Violence in Delhi rising as Modi’s party opposes construction of Hajj House

[MenInG]

SLAMABAD:
The minority Muslims in India these days are facing another episode of denial of their religious rights, as the country continues with its human rights violations in line with Hindutva policies.

The capital New Delhi has witnessed violent protests this week after the Hindu leaders of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) strongly opposed the construction of Hajj House and also called for genocide of Muslims.

At present, New Delhi does not have a Hajj House, even though the national capital is the largest embarkation point for the pilgrimage in the country.

Nearly 15,000-20,000 Muslims from Delhi, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, western Uttar Pradesh and Chandigarh leave for Makkah, Saudi Arabia from New Delhi every year.

However, in absence of a Hajj House, the pilgrims usually stay in camps before their flights.

Hindu protestors target construction of Hajj House in Dwarka, near New Delhi. PHOTO: APP

Hindu protesters target the construction of Hajj House in Dwarka, near New Delhi. PHOTO: APP

During the recent protests, slogans were raised at Jantar Mantar in Delhi in a gathering of hundreds organised by Supreme Court lawyer and former spokesperson of the Delhi unit of BJP, Ashwini Upadhyay.

Two similar incidents within a week in India’s capital have reaffirmed the secondary citizenship of Muslims in the country, with the situation worsening every day.

In a video available on social media, a Hindutva activist can be seen openly calling for the anti-Muslim attacks, suggesting that Hindus have had their share of “being defensive” and that it was time to attack.

“I have said repeatedly that Hindus should pick up shastra [arms] and shaastra [holy texts], while they still have time,” he said.

Hours before the gathering in Jantar Mantar, various Hindutva groups backed by the BJP leaders, organised a ‘Mahapanchayat’, where Hindu nationalists openly called for the killing of Muslims.

From anti-Muslim rallies to lynching and pogroms, the Hindu supremacists enjoy impunity and state support from the collective society.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is determinedly pursuing policies of RSS and taking all possible measures to promote Hindutva and eliminate Muslims from India.

At present, India is the only country in the world, which is sponsoring Islamophobia and Hindutva at the state level.

The Hindutva groups and affiliates like Hindu Raksha Dal brazenly call for the genocide of Muslims in New Delhi, with no condemnation from the BJP-led central government.

Over 80 Muslim women in India, who are powerful voices on Twitter, found they had been put up “for sale” online on an app called ‘Sulli Deals’.

The secularism of Mahatama Gandhi and Indian PM Jawaharlal Nehru has, most unfortunately, been replaced by the dream of creating a Hindu Rashtra by subjugating and even cleansing India’s 200 million Muslims and other minorities.

The RSS is responsible for destroying Babari Masjid, slaughtering some 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat riots under the watch of then chief minister Modi, and burning alive several Muslim passengers aboard the Samjhota Express train.


https://tribune.com.pk/story/231738...odis-party-opposes-construction-of-hajj-house

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Woah, just learned "Jantar Mantar" is a physical observatory

Anyways, this is a classic tactic to dehumanize a minority...

Indian social fabric has not ever been this worse in recent history.

 

[PakLFC]

Anything built by Muslim's in India is now disputed. Hajj house, Umrah house or whatever else it just has to have Muslim sounding names and connotation's for the Hindu's to be out for blood. Putting women up for sale, love jihad and all that shows how screwed up these people are.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Why should tax payers money be used to built haj house? I can understand taxpayer money being used to organise the security civic amenities etc of events in India like the urs at Ajmer Sharif.

But if Muslims want to travel to saudi, why should government make accommodation arrangements like this?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why should tax payers money be used to built haj house? I can understand taxpayer money being used to organise the security civic amenities etc of events in India like the urs at Ajmer Sharif.

But if Muslims want to travel to saudi, why should government make accommodation arrangements like this?

Because Indian Muslims also pay tax I would imagine.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Because Indian Muslims also pay tax I would imagine.

