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

[WhenSultansBowled]

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.

Absolutely. Very well put!

--

People, especially RSS/BJP supporter Indians, must understand that politicians and businessmen never do what they preach. On a Sunday a BJP/RSS politicians can be inciting naïve Hindus for violence against Muslims because of cow beef and on Monday he will be closing a deal to export cow beef to China.

This is the reality.

(Same can be applied to so called Muslim right winger politicians' hypocrisy!)

 

[cricketjoshila]

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.



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.

1. Secularism will mean same laws for everyone. No exceptions.

2. Can you tell me which state joined India on the condition that it will be a secular state? Afaik there was no guarantee given to any state regarding the nature of the religion that will be followed.All Southern princely states that joined the union were hindu majority.All of them were ruled by hindu kings except Hyderabad. Southern states, except Kerala are all massively hindu majority. FYI the boundaries of the states that joined India no longer exists. They all have been re organised.

India as described by Ambedkar is a indestructible union of destructible states.

 

[cricketjoshila]

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.

I argue for a uniform law for all. But muslims in India oppose it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

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.

If a hindu is given the choice of a hindu state or a state where muslims will be privileged class and hindus will not have equal rights, the choice will be clear. No?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If a hindu is given the choice of a hindu state or a state where muslims will be privileged class and hindus will not have equal rights, the choice will be clear. No?

Minorities being given protection and and some ease from the elements does not really rank as privilege in most people's eyes, neither should it need a hindu state to ensure secular laws where beef slaughter is banned for some reason.

If you want a hindu state, I am not going to argue with you, it's your country, but just be open about it, and stop trying to dress it up as some secular haven when evidence is the opposite.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Yes I can.

Excellent, I am curious to know myself.. I personally do not recall typing such posts who knows maybe I did.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Who told you democracy is a western concept?

And who told you it's not?

 

[street cricketer]

1. Secularism will mean same laws for everyone. No exceptions.

2. Can you tell me which state joined India on the condition that it will be a secular state? Afaik there was no guarantee given to any state regarding the nature of the religion that will be followed.All Southern princely states that joined the union were hindu majority.All of them were ruled by hindu kings except Hyderabad. Southern states, except Kerala are all massively hindu majority. FYI the boundaries of the states that joined India no longer exists. They all have been re organised.

India as described by Ambedkar is a indestructible union of destructible states.

1. Secularism also means a complete separation of the church from the state. Would you agree to repealing the cow slaughter ban in all the Indian states if muslims agree to a uniform civil code without their special personal laws?

2. There was a reason the constitution was written. You cannot change the country from a secular state to a Hindu rashtra just like that. It's fine if north India wants to do it in their region. But there's a huge cultural divide between the north and the south and if south indians really wanted a Hindu rashtra, the BJP would have won in all the states while it's ruling only one state. South India would never agree to a referendum because it would always be a loser in such a referendum purely because of the fact that north India has failed to control its population while south india has reduced its population and it's actually decreasing given the fertility rate is below the replacement level. Why should the south suffer because of something the north wants..

It's true that all are hindu majority states but that doesn't mean they would support a hindu rashtra. It's possible for a population to be hindu majority and still wanting to be secular just as it is possible for a christian majority population to be secular like it is in many other countries. Like I said, it's fine if north India wants a hindu rashtra and want to compete with Pakistan on a theological level but just leave the south out of your hindu muslim rivalries. It's largely peaceful, there is no big hindu-muslim divide here, the region is progressing at a good pace and states are competing with each other in who develops faster. I don't want all this to be hampered by some pointless religious polarisation and creation of a divide between our people.

 

[Bewal Express]

1. Secularism also means a complete separation of the church from the state. Would you agree to repealing the cow slaughter ban in all the Indian states if muslims agree to a uniform civil code without their special personal laws?

2. There was a reason the constitution was written. You cannot change the country from a secular state to a Hindu rashtra just like that. It's fine if north India wants to do it in their region. But there's a huge cultural divide between the north and the south and if south indians really wanted a Hindu rashtra, the BJP would have won in all the states while it's ruling only one state. South India would never agree to a referendum because it would always be a loser in such a referendum purely because of the fact that north India has failed to control its population while south india has reduced its population and it's actually decreasing given the fertility rate is below the replacement level. Why should the south suffer because of something the north wants..

