Savarkar," it added.

Satyaki Savarkar also alleged that Rahul Gandhi "deliberately uttered the words" which would "cause mental agony" to him and his family. Satyaki has urged the court that Rahul Gandhi be tried in accordance with the law, and maximum punishment be awarded to him, as well as compensation to the petitioner.

Recently, a Nashik court also summoned the Congress leader in a separate defamation case filed against him for his alleged objectionable remarks against Savarkar.

The complainant, who is the director of an NGO, alleged that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi tarnished the reputation of Savarkar during a press conference in Hingoli and a speech in November 2022.

He alleged that Gandhi, on the two occasions, by his words and visual representations, knowingly harmed the reputation of Savarkar and also tried to defame the latter's image in society.

Rahul Gandhi summoned by Pune court in defamation case by Savarkar's grandnephew

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's grand grandnephew filed a defamation case against Rahul Gandhi for "defaming and abusing" the Hindutva ideologue at an event in London in March 2023.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[Champ_Pal]

@KB disagree on Savarkar being of radical right for reasons I wouldn’t define him as he was on board and even promoted reforms in Hinduism and Dharmic identity, he was a Nationalist yes, and he might have been inspired by Western ideologies but it was limited to ones along that of birth land.

Savarkar is not any different from that of Lincoln or George Washington that include reforming their own societies.

He was sidelined by Liberal Centrist Socialist governments but his attitude towards casteism was much more on point than Gandhi, Nehru.

“The practice of untouchability is a sin, a blot on humanity, and nothing can justify it." - Veer Savarkar
We yield to none in our love, admiration and respect for the Buddha-the Dharma-the Sangha. They are all ours. Their glories are ours and ours their failures." - Veer Savarkar

I don't know why people call Savarkar a radical rightwing nut when he clearly is a Hindu reformist and does not believe in many core principles of Hinduism.

Savarkar is a Nationalist. He wanted a nation that should be tied firmly with its cultural heritage. Since true practicing Muslims put their religion above the nation, there is a lot of friction there.

 

[Technics 1210]

It doesn’t matter, Jinnah Saab was a wine conniesur. It’s the philosophy that matters I guess.

But Jinnah sahib was not a nationalist and did not represent a right-wing party where its leader was banned from entering the West on religious terrorism charges.

No wonder Indians are fleeing India for a better education.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Savarkar is one of the most confused character in Indian politics and even BJP can't fully endorse him as some of his actions were not in congruence with the Hindu right wing dogma too.

Given time one can always white wash history.

 

[Local.Dada]

But Jinnah sahib was not a nationalist and did not represent a right-wing party where its leader was banned from entering the West on religious terrorism charges.

No wonder Indians are fleeing India for a better education.

Before my answer; why do I always see you regurgitate the same points on every topic?

Modi was banned to enter America- even though since then he has had multiple state visits with full honor.

Indians are leaving India

You forgot Britain gave 2M pounds charity or something that you were peddling some time back. Next time remember this also ok? Looks a little incomplete

Anyway back to the topic- Jinnah was not a nationalist- you got that right unintentionally but he was the guy who was heading a party that asked seceded to form a “nation for Muslims”. Not sure what that means to you.

Hope that helps.

 

[Technics 1210]

Before my answer;

Stopped reading here.

Facts do not care about your fickle feelings.

Ta-ta.

 

[JaDed]

But Jinnah sahib was not a nationalist and did not represent a right-wing party where its leader was banned from entering the West on religious terrorism charges.

No wonder Indians are fleeing India for a better education.

Yes because entering West is now suddenly the most biggest honor.

Putin, Khameini now should make sure they can enter West now as that’s the biggest honor.

A not for all Pak posters now I suppose

 

[KB]

@KB disagree on Savarkar being of radical right for reasons I wouldn’t define him as he was on board and even promoted reforms in Hinduism and Dharmic identity, he was a Nationalist yes, and he might have been inspired by Western ideologies but it was limited to ones along that of birth land.