They are only 20 per cent of the population and this is a secular state.

If hindus start demanding construction of temples with tax payers money, they will hog 80 per cent of the taxes.

Government has no business building haj houses or temples or churches.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Jaahil and unemployed bhakhts at their best. They have nothing else to do in India it seems.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

They are only 20 per cent of the population and this is a secular state.

If hindus start demanding construction of temples with tax payers money, they will hog 80 per cent of the taxes.

Government has no business building haj houses or temples or churches.

What are you talking about? May be they should build another Statue of Unity so that guys like you can start respecting people from other religions as well.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

They are only 20 per cent of the population and this is a secular state.

If hindus start demanding construction of temples with tax payers money, they will hog 80 per cent of the taxes.

Government has no business building haj houses or temples or churches.

Actually, Many hardline Hindus would've wanted to build more mandirs but it's the good hindus like this guy who bravely stand with the truth and not scared of speaking it out. These are the people who are the last hope for India.

As he rightly says @0:28 to 0:32

 

[KingKhanWC]

They are only 20 per cent of the population and this is a secular state.

If hindus start demanding construction of temples with tax payers money, they will hog 80 per cent of the taxes.

Government has no business building haj houses or temples or churches.

Is it a mosque they are trying to build or a place of administration?

Hindus have Cow ambulances, not secular when it suits you.

20% is hundreds of millions, they pay a lot of tax.

 

[Bewal Express]

They are only 20 per cent of the population and this is a secular state.

If hindus start demanding construction of temples with tax payers money, they will hog 80 per cent of the taxes.

Government has no business building haj houses or temples or churches.

Isnt it more of a holding centre for the Hajjis to facilitate smooth running of operations rather than a religious building.

 

[Bewal Express]

Is it a mosque they are trying to build or a place of administration?

Hindus have Cow ambulances, not secular when it suits you.

20% is hundreds of millions, they pay a lot of tax.

Are these paid for by the Govt? If they are then poor [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION], he will be so angry at this.lol

 

[KingKhanWC]

Are these paid for by the Govt? If they are then poor [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION], he will be so angry at this.lol

Not sure but Yogi's government in UP launched this a while ago. Remember reading someone had to carry their child to a hospital while Cows were carried in an amublance. Perhaps its paid for by Extremist Hindus via some sort of charity.

 

[Kroll]

Why should tax payers money be used to built haj house? I can understand taxpayer money being used to organise the security civic amenities etc of events in India like the urs at Ajmer Sharif.

But if Muslims want to travel to saudi, why should government make accommodation arrangements like this?

Because their your citizens?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Are these paid for by the Govt? If they are then poor [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION], he will be so angry at this.lol

No he won't, he'll just deflect and diverge as usual. His reply to my post is a classic example. Inaccurate and missing the point entirely in order to defend Modi's ruling party which champions hindu supremacism.

 

[Major]

They are only 20 per cent of the population and this is a secular state.

If hindus start demanding construction of temples with tax payers money, they will hog 80 per cent of the taxes.

Government has no business building haj houses or temples or churches.

I have been to mosques of New Delhi, and the mosques tehre have been kept in the poorest state. Would be appreciative if the govt actually gave out money to fix the mosques up

 

[anakwalajinn]

What is a «Hajj House»? Never heard about this phrase before. Would be interesting to know…

 

[cricketjoshila]

Is it a mosque they are trying to build or a place of administration?

Hindus have Cow ambulances, not secular when it suits you.

20% is hundreds of millions, they pay a lot of tax.

Animal husbandry and welfare is department that looks after all kinds of animals.

Rest of the country pays a lot more taxes and this is a secular country, so tax money isnt for building haj houses or temples or churches.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I have been to mosques of New Delhi, and the mosques tehre have been kept in the poorest state. Would be appreciative if the govt actually gave out money to fix the mosques up

Why should government do this? Its the Waqf's job. Unless its a historical building.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Are these paid for by the Govt? If they are then poor [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION], he will be so angry at this.lol

Its animal ambulance and hospital. All kinds are treated there.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Because their your citizens?