It's true that all are hindu majority states but that doesn't mean they would support a hindu rashtra. It's possible for a population to be hindu majority and still wanting to be secular just as it is possible for a christian majority population to be secular like it is in many other countries. Like I said, it's fine if north India wants a hindu rashtra and want to compete with Pakistan on a theological level but just leave the south out of your hindu muslim rivalries. It's largely peaceful, there is no big hindu-muslim divide here, the region is progressing at a good pace and states are competing with each other in who develops faster. I don't want all this to be hampered by some pointless religious polarisation and creation of a divide between our people.

Is my impression that animosity towards Muslims isn't as much in the south of Ind, and why is that?

 

[street cricketer]

Is my impression that animosity towards Muslims isn't as much in the south of Ind, and why is that?

It's complicated but in summary -

1. Different histories - muslim rule didn't happen to a great extent in the south and south was largely ruled by their own indigenous empires. Therefore there's no religious polarisation due to historical elements. Islam spread in the south through early Arab traders and merchants rather than through conquests.

2. The muslim population was concentrated in the north western and eastern parts of British India and friction and riots between the two communities (hindu and muslim) happened where the hindu and muslim majority regions mixed and not in the south which is far away from either Pakistan or Bangladesh.

3. Because of the same geographical location, south wasn't exposed to the partition violence and therefore less polarisation against the other whereas I'd imagine Punjabi hindus and muslims, and Bengali hindus and muslims would be polarised against each other due to what happened during the partition.

4. Different cultures - They do differ in religions and obviously each region has its differences but Pakistan, northern India and even Bangladesh to an extent have a lot in common as they speak the same family of languages whereas the south speaks a totally different family of languages. Cuisine also differs and even in the way people dress.

Put simply, you would be able to get by if you, as a Pakistani, were to be air dropped in any part of northern India but south India might look like a completely different country to you because the language would be unintelligible unlike hindi and the food would be completely different and rice based whereas Pakistan and northern (particularly north western) India is wheat based. Bangladesh I guess is mixed in some ways because eastern India tends to be rice based like the south. I suppose familiarity breeds contempt and that's one of the reasons why Pakistan and north india share contempt for each other while it's largely unknown territory for Pakistan and south India.

4. Social reforms also started early in the south I think, particularly in places like Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Radical anti religion and anti caste social reformers changed the way people think and each state has a specific culture. TN for example has a strong ideology of Dravidianism, and rationalism (which is just a euphemism for atheism) is a strong component of it. Doesn't mean all the people are atheists, but just that people aren't so hung up over religion, you can openly talk against practices in hinduism and criticise it and still win elections. Meanwhile Kerala has a strong culture of communism and as you might know, communism has strong atheist undercurrents to it.

All this doesn't mean everyone is atheist in south india and you will find many religious hindus and south india is home to most of the old traditional temples in India. But people are probably the least uptight about religion in the south than anywhere else in the subcontinent. And the results in the latest PEW survey about India also revealed the same. All this contribute towards far less polarisation against muslims in the south. Inter caste polarisation is much more than religious polarisation in south india. In fact, the hindu muslim issue isn't even a talking factor in our elections.

 

[street cricketer]

While the strong anti religion and anti caste reformers didn't necessarily end up converting all south indians to atheists (a lot of south indians are in fact very religious), what it did though is it created a severe dislike for mixing religion with poltics and therefore made people believe bringing religion to the public sphere was harmful to the society as a result of the Dravidian and communist influences. That obviously translates to much less polarisation based on religious lines and polarisation during elections generally exists on caste lines.

 

[cricketjoshila]

1. Secularism also means a complete separation of the church from the state. Would you agree to repealing the cow slaughter ban in all the Indian states if muslims agree to a uniform civil code without their special personal laws?

2. There was a reason the constitution was written. You cannot change the country from a secular state to a Hindu rashtra just like that. It's fine if north India wants to do it in their region. But there's a huge cultural divide between the north and the south and if south indians really wanted a Hindu rashtra, the BJP would have won in all the states while it's ruling only one state. South India would never agree to a referendum because it would always be a loser in such a referendum purely because of the fact that north India has failed to control its population while south india has reduced its population and it's actually decreasing given the fertility rate is below the replacement level. Why should the south suffer because of something the north wants..