Savarkar is not any different from that of Lincoln or George Washington that include reforming their own societies.

He was sidelined by Liberal Centrist Socialist governments but his attitude towards casteism was much more on point than Gandhi, Nehru.

“The practice of untouchability is a sin, a blot on humanity, and nothing can justify it." - Veer Savarkar
We yield to none in our love, admiration and respect for the Buddha-the Dharma-the Sangha. They are all ours. Their glories are ours and ours their failures." - Veer Savarkar

I don’t think this, however, invalidates classifying Savarkar as belonging to the radical right.

On a more theoretical level, the radical right is a heterogenous grouping with diverse views but I would argue that there are two ideas that form the ‘ineliminable core’ which unites the groups under this heading. One is an anti-statist quo stance. There is dissatisfaction with the ‘system’ as it currently is and a desire to either reform or overthrow the system. Those of the radical right are seeking profound change (hence the label ‘radical’) - it is what distinguishes them from conservatives, who in contrast are looking to maintain traditions or to allow only small incremental changes. The second core idea is ultra-nationalism. Those of the radical right are not merely nationalists but ultra-nationalists. Nationality is defined as something beyond mere legal rights and is defined instead in ethnic and/or organic terms. For the radical right 'their' nation is endangered and the 'real' community must come together to fight the threat.

On a more concrete level, there is no denying that Savarkar was indeed a radical proponent of caste reform. In fact he went beyond reform insofar that he was seeking to abandon caste as a category altogether. As he thundered:

“You touch dogs, give milk to a snake, allow a cat that drinks a mouse’s blood to put her mouth in your plate - But O Hindu! This man who is as human as you are, the Mahar, your own compatriot, who prays to the same god - Ram - as you. But you are ashamed of him! Throw that shame away. Be ashamed of that shame!!!”

But we cannot divorce this stance on caste from his ultra-nationalism. The two were linked. Central to his project was - in light of what he saw as the Muslim threat - to awaken Hindus from “narcolepsy” and unite the Hindu community. Caste divided Hindus and therefore weakened the Hindu community and enervated national strength. He wanted the primacy of the Hindu identity to recognised by Hindus but this could only happen if casteism was done away with.

As Janaki Bakhle - in her brilliant work on Savarkar - argues:

“Savarkar’s caste clique was almost always instrumental: he cared primarily (if not solely) about creating a unified Hindu community that would be better able to oppose Muslims. All his writings on caste also reveal an underlying animus towards Muslims.”

In his own words, Savarkar’s wrote “We pet cats and dogs, touch buffaloes and cows, but we won’t touch the Shudras!” In the same piece, he continued:

“We have meted out inhumane treatment to them, and therefore they will not be useful to us..To the contrary, they are going to come in very handy for our enemies, to divide and conquer…If we [accept that untouchables are Hindus], the wagging tongue of the Ali [brothers] proclaiming that half the untouchables belong to us, or the Maulvis from Hyderabad and Sindh extending their helping hand will automatically be chopped off and fall to the ground.”

In this reading, caste had to be jettisoned and the Untouchables brought fully into the Hindu tent or they would be at the mercy of Muslim trickery.

Savarkar said, “Hindu blood, seed, heart and soul cannot be polluted by a glass of water offered by Muslims and otters, let alone an entire ocean.”

As Bakhle rightly says, Savarkar, “advocated the shedding of prejudice but substituted one of form prejudice for another. Hinduness became an invisible genetic trait and essence - a racialised characteristic - that nothing, certainly not touching untouchables or drinking water polluted by Muslims, could change.”

Savarkar was an ultra-nationalist who defined the Indian nation in terms - not of legal and civic rights - but in terms of "Hindu blood, seed, heart and soul." He was against the status quo, he was 'anti-system', he was an iconoclast. Radical right - meant not as a pejorative label but analytical device - fits him perfectly.

 

[Justcrazy]

Irrelevant thread.

Sarwarkar ate beef or not was his personal choice.

 

[Rajdeep]

I would love to visit Pakistan, for the food alone.