Building religious structures for them is not the government's job in a secular state. This is not an islamic country.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Isnt it more of a holding centre for the Hajjis to facilitate smooth running of operations rather than a religious building.

It has a mosque inside. Atleast the one in kolkata has.

I am all for Waqf boards building this. Government facilitating the services. But taxpayers money should not be used on this.

 

[Bewal Express]

Its animal ambulance and hospital. All kinds are treated there.

Is it paid for by taxes

 

[Bewal Express]

It has a mosque inside. Atleast the one in kolkata has.

I am all for Waqf boards building this. Government facilitating the services. But taxpayers money should not be used on this.

I am sure plenty of people will contribute towards the Mosque if asked. It's the govt responsibility to build the holding centres.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Actually, Many hardline Hindus would've wanted to build more mandirs but it's the good hindus like this guy who bravely stand with the truth and not scared of speaking it out. These are the people who are the last hope for India.

As he rightly says @0:28 to 0:32

The more jokers like these speak the more united hindus get in India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I am sure plenty of people will contribute towards the Mosque if asked. It's the govt responsibility to build the holding centres.

Its not the government job to provide accommodation to people travelling to saudi.

Till few years back government even paid for their tickets.

This is not how tax money is to be spent.

Waqf has thousands of rupees worth of properties. That should be used.

 

[Bewal Express]

Its not the government job to provide accommodation to people travelling to saudi.

Till few years back government even paid for their tickets.

This is not how tax money is to be spent.

Waqf has thousands of rupees worth of properties. That should be used.

I agree on tickets but helping to facilitate citizens is the govts job.

 

[Kroll]

I agree on tickets but helping to facilitate citizens is the govts job.

Absolutely, they should be facilitated with more than adequate accommodation for their needs. Its a great community that is loyal to India and they should be well looked after, its the least the govt. can do.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I agree on tickets but helping to facilitate citizens is the govts job.

Facilitating and building them an accommodation using public money are two different things.

 

[street cricketer]

A secular state also has no business in banning beef..

 

[GenericBrand]

Secular for thee but not for me

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

If the "Hajj House" is being proposed to be built with taxpayer money, then that's wrong. Muslim community should raise money themselves and build it.

 

[Ashmal]

Its not the government job to provide accommodation to people travelling to saudi.

Till few years back government even paid for their tickets.

This is not how tax money is to be spent.

Waqf has thousands of rupees worth of properties. That should be used.

Doesn't the 'secular' Indian Govt spend money on Hindu pilgrims travelling to Mansarovar lake...

So don't give this lame 'secular' excuse

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

When anything for Muslims: india is secular state

When anything for Hindus: **deflect, deflect, deflect”

 

[Zaz]

Most sane people can clesrly see through all the smokescreen and deflections from a certain poster

The bottom line why all this hatred from the bjp and its supporters is because these citizens of islamic identity are the enemy not equal state citizens

 

[Bewal Express]

Doesn't the 'secular' Indian Govt spend money on Hindu pilgrims travelling to Mansarovar lake...

So don't give this lame 'secular' excuse

That's OK, they are the right kind of secular

 

[cricketjoshila]

A secular state also has no business in banning beef..

Ban is on slaughter of cows. Animal can have protected status.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Doesn't the 'secular' Indian Govt spend money on Hindu pilgrims travelling to Mansarovar lake...

So don't give this lame 'secular' excuse

They facilitate the yatra but pilgrims have to pay their own costs.


https://www.mea.gov.in/fees-and-expenditure-kmy.htm

Here is the entire fee break up.