It's true that all are hindu majority states but that doesn't mean they would support a hindu rashtra. It's possible for a population to be hindu majority and still wanting to be secular just as it is possible for a christian majority population to be secular like it is in many other countries. Like I said, it's fine if north India wants a hindu rashtra and want to compete with Pakistan on a theological level but just leave the south out of your hindu muslim rivalries. It's largely peaceful, there is no big hindu-muslim divide here, the region is progressing at a good pace and states are competing with each other in who develops faster. I don't want all this to be hampered by some pointless religious polarisation and creation of a divide between our people.

1. Repeal any cow slaughter bans if there is a uniform civil code. But cow slaughter should still be regulated so that its sale and slaughter isn't near any hindu or sikh religious place.

2.Cultural divide doesn't mean south indians are devoid of hindus. BJP's graph is only going up in south india. Except Kerala and TN BJP would be in power in the two other states within the next decade. They are the main opposition party there.

Unless and until a new Dravidian leader emerges in TN, sooner or later a hindu backward caste leader will unite the hindu votes, the backward castes will vote for him because of caste and the upper caste will vote him because he will play the hindu religion caste.

With the demise of Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi, Dravidian politics will now take a slide. More and more caste leaders will emerge who will unite under the hindu banner. Stalin and his policies will only galvanize the bjp campaign to ignite the hindus.

Muslim appeasing parties always thought that since hindu votes are divided on caste lines, any party will require muslim votes to win majority. Bjp has proven it wrong and has united the hindu votes across the spectrum.


There is no hindu muslim problem in south? Lol.

Tamil nadu isnt the only south.

South is not a single entity. Its divided by language and regions.

Plenty of hindu muslim divide in Kerala and Karnataka. Even TRS is now moving away from muslims in telengana because of the hindu shift to BJP.

When there will be a referendum we will see how the south indians vote. No?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Is my impression that animosity towards Muslims isn't as much in the south of Ind, and why is that?

Because the muslim population is less. Where ever the population is more, like coastal Karnataka, Kerala, Parts of Telengana there are problems and there is animosity.

Tamilnadu has 5.5 per cent muslims. Christians are more. Hindus are 88 percent so ofcourse muslims can hardly have any impact there. Andhra is 91 percent hindu.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It's complicated but in summary -

1. Different histories - muslim rule didn't happen to a great extent in the south and south was largely ruled by their own indigenous empires. Therefore there's no religious polarisation due to historical elements. Islam spread in the south through early Arab traders and merchants rather than through conquests.

2. The muslim population was concentrated in the north western and eastern parts of British India and friction and riots between the two communities (hindu and muslim) happened where the hindu and muslim majority regions mixed and not in the south which is far away from either Pakistan or Bangladesh.

3. Because of the same geographical location, south wasn't exposed to the partition violence and therefore less polarisation against the other whereas I'd imagine Punjabi hindus and muslims, and Bengali hindus and muslims would be polarised against each other due to what happened during the partition.

4. Different cultures - They do differ in religions and obviously each region has its differences but Pakistan, northern India and even Bangladesh to an extent have a lot in common as they speak the same family of languages whereas the south speaks a totally different family of languages. Cuisine also differs and even in the way people dress.

Put simply, you would be able to get by if you, as a Pakistani, were to be air dropped in any part of northern India but south India might look like a completely different country to you because the language would be unintelligible unlike hindi and the food would be completely different and rice based whereas Pakistan and northern (particularly north western) India is wheat based. Bangladesh I guess is mixed in some ways because eastern India tends to be rice based like the south. I suppose familiarity breeds contempt and that's one of the reasons why Pakistan and north india share contempt for each other while it's largely unknown territory for Pakistan and south India.

4. Social reforms also started early in the south I think, particularly in places like Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Radical anti religion and anti caste social reformers changed the way people think and each state has a specific culture. TN for example has a strong ideology of Dravidianism, and rationalism (which is just a euphemism for atheism) is a strong component of it. Doesn't mean all the people are atheists, but just that people aren't so hung up over religion, you can openly talk against practices in hinduism and criticise it and still win elections. Meanwhile Kerala has a strong culture of communism and as you might know, communism has strong atheist undercurrents to it.