They eat beef though...are you okay with it?

 

[Varun]

They eat beef though...are you okay with it?

Perfectly fine. No pork or alcohol there, but I'll manage.

 

[Major]

They eat beef though...are you okay with it?

The whole world eats beef

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Perfectly fine. No pork or alcohol there, but I'll manage.

Actually non-Muslims can buy alcohol.

But even if you can't, hit me up, I'll be happy to help out.

 

[mominsaigol]

They eat beef though...are you okay with it?

Which country doesn't except India? Infact name one popular fast food joint not located in India that prides itself on being beef less excluding KFC?

America: In and Out, Five guys, McDonald's

Australia: Hungry Jack's, Grill'D, Betty Burger's

UK: Wimpy, Gordon Ramsey's Burger

Pakistan: OPTP, Zoro(Recently opened, my friend told me they mimick aussie chains and use aussie beef in Lahore)

Canada: A and W Canada

^^ All these i mentioned, What do they all have in common?

Too bad India is the only country in the world in which McDonald's is a joke, not that McDonald's was a great fast food chain to begin with but a beefless McDonald's

 

[mominsaigol]

Actually non-Muslims can buy alcohol.

But even if you can't, hit me up, I'll be happy to help out.

You can buy alcohol in Pakistan? I thought they were only available in hotels?

 

[Major]

You can buy alcohol in Pakistan? I thought they were only available in hotels?

even muslims can buy it.
Bro where have you been living

 

[Punjab Kings]

They eat beef though...are you okay with it?

Beef is consumed in India also even some biggest beef export companies in India are Owned by Hindus

 

[mominsaigol]

even muslims can buy it.
Bro where have you been living

I didn't know my dude.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Beef is consumed in India also even some biggest beef export companies in India are Owned by Hindus

Cow meat ban in India is cultural. People found cow more useful alive than dead. It was the livelihood of Yadava clan.

While I do not agree with the outright ban of beef in India, if there is a law in India ,people just have to follow it. There are many other types of meat available in India.

 

[Punjab Kings]

Cow meat ban in India is cultural. People found cow more useful alive than dead. It was the livelihood of Yadava clan.

While I do not agree with the outright ban of beef in India, if there is a law in India ,people just have to follow it. There are many other types of meat available in India.

It's not cultural.... It's just a hatred towards muslims in India... Whatever muslims in India eat or follow is seen as illegal by Hindutva govt

 

[Champ_Pal]

It's not cultural.... It's just a hatred towards muslims in India... Whatever muslims in India eat or follow is seen as illegal by Hindutva govt

Its the other way around.

Whatever Hindus do is anti-muslim. No one objects to Muslims eating any other animal.

This is why Hindus and Muslims are 2 separate nations.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Its the other way around.

Whatever Hindus do is anti-muslim. No one objects to Muslims eating any other animal.

This is why Hindus and Muslims are 2 separate nations.

But Muslims have never had any objections to what Hindus eat. They can eat radishes or turnips to their hearts content.

 

[HalBass9]

In the past 30 days, here's what we've been hearing about China:
- Launching 6th Gen fighter Jets.
- Building an Aritificial Sun prototype
- Achieving a $1 trillion trade surplus
- DeepSeek challenging US tech giants.

One of the biggest reasons India may never match China's progress, despite its potential, is years of conditioning people to hate and impose their beliefs by restricting others' diets ( as just one example).

 

[sweep_shot]

It's not cultural.... It's just a hatred towards muslims in India... Whatever muslims in India eat or follow is seen as illegal by Hindutva govt

I agree.

I don't think it has anything to do with beef. It is about expressing Islamophobia.

 

[Champ_Pal]

But Muslims have never had any objections to what Hindus eat. They can eat radishes or turnips to their hearts content.

its not about diet. Muslims do object to Hindus worshipping idols and their rituals. May be not in this day and age. But it happened for centuries under Islamic rule of India.
Wherever Islam went, the native culture vanished.