 

[cricketjoshila]

That's OK, they are the right kind of secular

Atleast know before you open your mouth.

https://www.mea.gov.in/fees-and-expenditure-kmy.htm

 

[street cricketer]

Ban is on slaughter of cows. Animal can have protected status.

Why is there a specific ban only on the slaughter of cows and not on say goats?

If it's due to protected status, why is it protected? Cows are not exactly an animal species on the verge of extinction are they..

 

[smkk]

They facilitate the yatra but pilgrims have to pay their own costs.


https://www.mea.gov.in/fees-and-expenditure-kmy.htm

Here is the entire fee break up.

Same concept here also.

The muslims are not telling you to pay for their travels. Just provide appropriate accommodation for their travels. All the costs for going and coming back would be paid by themselves.

 

[Bewal Express]

Ban is on slaughter of cows. Animal can have protected status.

Why Cows? I thought it was a secular country. Before you open your mouth, at least try to be honest

 

[cricketjoshila]

Why Cows? I thought it was a secular country. Before you open your mouth, at least try to be honest

Because cow is a means of sustenance to millions of Indians, who have raised cows and sold milk for generations. Thats the economic reason. Cow rearing is a cultural thing too. Remember not only hindus but Sikhs too dont consume beef. Thats more than 80 per cent of the population.

Mahatma Gandhi specifically asked for protection and non killing of the cows.

The directive principles of the constitution again ask that cows be protected.

Bengal is a state where cow slaughtering is permitted. There is an entire mechanism here that is involved in stealing and smuggling cows. Its such big scandal which the bengal government supported, for obvious reasons, that the constitutional courts had to interfere and the union Government under CBI is investigating it.

Cow slaughter ban was brought in 1956. Why? Because the non muslims, majorly hindus and sikhs were up in arms after Nehru allowed Muslim personal laws to be governed by Sharia and included all others into the constitution under marriage, divorce and inheritance acts.

If there is a uniform civil code, cow slaughter ban will have to go too. Guess who are opposing the uniform civil code.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Same concept here also.

The muslims are not telling you to pay for their travels. Just provide appropriate accommodation for their travels. All the costs for going and coming back would be paid by themselves.

Is government paying for accomodation of hindu pilgrims? No.

 

[Bewal Express]

Because cow is a means of sustenance to millions of Indians, who have raised cows and sold milk for generations. Thats the economic reason. Cow rearing is a cultural thing too. Remember not only hindus but Sikhs too dont consume beef. Thats more than 80 per cent of the population.

Mahatma Gandhi specifically asked for protection and non killing of the cows.

The directive principles of the constitution again ask that cows be protected.

Bengal is a state where cow slaughtering is permitted. There is an entire mechanism here that is involved in stealing and smuggling cows. Its such big scandal which the bengal government supported, for obvious reasons, that the constitutional courts had to interfere and the union Government under CBI is investigating it.

Cow slaughter ban was brought in 1956. Why? Because the non muslims, majorly hindus and sikhs were up in arms after Nehru allowed Muslim personal laws to be governed by Sharia and included all others into the constitution under marriage, divorce and inheritance acts.

If there is a uniform civil code, cow slaughter ban will have to go too. Guess who are opposing the uniform civil code.

So you what you are saying is that its not secular because you told us that the state has no business and here you contradicting yourself by saying that cultural/ religious sensitivity is important and it involves the govt.
Make up your mind are you or are you not a secular state? Because you have told us that the cow laws aren't secular

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Because cow is a means of sustenance to millions of Indians, who have raised cows and sold milk for generations. Thats the economic reason. Cow rearing is a cultural thing too. Remember not only hindus but Sikhs too dont consume beef. Thats more than 80 per cent of the population.

Mahatma Gandhi specifically asked for protection and non killing of the cows.

The directive principles of the constitution again ask that cows be protected.

Bengal is a state where cow slaughtering is permitted. There is an entire mechanism here that is involved in stealing and smuggling cows. Its such big scandal which the bengal government supported, for obvious reasons, that the constitutional courts had to interfere and the union Government under CBI is investigating it.