All this doesn't mean everyone is atheist in south india and you will find many religious hindus and south india is home to most of the old traditional temples in India. But people are probably the least uptight about religion in the south than anywhere else in the subcontinent. And the results in the latest PEW survey about India also revealed the same. All this contribute towards far less polarisation against muslims in the south. Inter caste polarisation is much more than religious polarisation in south india. In fact, the hindu muslim issue isn't even a talking factor in our elections.

Pretty good post. Also reflects my own experience with Indian kids at my school. I knew a couple from South India who were always warm and friendly, although they did tend to get bullied as a result of that. Punjabi Indians were more brash and aggressive, although I can't really knock them for that, when you are at a predominantly white school you need to be able to stand your ground.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Excellent, I am curious to know myself.. I personally do not recall typing such posts who knows maybe I did.

@ Captain, any update on this ?

 

[OMB]

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

lol. Good question. who are these "we"?
Others who have been teaching the world how to build buildings, teaching us eh?
probably these "we" should visit India and see the amazing works with intricate marble carvings in other structures and some outright unbelievable works in Ajanta and Ellora caves.
In contrast, I have been to Lal Qila, ordinary structure. No education there.

 

[Romali_rotti]

lol. Good question. who are these "we"?
Others who have been teaching the world how to build buildings, teaching us eh?
probably these "we" should visit India and see the amazing works with intricate marble carvings in other structures and some outright unbelievable works in Ajanta and Ellora caves.
In contrast, I have been to Lal Qila, ordinary structure. No education there.

I don't think the converts to Islam can be considered 'WE' Only ppl of outside Indian heritage

 

[DeadlyVenom]

lol. Good question. who are these "we"?
Others who have been teaching the world how to build buildings, teaching us eh?
probably these "we" should visit India and see the amazing works with intricate marble carvings in other structures and some outright unbelievable works in Ajanta and Ellora caves.
In contrast, I have been to Lal Qila, ordinary structure. No education there.

Reasonable people can appreciate the beauty and historical significance of all of the areas you have mentioned.

Unfortunately you are a bigot like many posters ( on both sides of the fence) and will find nothing of education in something that doesn't fit within your religion.

Quite sad.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Because the muslim population is less. Where ever the population is more, like coastal Karnataka, Kerala, Parts of Telengana there are problems and there is animosity.

Tamilnadu has 5.5 per cent muslims. Christians are more. Hindus are 88 percent so ofcourse muslims can hardly have any impact there. Andhra is 91 percent hindu.

It seems like wherever Hindus are less secure in numbers then there are major issues.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

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?

I'll be honest I quite agree that there doesn't seem to be a need for the building. But if they have agreed to build it why are Hindus threatening to kill Muslims ( according to the article).

That to me is the bigger issue.

 

[street cricketer]

1. Repeal any cow slaughter bans if there is a uniform civil code. But cow slaughter should still be regulated so that its sale and slaughter isn't near any hindu or sikh religious place.

This is fair. Fair play to you for being objective.

2.Cultural divide doesn't mean south indians are devoid of hindus. BJP's graph is only going up in south india. Except Kerala and TN BJP would be in power in the two other states within the next decade. They are the main opposition party there.

Unless and until a new Dravidian leader emerges in TN, sooner or later a hindu backward caste leader will unite the hindu votes, the backward castes will vote for him because of caste and the upper caste will vote him because he will play the hindu religion caste.

With the demise of Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi, Dravidian politics will now take a slide. More and more caste leaders will emerge who will unite under the hindu banner. Stalin and his policies will only galvanize the bjp campaign to ignite the hindus.

Muslim appeasing parties always thought that since hindu votes are divided on caste lines, any party will require muslim votes to win majority. Bjp has proven it wrong and has united the hindu votes across the spectrum.

I don't think I've ever come across someone from the northern part of the country who has ever understood the cultural vibes of TN. They keep saying that the BJP will come to power sooner or later because Dravidian parties will die a slow death and naturally Tamils will unite under the banner of hindu nationalism just like it has happened in the north of India. This is an opinion that's so ignorant of the political history and system in TN. Saying hindu nationalism would rise in TN just as it has happened in the states in north India just because both are hindu majority regions is like saying the politics in Albania and Egypt is very similar just because both are muslim majority countries. The political cultures in the north and the south, particularly in TN are poles apart. There is no concept of hindu nationalism here but there has always been strong sentiments of Tamil nationalism. TN is probably one of the rare places in south asia where linguistic nationalism dominates over religious nationalism, if you ask a Tamil whether he is more proud to be a hindu or more proud to be a Tamil, he is most definitely going to choose the latter. Linguistic nationalism is a general feature of south indian states but nowhere is the phenomenon more strong than it is in TN.