 

[sweep_shot]

In the past 30 days, here's what we've been hearing about China:
- Launching 6th Gen fighter Jets.
- Building an Aritificial Sun prototype
- Achieving a $1 trillion trade surplus
- DeepSeek challenging US tech giants.

One of the biggest reasons India may never match China's progress, despite its potential, is years of conditioning people to hate and impose their beliefs by restricting others' diets ( as just one example).

Good point.

China's focus: Getting better in things which actually matter.

India's focus: Being #1 in cow vigilantism and being obnoxious online.

No wonder why China is outperforming India in everything.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Than why Hinduism didn't extinguish, certainly you can't back it up with individual cases. Produce state sponsored acts in such regard in relevant threads

its not about diet. Muslims do object to Hindus worshipping idols and their rituals. May be not in this day and age. But it happened for centuries under Islamic rule of India.
Wherever Islam went, the native culture vanished.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Than why Hinduism didn't extinguish, certainly you can't back it up with individual cases. Produce state sponsored acts in such regard in relevant threads

Hinduism is too diverse to vanish just like that. If you want to destroy Hinduism, just by proving Vedas wrong or burning them is not enough. Hinduism has so many cults in it and the deities that people worship are related to their tribe or caste. Its too much work. Even if Islam ruled for another 500 years over India, they would not be able to wipe out the entire Hindu culture and its deities.
In case of Christianity or Buddhism, you just have to attack the teachings of one man and its game over for that religion. The polemics that Islamic Daees use will not work on Hinduism. Various Mughal rulers and many other Islamic converts in India tried their best to change the religion of local people. Even after butchering people, the locals did not give up on their culture and deities. It was in their best interest to leave the people alone(for the most part) and collect taxes from them and enjoy the multitude of women in their harems. Easy for them. Locals did not care who their overlords are as long as their way of life is not interrupted.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Hinduism is too diverse to vanish just like that. If you want to destroy Hinduism, just by proving Vedas wrong or burning them is not enough. Hinduism has so many cults in it and the deities that people worship are related to their tribe or caste. Its too much work. Even if Islam ruled for another 500 years over India, they would not be able to wipe out the entire Hindu culture and its deities.
In case of Christianity or Buddhism, you just have to attack the teachings of one man and its game over for that religion. The polemics that Islamic Daees use will not work on Hinduism. Various Mughal rulers and many other Islamic converts in India tried their best to change the religion of local people. Even after butchering people, the locals did not give up on their culture and deities. It was in their best interest to leave the people alone(for the most part) and collect taxes from them and enjoy the multitude of women in their harems. Easy for them. Locals did not care who their overlords are as long as their way of life is not interrupted.

Then why so furore against Muslims, why name this as Tableegh Jihad, love Jihad etc gang
Live and let them be in India, they are just not so much influential as per you.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

its not about diet. Muslims do object to Hindus worshipping idols and their rituals. May be not in this day and age. But it happened for centuries under Islamic rule of India.
Wherever Islam went, the native culture vanished.

I don't believe that to be true. While Muslims rulers of the subcontinent may not have condoned Hindu religion, what people worship in their own homes was up to them. Why would they care what individuals believed?

 

[Punjab Kings]

Give me a reference from an authentic source

 

[Champ_Pal]

I don't believe that to be true. While Muslims rulers of the subcontinent may not have condoned Hindu religion, what people worship in their own homes was up to them. Why would they care what individuals believed?

Not really. Muslim rulers used to forcefully converted several villages at a time. You do not see so many Muslims who looks more Indian than Indian Hindus just like that. They are all converts.
They needed local support and the best way for them to get it is to convert enough people to make their stay on the throne relatively easier.
We have to remember that India has always been a highly populated country through out its history. The invading armies are only in thousands. The locals are in millions. They cannot antagonize millions of locals and expect to rule them easily. Mughal armies only showed up when they have to crush any rebellion. Most locals are pretty docile and did not care who ruled them. The rebellion mostly came from Rajputs, Sikhs and Marathas.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Then why so furore against Muslims, why name this as Tableegh Jihad, love Jihad etc gang
Live and let them be in India, they are just not so much influential as per you.