Cow slaughter ban was brought in 1956. Why? Because the non muslims, majorly hindus and sikhs were up in arms after Nehru allowed Muslim personal laws to be governed by Sharia and included all others into the constitution under marriage, divorce and inheritance acts.

If there is a uniform civil code, cow slaughter ban will have to go too. Guess who are opposing the uniform civil code.

Beef farming is also a major. major industry that plays a huge role in the sustenance of millions.
Brazil, Argentina, USA, China etc ... are the biggest beef producers. You must be thinking they have killed all the cows and now they are starving to death?

And what does Mahtama Gandhi got to with the religiosity of a cow? He was a politician, and cunning one too.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So you what you are saying is that its not secular because you told us that the state has no business and here you contradicting yourself by saying that cultural/ religious sensitivity is important and it involves the govt.
Make up your mind are you or are you not a secular state? Because you have told us that the cow laws aren't secular

Read the post again. There are economic and constitutional requirements to protect the cows. There are dictums of our father of the nation.

And ultimately muslims are against a uniform law, they want their sharia, hence hindus got their laws too. If muslims agree to a UCC then sharia and cow slaughter bans will go.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Beef farming is also a major. major industry that plays a huge role in the sustenance of millions.
Brazil, Argentina, USA, China etc ... are the biggest beef producers. You must be thinking they have killed all the cows and now they are starving to death?

And what does Mahtama Gandhi got to with the religiosity of a cow? He was a politician, and cunning one too.

Why should we copy others? A country of a 1.3bn people needs its own laws not copy paste.

 

[Bewal Express]

Read the post again. There are economic and constitutional requirements to protect the cows. There are dictums of our father of the nation.

And ultimately muslims are against a uniform law, they want their sharia, hence hindus got their laws too. If muslims agree to a UCC then sharia and cow slaughter bans will go.

Why? If you are secular country then there should be none of that. You cant have it both ways- it is or it isnt, you cant pick and chose your secular principles when it suits your prejudices against Muslims. Btw i dont disagree with the clause if it helps to deal with religious and cultural sensitivities.

 

[Tubs]

While India is constitutionally secular, it seems that Modi and his government betray that by funding things for Hindus. If that's the case, and if there is sufficient demand from Muslims (there are ~200 million of them in India, so I'm sure there would be), then I don't see why they shouldn't construct the Hajj House.

Ideally, there would be no need to do all this due to the BJP government not being hypocritical towards their own religion, but if they're going to do so, then they need to adhere to the religious sensitivities of other religions to be consistent.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Why should we copy others? A country of a 1.3bn people needs its own laws not copy paste.

Why do you educate yourself then? Don't copy west.
Why do you wear jeans and eat burgers? Close all western food joints and Harley Davidson stores in India

Anyway, there are still good and sensible hindus left and they are the only hope for India.

These are all Hindus.

 

[MP2011]

Why do you educate yourself then? Don't copy west.
Why do you wear jeans and eat burgers? Close all western food joints and Harley Davidson stores in India

Anyway, there are still good and sensible hindus left and they are the only hope for India.

These are all Hindus.

Wire in an anti national publication and hence doesn't count.

 

[MP2011]

I live very close to this place, Dwarka. I can tell you with utmost conviction this is yet another attempt by unemployed sanghis to stoke communal fires in this peaceful area.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Is government paying for accomodation of hindu pilgrims? No.

I have read a few reports on the protests, hardly any of them are objecting about the govt spending money, most of them are complaining that it will be a breeding ground for terrorists, or that the Hajj house should be built in Muslim areas, not the location that has been allocated.

 

[Kroll]

Its the least they can do since we built the Lal Qila and various other monuments for them across the city and beyond.

 

[Suleiman]

Why should tax payers money be used to built haj house? I can understand taxpayer money being used to organise the security civic amenities etc of events in India like the urs at Ajmer Sharif.