Which "hindu" backward caste leader is going to unite the hindus lol. By what strategy? Using the same tried and tested muslim boogeyman strategy that's been successful elsewhere? You're talking as if the leaders in DMK and ADMK aren't hindus. Stalin might be atheist, but his wife is a practicing hindu. PTR, the TN finance minister is a staunch devotee of the Meenakshi Amman temple in Madurai. How is this supposed messiah going to make the BJP win in TN. I agree that some people do vote based on caste in TN, but as soon as the OBC leader joins the BJP, he will be seen as a hindutvadi only and not as someone representing the caste. Do you have hopes on Annamalai becoming the TN CM lol?

Dravidianism has a history of more than 50 years in TN and national parties have not been relevant in TN since the days of Kamaraj. BJP has never been anything more than a minnow party in TN when compared to the Dravidian parties and that's not suddenly going to change overnight. BJP is largely seen as a brahminist party in TN and I think you very well know that there is a heavy sentiment of anti brahminism in TN. Any random OBC leader joining the BJP is not going to suddenly change those sentiments in TN. Instead, that OBC leader will only be seen as a poodle of the hindutvadis in the north and I can tell you that's not going to win him any favours with the people.

There is no hindu muslim problem in south? Lol.

Tamil nadu isnt the only south.

South is not a single entity. Its divided by language and regions.

Plenty of hindu muslim divide in Kerala and Karnataka. Even TRS is now moving away from muslims in telengana because of the hindu shift to BJP.

I keep hearing this talk from you, but at the end of the day,, BJP is in power in only one state in Karnataka. BJP won less than 2% of votes in TN, lesser than 1% in AP, couldn't win a single seat in Kerala and won just one seat in Telengana. So much so for the BJP's graph going up. This is like me saying the graph of Congress is only going up in the northern belt. We'll see when the BJP manages to win in these states, till then these claims remain wet dreams, just like if I had said Congress would win the next general elections.

When there will be a referendum we will see how the south indians vote. No?

You're talking as if a referendum is going to actually happen. That will never be actualised and even if something of that sort happens and the majority choose to be a hindu rashtra, the states which chose the hindu rashtra can become one but that will never be implemented in TN. If the majority had their way, hindi would already be the national language of the country and I'm sure you know what happened when hindi got imposed on TN against its will in the 1960s. That was when there was no concept of social media and TN was the sole state fighting against imposition of hindi. Now if the hindutvadis have wet dreams of implementing the hindu rashtra all over India just because north India loves the concept of Hindu Rashtra, the opposition would be far more severe than it was ever in the 60s and even states like Kerala, Andhra and Telengana would join in the fight. I'm pretty sure the BJP knows this and even the hindu nationalists aren't stupid enough to implement these actions as they would know the consequences of it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

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.

You have contradicted yourself in one post. You cannot be secular is one animal is giving more care/priority over other animals using taxpayers money. Secular means a cow is a just a cow, its not holy. If Muslims, Christians and others are paying taxes for cows, Hindus can also pay taxes for what is important to Muslims.

When Hindutva ideology claims to run a secular nation, it's great comedy.

 

[JaDed]

Greatest comedy is India not having uniform civil code. What a disaster , BJP keeps promising but does absolutely nothing about it as its their biggest votebank issue after Ram Mandir.

These spaghetti laws are utter nonsense.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Greatest comedy is India not having uniform civil code. What a disaster , BJP keeps promising but does absolutely nothing about it as its their biggest votebank issue after Ram Mandir.

These spaghetti laws are utter nonsense.

Why would it kill its golden goose?

Even ram mandir issue isn’t solved. It will be a major point in the next election. The so-called ‘unveiling / completion” of the mandir will conveniently be happening around next election.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Because the muslim population is less. Where ever the population is more, like coastal Karnataka, Kerala, Parts of Telengana there are problems and there is animosity.

Tamilnadu has 5.5 per cent muslims. Christians are more. Hindus are 88 percent so ofcourse muslims can hardly have any impact there. Andhra is 91 percent hindu.