I was talking about the Mughal rule and why they could not convert the masses from all across India to Islam.

Hindus have finally got back the power after 1947 and still had to face discrimination from successive Congress and Leftist governments. India is a democracy and numbers matter. Every religion tries to hold on to their piece of the pie as much as they can. The proselytizing forces want to eat into Hindu pie while keeping their own pie locked away safely. There is no even ground. There are enough cases of Muslim boys posing as Hindu/Christian and chase girls. When the girl finally falls for him and the relation grows deeper(including sexual relations), the boy says he is a Muslim. At that point, the girl will be given a simple choice to convert and marry the Muslim boy.

 

[uppercut]

In the past 30 days, here's what we've been hearing about China:
- Launching 6th Gen fighter Jets.
- Building an Aritificial Sun prototype
- Achieving a $1 trillion trade surplus
- DeepSeek challenging US tech giants.

One of the biggest reasons India may never match China's progress, despite its potential, is years of conditioning people to hate and impose their beliefs by restricting others' diets ( as just one example).

Ever heard of Uighur Muslims by any chance and how China Treats them ?

 

[Varun]

You do the same... by moving to Isloo or Shittagong ... must admit its much easier for you

I have an Indian passport and I'm an Indian taxpayer, so I'll put my money where my mouth is and live where I am thank you very much - Bangalore, Karnataka.

Hit me up when you're here - I'll plug some steaks down your ghaas-phoos gullet.

 

[uppercut]

I have an Indian passport and I'm an Indian taxpayer, so I'll put my money where my mouth is and live where I am thank you very much - Bangalore, Karnataka.

Hit me up when you're here - I'll plug some steaks down your ghaas-phoos gullet.

You don't get it do you ? You will be actually helping just by moving ... the good thing is you have two options East or West ... and here is where it gets better I will sponsor your one way travel... cattle class only though which should suit you just fine ... thats exactly why I said its much easier for you to help humanity.


Go ahead try better insults ... but rest assured you will get pwned again.

 

[HalBass9]

Ever heard of Uighur Muslims by any chance and how China Treats them ?

There will always be someone who firmly believes what they're saying, even if it’s complete nonsense.

Chinese people are not the same as Indian people. The Chinese government primarily targets and restricts a specific group within one province, whereas in India, divisions and violence often arise within the community itself, such as between Hindutva followers and other religions. I’m fairly certain that the majority of the Chinese population isn’t aggressively attacking people online over their dietary choices, including the consumption of any form of meat.

 

[uppercut]

First things first - for somebody who lives in the USA, please type better English.

Yeah my bad ... I should not have used words longer than 3 characters. But hey you know there is a better option ... I can convert that to the Urdu from the pind where I want you to relocate ... google can easy handle that so you dont have to tax your remaining braincells lol

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Not really. Muslim rulers used to forcefully converted several villages at a time. You do not see so many Muslims who looks more Indian than Indian Hindus just like that. They are all converts.
They needed local support and the best way for them to get it is to convert enough people to make their stay on the throne relatively easier.
We have to remember that India has always been a highly populated country through out its history. The invading armies are only in thousands. The locals are in millions. They cannot antagonize millions of locals and expect to rule them easily. Mughal armies only showed up when they have to crush any rebellion. Most locals are pretty docile and did not care who ruled them. The rebellion mostly came from Rajputs, Sikhs and Marathas.

No one is disputing that many Indians converted, the part we disagree is that it was forced at swordpoint which is a hindutva narrative.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

In the past 30 days, here's what we've been hearing about China:
- Launching 6th Gen fighter Jets.
- Building an Aritificial Sun prototype
- Achieving a $1 trillion trade surplus
- DeepSeek challenging US tech giants.

One of the biggest reasons India may never match China's progress, despite its potential, is years of conditioning people to hate and impose their beliefs by restricting others' diets ( as just one example).