But if Muslims want to travel to saudi, why should government make accommodation arrangements like this?

It’s hilarious to see you call the Mughals brutal in their rule in the other thread yet you will go to any length to defend BJP’s handling of minorities- they are just as brutal considering the day and age we live in. Any time a thread is posted about wrongdoing from India, I already know you will have 10 million ways to spin it around in your head.

 

[Justcrazy]

It’s hilarious to see you call the Mughals brutal in their rule in the other thread yet you will go to any length to defend BJP’s handling of minorities- they are just as brutal considering the day and age we live in. Any time a thread is posted about wrongdoing from India, I already know you will have 10 million ways to spin it around in your head.

RSS has spent years in the root levels of Indian society to poison several minds. In Indian freedom there contribution is zero , yet today they claim to be the foremost nationalists.

There the whole vocabulary is limited to Pakistan, Muslims, Nehru, and Bharat Mata.

RSS is cancer, which has spread too much.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Why? If you are secular country then there should be none of that. You cant have it both ways- it is or it isnt, you cant pick and chose your secular principles when it suits your prejudices against Muslims. Btw i dont disagree with the clause if it helps to deal with religious and cultural sensitivities.

If muslim sensitivities are important and they need sharia laws, why isnt hindu sensitivity important?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Its the least they can do since we built the Lal Qila and various other monuments for them across the city and beyond.

We? Who is this we? You built nothing in India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Why do you educate yourself then? Don't copy west.
Why do you wear jeans and eat burgers? Close all western food joints and Harley Davidson stores in India

Anyway, there are still good and sensible hindus left and they are the only hope for India.

These are all Hindus.

1. Education is a western thing? Nalanda, Vikramshila, Takshila university were built by the brits?

2. Trying western cuisine is equal to having the same laws as them?

3. Please stop reading Wire, its a far left propoganda outlet.

 

[Giannis]

They don't ever try to accommodate their Muslim citizens but spent tax monies on facilitating a Hindu pilgrimage to Kashmir while the valley has been under lockdown for the past 2 years.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

1. Education is a western thing? Nalanda, Vikramshila, Takshila university were built by the brits?

2. Trying western cuisine is equal to having the same laws as them?

3. Please stop reading Wire, its a far left propoganda outlet.

Perhaps quite democracy too, it sure is a western thing.

So the people in the video are paid actors?

 

[street cricketer]

If muslim sensitivities are important and they need sharia laws, why isnt hindu sensitivity important?

Shariah law affects only a muslim's personal life. It doesn't infringe on the rights of a hindu.

Whereas the beef ban does so on a muslim. Why should a muslim refrain from eating beef so that a hindu is not offended? Sure you can say that cow slaughter can be avoided in public places, but what's the problem in muslims doing so in private places away from public area to affect the sensitivities of hindus.

If you say that cow slaughter ban should be enforced strictly, then at least don't spin it as some sort of a secular law. That Gandhi believed so is not an excuse, Gandhi also believed in hindu-muslim unity and fought for muslim rights. Doesn't stop the "nationalists" in attacking muslims and Gandhi being seen as a traitor by them for doing so in present day India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Perhaps quite democracy too, it sure is a western thing.

So the people in the video are paid actors?

Who told you democracy is a western concept?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Shariah law affects only a muslim's personal life. It doesn't infringe on the rights of a hindu.

Whereas the beef ban does so on a muslim. Why should a muslim refrain from eating beef so that a hindu is not offended? Sure you can say that cow slaughter can be avoided in public places, but what's the problem in muslims doing so in private places away from public area to affect the sensitivities of hindus.

If you say that cow slaughter ban should be enforced strictly, then at least don't spin it as some sort of a secular law. That Gandhi believed so is not an excuse, Gandhi also believed in hindu-muslim unity and fought for muslim rights. Doesn't stop the "nationalists" in attacking muslims and Gandhi being seen as a traitor by them for doing so in present day India.

