''We need to talk about Love Jihad''

[CricketCartoons]

Religion is fundamentally different from caste. Religion is a set of beliefs. Caste is something you're born with according to caste system. You can convert to an another religion but you cannot convert to another caste.

bigotry is bigotry. That the victim can change his/her identity to escape the bigotry is no excuse.

I wonder why you become so apologetic when it comes to religion. How many of the woke movies have shown this issue of a marriage between muslim girl and hindu boy, which you said it doubly difficult.

 

[street cricketer]

bigotry is bigotry. That the victim can change his/her identity to escape the bigotry is no excuse.

I wonder why you become so apologetic when it comes to religion. How many of the woke movies have shown this issue of a marriage between muslim girl and hindu boy, which you said it doubly difficult.

Not sure where you got the feeling I'm an apologist for religious bigotry. These aren't even my opinions. I'm just saying what's perceived by the society.

Discriminating a quality or attribute of yours that can be potentially changed is considered a terrible thing too, but generally discriminating something that you're born with is almost always considered more bigoted. It's why fat shaming is considered terrible thing to do but doesn't always carry the same negative connotations as racism by a white supremacist. It's why Russell Peters can make endless jokes on the accents of Indians, stingy habits of Chinese and unique names of Africans and it would be considered humour (some might consider it offensive and edgy) but if Russell Peters suddenly tries to make fun of the mongoloid features of an asian person or the dark complexion of an African person, he would be almost universally condemned.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Not sure where you got the feeling I'm an apologist for religious bigotry. These aren't even my opinions. I'm just saying what's perceived by the society.

Discriminating a quality or attribute of yours that can be potentially changed is considered a terrible thing too, but generally discriminating something that you're born with is almost always considered more bigoted. It's why fat shaming is considered terrible thing to do but doesn't always carry the same negative connotations as racism by a white supremacist. It's why Russell Peters can make endless jokes on the accents of Indians, stingy habits of Chinese and unique names of Africans and it would be considered humour (some might consider it offensive and edgy) but if Russell Peters suddenly tries to make fun of the mongoloid features of an asian person or the dark complexion of an African person, he would be almost universally condemned.

if both are terrible, when why are you even making this differentiation? Does it help the victim that he can escape from some bigotry by changing his identity? The only explanation is that you want to paint it as less of a problem. if someone is killed because of his nationality or religious belief, will you say that the victim could have escaped by changing his identity to the acceptable one?

 

[street cricketer]

if both are terrible, when why are you even making this differentiation? Does it help the victim that he can escape from some bigotry by changing his identity? The only explanation is that you want to paint it as less of a problem. if someone is killed because of his nationality or religious belief, will you say that the victim could have escaped by changing his identity to the acceptable one?

We are discussing about the regressive beliefs that people hold and you're suddenly talking about violent actions. This is what I wrote in one of my previous posts -

You are equating two non equivalent events here. One event is a person choosing "not" to marry with a certain person based on his or her religion. That's still regressive, but that's not harming the second person.

The other event you talk of is a muslim person discriminated against by a hindu majority. Now I'm not sure what discrimination you're implying here. If it's bodily harm you're talking about, then that is automatically much worse than the former because in the former event, by rejecting marriage with the said person, you aren't harming him, while you are actively doing so in the latter. Even if one rejects marriage with another person based on his or her caste, it's still not as bad as actively harming another person based on his or her identity.

Note the bolded part. I quite clearly said that even if you hold regressive casteist beliefs, while it's still regressive, you're only holding those beliefs to yourself and not pro actively harming anyone by choosing not to marry with an another caste. It's still not as bad as causing bodily harm on anyone regardless of if it's based on religion/nationality/ethnicity, etc.

Again, these are not my opinions. I'm just stating the social norms present in our society.

"I'm a muslim and I'll not marry anyone who's not a muslim"

"I'm a vegan and I'll not marry anyone who's not a vegan"

"I'm a white person and I'll not marry anyone who's not white".

Tell me which of the above statements would carry more negative connotations in our society and why so...

 

[Itachi]

What was surprising to me was she was not religious at all, yet she still wanted the guy to convert. Not even the hey just do a nikkah for show to make my parents happy, she actually wanted him to become Muslim.


Per the article she drinks, has dated multiple guys in the past, shared a "passionate" kiss with this guy, yet then remembered her Muslim values. Seems strange.

I have seen inter faith marriage where the couples put up a show in order to please their parents and then live their lives on their own according to their terms.