In fact, no other country matches China. What is your point? Are you trying to single out India? Did anyone mention that India will challenge China?

 

[Champ_Pal]

No one is disputing that many Indians converted, the part we disagree is that it was forced at swordpoint which is a hindutva narrative.

Conversion to a new religion that too en masse where several villages convert at once cannot happen unless they are done under the duress of sword. Conversions by peaceful means only happens for individuals. Not entire villages.

 

[Buzzinga]

(allegedly) Eating pork is haram for Muslims

(Openly) Eating beef is blasphemy for staunch Hindus.

A Muslim will not beat up or kill a non Muslim for eating pork. But a Hindu will to a beef eating Muslim.

There is a big difference. We have been taught this point by our Hindu friends on PP that we can't equate pork and beef. For Hindus it's not a dietary issue but more than that.

The equivalent to this fella eating beef would be if Jinnah went to a Mandir and did Puja. Apart from that all sin is forgiveable in Islam and if Jinnah transgressed then his successes outweigh his transgressions.

Muslims beat up or kill non muslims for a lot of reasons which are non issues for other faiths.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Just one question - why are we discussing Vir Savarkar in a Pakistani forum? Then people ask why so many Indians here.

Savarkar is an intriguing figure for many including Pakistanis who know about him. They think he is a Hindutva extremist who believes in the fundamentals of Hinduism and wants to implement them at all cost.
When they come to know that Savarkar is an Atheist and a nationalist who wants all Indians to put the nation first over religion, they cannot get over it.
People need to understand that Hindutva does not mean the religion Hinduism. Pakistani posters think that Savarkar was some sort of Bin Laden like figure who was a fundamentalist. Its good that they are learning more about Savarkar through these posts.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Muslims beat up or kill non muslims for a lot of reasons which are non issues for other faiths.

My point was that you can't compare Jinnah allegedly eating pork to this Hindu guy eating beef. Although the act is just eating an animal they both represent very different things in each faith.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Conversion to a new religion that too en masse where several villages convert at once cannot happen unless they are done under the duress of sword. Conversions by peaceful means only happens for individuals. Not entire villages.

Says who?

 

[RexRex]

even muslims can buy it.

You mean the alcohol ban law exists but police don't enforce it ?

 

[RexRex]

Conversion to a new religion that too en masse where several villages convert at once cannot happen unless they are done under the duress of sword. Conversions by peaceful means only happens for individuals. Not entire villages.

How do you convert entire towns & villages with the sword ?

I asked @uppercut for an explanation of this but he kept making excuses and avoiding the topic

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Just one question - why are we discussing Vir Savarkar in a Pakistani forum? Then people ask why so many Indians here.

Lol....you know why you are here...

Just waiting for your opportunities to make fan of some fans....and everybody knows which ones.

And here at PP we discuss various figures not just Indians

 

[Champ_Pal]

How do you convert entire towns & villages with the sword ?

I asked @uppercut for an explanation of this but he kept making excuses and avoiding the topic

Convert or die. Additional perks for conversion. All kinds of options and opportunities will be tried.

The first generation converts due to the fear of sword. The young generation are brought up reading the scriptures of the new religion. They will be the believers. Their grand children will be full on believers as they have not seen anyone in their family following their older religion. It is a 50-75 years process.
We have to remember that life expectancy was very poor just a couple of hundred years ago. Most perished quite young due to disease, wars and poor nutrition. So a generation is more like 20-25 years. Not like 50 years we see now.

 

[RexRex]

The first generation converts due to the fear of sword.

Again .. what does that mean ? How can hindus suddenly stop believing in what they believe is true .. their God ? It is a mental process, the invaders can't peer into what goes on in someone's brain. The only thing a sword can do is prevent outward displays of religious practice like religious gatherings or processions.

However, your explanation for younger generations is believable. Kids are malleable and will quicky learn a religious scripture if they are disciplined. Like say if you put hindu born kids in madrasas at a young age, they'll grow up learning the Quran. So that checks out. But is there evidence that this is what happened - mass scale placement of hindu kids in muslims religious schools ? I don't think so.