Any law specific to only one religion affects the entire society. When you give one religioys community the privilege to decide things according to its own religion while the other group has to abide by constitutional laws then its dicriminatory.

Do read what Gandhi said about muslims after the direct action day riots.

Why should a country of 80 per cent hindus be secular? Why should hindus not ask for a hindu country and hold a referendum? We know what will be the result of that referendum. No?

Hindus despite being close to 90 per cent in 1947 were denied a hindu country and promised a secular country with equal rights. Nehru and his coterie didn't do that. They made Muslims a privileged community.

I say bring in the uniform civil code. Let laws be same for everyone. Why are muslims opposing that? They want their sharia laws and at the same time talk about secularism.

 

[cricketjoshila]

They don't ever try to accommodate their Muslim citizens but spent tax monies on facilitating a Hindu pilgrimage to Kashmir while the valley has been under lockdown for the past 2 years.

Does government pay for the pilgrims journey and accomodation?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Any law specific to only one religion affects the entire society. When you give one religioys community the privilege to decide things according to its own religion while the other group has to abide by constitutional laws then its dicriminatory.

Do read what Gandhi said about muslims after the direct action day riots.

Why should a country of 80 per cent hindus be secular? Why should hindus not ask for a hindu country and hold a referendum? We know what will be the result of that referendum. No?

Hindus despite being close to 90 per cent in 1947 were denied a hindu country and promised a secular country with equal rights. Nehru and his coterie didn't do that. They made Muslims a privileged community.

I say bring in the uniform civil code. Let laws be same for everyone. Why are muslims opposing that? They want their sharia laws and at the same time talk about secularism.

But aren't you proudly boasting about India's secular values and commitment to democracy in other threads? You seem to shift your position a lot depending on the topic at the time, this makes it difficult to understand what exactly it is you desire.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Shariah law affects only a muslim's personal life. It doesn't infringe on the rights of a hindu.

Whereas the beef ban does so on a muslim. Why should a muslim refrain from eating beef so that a hindu is not offended? Sure you can say that cow slaughter can be avoided in public places, but what's the problem in muslims doing so in private places away from public area to affect the sensitivities of hindus.

If you say that cow slaughter ban should be enforced strictly, then at least don't spin it as some sort of a secular law. That Gandhi believed so is not an excuse, Gandhi also believed in hindu-muslim unity and fought for muslim rights. Doesn't stop the "nationalists" in attacking muslims and Gandhi being seen as a traitor by them for doing so in present day India.

I think killing a cow is illegal under the Indian constitution which was established shortly after independence ? Its similar to how killing an Eagle is banned in the US as per their constitution... I could be wrong about India here, can someone confirm ?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think killing a cow is illegal under the Indian constitution which was established shortly after independence ? Its similar to how killing an Eagle is banned in the US as per their constitution... I could be wrong about India here, can someone confirm ?

Eagles roam the skies and don't really interfere with man's everyday work life. They are also an endangered species. I don't really get the comparison. If anything it just shows that Americans were a lot smarter in adopting a bird or mammal as their national mascot.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Eagles roam the skies and don't really interfere with man's everyday work life. They are also an endangered species. I don't really get the comparison. If anything it just shows that Americans were a lot smarter in adopting a bird or mammal as their national mascot.

Captain your reply showed a little bit of immaturity.

Eagle represents Freedom for Americans, it is not about being endangered or being in a man's way, you are forgiven here...

 

[street cricketer]

Any law specific to only one religion affects the entire society. When you give one religioys community the privilege to decide things according to its own religion while the other group has to abide by constitutional laws then its dicriminatory.

Do read what Gandhi said about muslims after the direct action day riots.