Muslims are only 10% of Gujarat. However to me as an outsider, they seem to be the most kattar Hindus. It seems they really dislike Muslims there. West Bengal on the other hand is like 30% Muslim, and the Hindus there seem to be more liberal.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Greatest comedy is India not having uniform civil code. What a disaster , BJP keeps promising but does absolutely nothing about it as its their biggest votebank issue after Ram Mandir.

These spaghetti laws are utter nonsense.

I thought they would have done it this year on August 5. That seems to be their day for big announcements.

 

[90MPH]

A right wing authoritarian government using culture wars to cement their place in power - it’s so easy as all they need do is play on peoples fears and emotions.

Same playbook has been used a lot recently, if it has worked for so many other governments it sure as hell can work for the BJP too.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Greatest comedy is India not having uniform civil code. What a disaster , BJP keeps promising but does absolutely nothing about it as its their biggest votebank issue after Ram Mandir.

These spaghetti laws are utter nonsense.

Uniform civil code would make sense if it was a homogeneous country, but with so much diversity, UCC is all about majoritarian rules and further subjugation of minorities. What india needs is more diverse civil laws and more article 370s. Uniformism is proto fascism.

 

[JaDed]

Uniform civil code would make sense if it was a homogeneous country, but with so much diversity, UCC is all about majoritarian rules and further subjugation of minorities. What india needs is more diverse civil laws and more article 370s. Uniformism is proto fascism.

Lol I know you are not being sarcastic people can do what they want personally but its a country and one country one law for its citizens(in principle).

 

[CricketCartoons]

Lol I know you are not being sarcastic people can do what they want personally but its a country and one country one law for its citizens(in principle).

One country one (criminal) law is fine. But why do you want uniformity in even civil laws when there is so much diversity in the way of life of every community. Which civil law is adversely affecting you that you want them all to follow the majoritarian rule? Or just because one nation one civil law sounds like a cool slogan?

 

[JaDed]

One country one (criminal) law is fine. But why do you want uniformity in even civil laws when there is so much diversity in the way of life of every community. Which civil law is adversely affecting you that you want them all to follow the majoritarian rule? Or just because one nation one civil law sounds like a cool slogan?

Communities can do what they want personally, but if they want benefits and legal documents from the state then they should follow only one law.

Religious laws shouldn’t be part of the court, State shouldn’t recognize religious laws.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Muslims are only 10% of Gujarat. However to me as an outsider, they seem to be the most kattar Hindus. It seems they really dislike Muslims there. West Bengal on the other hand is like 30% Muslim, and the Hindus there seem to be more liberal.

There is nothing more liberal here. Bjp has become the 2nd biggest party in bengal in less than a decade.

 

[Romali_rotti]

@ Captain, any update on this ?

Captain ?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Captain ?

Yes?

 

[Romali_rotti]

Yes?

Here is Chronology incase you forgot:

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.

Excellent, I am curious to know myself.. I personally do not recall typing such posts who knows maybe I did.

Now waiting on you Cap..

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Here is Chronology incase you forgot:
















Now waiting on you Cap..

You missed out my original quote, all I have there is your response so I can't really cross check it.

 

[Romali_rotti]

You missed out my original quote, all I have there is your response so I can't really cross check it.

Ok so in other words you cant back up your words...

No problems CAP, understood

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Ok so in other words you cant back up your words...

No problems CAP, understood

Can you provide the quote please, then we can see about which words need to be backed up.

 

[Dingolfy]

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.

Beef in India is a byproduct of diary industry as India doesn’t grow cattle just for meat like West. So you have to reduce diary consumption to decrease the burden on ecology.

 

[Dingolfy]

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...

Indian constitution has a DIRECTIVE regarding Cow slaughter and allows states to form rules regarding that. As a fellow mallu you should be knowing that Beef fry is our favourite dish and even BJP guys in our state eat that with no probs. Cow worship is North Indian concept and not strictly adhered by rest of India.
And I have traveled around India and have seen cows eating plastic and garbage,shopkeepers beating and even thrown hot water on them and many more. Things you know we don't see in Kerala in-spite of being Beef eaters.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Indian constitution has a DIRECTIVE regarding Cow slaughter and allows states to form rules regarding that.

I was under the impression Cow Slaughter was illegal under the Indian constitution, which meant all of India.

Are you sure constitution states that each state can choose its own rules ? If so can you show me a link to this ?