I kinda believed in this sword theory a couple of years ago but the more I think about it, it seems improbable.

 

[HalBass9]

In fact, no other country matches China. What is your point? Are you trying to single out India? Did anyone mention that India will challenge China?

“May never” and “matches”.

Self explanatory.

 

[Rajdeep]

Still trying to understand the relevance of this discussion in Pak forum when a leader from Indian congress party named Gundu rao (never heard of him) has aparently claimed Veer Savarkar who died 50 years ago used to eat non veg.

And??

LOL

 

[Champ_Pal]

Again .. what does that mean ? How can hindus suddenly stop believing in what they believe is true .. their God ? It is a mental process, the invaders can't peer into what goes on in someone's brain. The only thing a sword can do is prevent outward displays of religious practice like religious gatherings or processions.

However, your explanation for younger generations is believable. Kids are malleable and will quicky learn a religious scripture if they are disciplined. Like say if you put hindu born kids in madrasas at a young age, they'll grow up learning the Quran. So that checks out. But is there evidence that this is what happened - mass scale placement of hindu kids in muslims religious schools ? I don't think so.

I kinda believed in this sword theory a couple of years ago but the more I think about it, it seems improbable.

The first generation do not convert. They pretend. They are just namesake. Its their children and grand children that become true believers.
As you said, the first generation have to pretend due to the fear of sword outwardly. The younger generation (kids under 10) will go to the religious schools of the new cult in town. They will not know anything outside of what is taught there. Kids 12 and above will be considered of military age and will be finished off when the conquest happens.

 

[uppercut]

How do you convert entire towns & villages with the sword ?

I asked @uppercut for an explanation of this but he kept making excuses and avoiding the topic

I also told you exactly why I do not engage with you ... you conveniently Left that bit of important detail out.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

This guy has became quite a contrarian. I dont know what his view is on this podcast in particular, will listen in detail later but I thought I'd share here given the thread topic.

 

[sweep_shot]

I doubt anyone would even care about Indian politics if Indian posters weren't constantly poking holes in Pakistan affairs. You don't see many threads about Sri Lanka, Australia, or Nepal for just this reason. It's only Indians constantly poking the bear.

Exactly.

Indians love to stick their noses in matters of Palestine, Pakistan, BD, gulf states etc.

But, they whine when others do the same about India.

Very entitled bunch.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Exactly.

Indians love to stick their noses in matters of Palestine, Pakistan, BD, gulf states etc.

But, they whine when others do the same about India.

Very entitled bunch.

To be honest, discussing wars and country as a whole is quite normal.
But discussing what someone is as accused by some nobody in India is funny.

However, I do support free speech and thought. These kinds of discussions will help people gain more and more knowledge of what someone is or not.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Again .. what does that mean ? How can hindus suddenly stop believing in what they believe is true .. their God ? It is a mental process, the invaders can't peer into what goes on in someone's brain. The only thing a sword can do is prevent outward displays of religious practice like religious gatherings or processions.

However, your explanation for younger generations is believable. Kids are malleable and will quicky learn a religious scripture if they are disciplined. Like say if you put hindu born kids in madrasas at a young age, they'll grow up learning the Quran. So that checks out. But is there evidence that this is what happened - mass scale placement of hindu kids in muslims religious schools ? I don't think so.

I kinda believed in this sword theory a couple of years ago but the more I think about it, it seems improbable.

Can anyone truly decipher what someone else believes in? For those who looking to impose even a fake conversion is enough. Eg Torquemada

Its all about numbers which are then used to justify laws. In the past, it was to enslave. in modern times it is manipulate governments.

There are those who converted for business reasons eg. Jinnah's grandfather, Poonja Gokuldas Meghji

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Can anyone truly decipher what someone else believes in?

Good point and quite a surprising one from Gabba bhai

There are those who converted for business reasons eg. Jinnah's grandfather, Poonja Gokuldas Meghji

oops the right wing hindu tropes slipped out!