I'm confused here. If you say you want a hindu rashtra, by all means support the beef ban. But having a beef ban contradicts secularism, even India's version of secularism. All the laws in the muslim personal law affects the lives of muslims only and I believe it doesn't apply to the criminal laws which is the same for everyone. If Hindus want their own laws like allowing polygamy, they should push for the law. Afterall a hindu nationalist government has been in power in the last 7 years. I'm sure it could do it if it wants.

Why should a country of 80 per cent hindus be secular? Why should hindus not ask for a hindu country and hold a referendum? We know what will be the result of that referendum. No?

Hindus despite being close to 90 per cent in 1947 were denied a hindu country and promised a secular country with equal rights. Nehru and his coterie didn't do that. They made Muslims a privileged community.

I say bring in the uniform civil code. Let laws be same for everyone. Why are muslims opposing that? They want their sharia laws and at the same time talk about secularism.

The path to progress and development is less religion and not more religion in the public sphere. There is a reason an overwhelming majority of religious states are not progressive and a Hindu rashtra isn't going to be any different.

"Why should hindus not ask for a referendum to make a Hindu rashtra?"

Well I suppose they could, but you're forgetting that India is a union of states and many states joined the Indian union knowing it's going to be a plural, secular state that respects unity in diversity. If the north wants to create a Hindu rashtra, by all means do but just leave the south out of this mess. I have an idea - we'll have two autonomous regions with north India being a Hindu rashtra and south India being as it is now. Or if you're firm in your conviction that the rule of the majority should prevail and that India should be a hindu rashtra because most people think so, I'm afraid things won't work like that.

 

[street cricketer]

I think killing a cow is illegal under the Indian constitution which was established shortly after independence ? Its similar to how killing an Eagle is banned in the US as per their constitution... I could be wrong about India here, can someone confirm ?

I'm sure cow slaughter is allowed in a few specific states. Some states have just a blanket ban on cattle slaughter while some states prohibit cow slaughter only and allow slaughter of bulls and bullock.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Captain your reply showed a little bit of immaturity.

Eagle represents Freedom for Americans, it is not about being endangered or being in a man's way, you are forgiven here...

Maybe, but happily for Americans, eagles don't sit down in front of traffic or roam the streets alongside rickshaws and cyclists, so I think their adoption of the eagle was quite smart, that is all I am saying. Must be a bit more challenging accommodating cows outside of rural communities.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Maybe, but happily for Americans, eagles don't sit down in front of traffic or roam the streets alongside rickshaws and cyclists, so I think their adoption of the eagle was quite smart, that is all I am saying. Must be a bit more challenging accommodating cows outside of rural communities.

Its besides the point though Cap, its a symbol for the people and country... If Indian constitution says Cow slaughter is illegal, well then it should be respected...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Its besides the point though Cap, its a symbol for the people and country... If Indian constitution says Cow slaughter is illegal, well then it should be respected...

Why? Do you respect every other country's constitution regardless of whether they meet your own criteria? Reading your replies over the years I would suggest not.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Why? Do you respect every other country's constitution regardless of whether they meet your own criteria? Reading your replies over the years I would suggest not.

Can you show me a few examples of where I stated I do not respect the constitutional laws of the countries I have resided in ?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Can you show me a few examples of where I stated I do not respect the constitutional laws of the countries I have resided in ?

Yes I can.

 

[Bewal Express]

If muslim sensitivities are important and they need sharia laws, why isnt hindu sensitivity important?

Who said they aren't? Read the last sentence. It's you that said it's a secular country, and if that is the case then why have these. You seem to be arguing for and against.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

 

[OMB]

At one time, India was the leader and then was overtaken by the Brazil.

On a side note - Both the nations shouldn't be proud of this though as all that beef is for export and ends up in various food joints in the world and that mad rush for this food is destroying Brazils forest. Since they are poor governments cannot restrain the farmers who keep levelling the forests to find freshland for cattle and farming.
I am all for reducing export of this type of food and increase technology or service sector instead.