And I agree, if she was an orthodox Muslim, it somewhat could have made sense but she wasn't. while not following Islamic ideology, when it comes to marriage, she became a reborn Muslim. that's absolutely double standard and not only insult to the people but the religion too.

an ideology isn't a convenience. you make sacrifices to maintain it. if you can't make the sacrifices, then probably you shouldn't expect the same from others too.

 

[Itachi]

We are discussing about the regressive beliefs that people hold and you're suddenly talking about violent actions. This is what I wrote in one of my previous posts -



Note the bolded part. I quite clearly said that even if you hold regressive casteist beliefs, while it's still regressive, you're only holding those beliefs to yourself and not pro actively harming anyone by choosing not to marry with an another caste. It's still not as bad as causing bodily harm on anyone regardless of if it's based on religion/nationality/ethnicity, etc.

Again, these are not my opinions. I'm just stating the social norms present in our society.

"I'm a muslim and I'll not marry anyone who's not a muslim"

"I'm a vegan and I'll not marry anyone who's not a vegan"

"I'm a white person and I'll not marry anyone who's not white".

Tell me which of the above statements would carry more negative connotations in our society and why so...

Right now, the displeasure towards vegan and their propaganda is increasing day by day.

 

[street cricketer]

Right now, the displeasure towards vegan and their propaganda is increasing day by day.

I'm anything but a vegan lol...So I can understand..

 

[CricketCartoons]

We are discussing about the regressive beliefs that people hold and you're suddenly talking about violent actions. This is what I wrote in one of my previous posts -



Note the bolded part. I quite clearly said that even if you hold regressive casteist beliefs, while it's still regressive, you're only holding those beliefs to yourself and not pro actively harming anyone by choosing not to marry with an another caste. It's still not as bad as causing bodily harm on anyone regardless of if it's based on religion/nationality/ethnicity, etc.

Again, these are not my opinions. I'm just stating the social norms present in our society.

"I'm a muslim and I'll not marry anyone who's not a muslim"

"I'm a vegan and I'll not marry anyone who's not a vegan"

"I'm a white person and I'll not marry anyone who's not white".

Tell me which of the above statements would carry more negative connotations in our society and why so...

I am talking to you, so only want your opinion. If I want to know about what society thinks, I will not ask you.

How do you come to conclusion that when someone does not marry from a certain identity group, the reason is based on some supremacy belief and not because of lack of common grounds

 

[street cricketer]

I am talking to you, so only want your opinion. If I want to know about what society thinks, I will not ask you.

How do you come to conclusion that when someone does not marry from a certain identity group, the reason is based on some supremacy belief and not because of lack of common grounds

When the fundamental foundation of caste system is based on some sort of imagined racial hierarchy, how can you ignore that huge overbearing element in caste based marriages.. That's like ignoring the elephant in the room.

We can fool gullible foreigners saying we marry within caste only for commonality in culture and customs but anyone who has had any exposure to Indian society or was born and brought up in India would know why we really do that.

 

[CricketCartoons]

When the fundamental foundation of caste system is based on some sort of imagined racial hierarchy, how can you ignore that huge overbearing element in caste based marriages.. That's like ignoring the elephant in the room.

We can fool gullible foreigners saying we marry within caste only for commonality in culture and customs but anyone who has had any exposure to Indian society or was born and brought up in India would know why we really do that.

Three things:
1. Prove that caste system foundation was based on racial hierarchy.
2. Like ship of theseus, culture changes and the present days reasons have no relation to what was the original foundation centuries ago.
3. Why is bigotry based on race any worse than bigotry based on any other identifier. That the victim cannot change his identity is no answer.

 

[street cricketer]

Three things:
1. Prove that caste system foundation was based on racial hierarchy.
2. Like ship of theseus, culture changes and the present days reasons have no relation to what was the original foundation centuries ago.
3. Why is bigotry based on race any worse than bigotry based on any other identifier. That the victim cannot change his identity is no answer.

1. Doesn't matter what sort of noble intention it was founded on, the fact of the matter is, somewhere down the line, it got transformed into a system based on racial hierarchy and segregation.

2. Sure, if you like to believe that there's no element of racial hierarchy in the manner caste system is practised now, who am I to convince you otherwise.

3. I've already said this a lot of times in this thread. If you shame someone for being poor, you're discriminating against a quality of his, which is transient and can potentially be changed. He can become rich overnight and he wouldn't be subject to the same discrimination (not that discrimination is warranted for being poor, just saying for an example). You're intolerant to the quality of his, which may be poverty or his lifestyle or food habits or just general belief system.

If you discriminate against someone for being say black, you're discriminating against something which is not within his powers to change, i.e., you are discriminating someone for being born the way he was. It means you're not just intolerant to any inanimate quality like wealth, food habits, accent, belief system, etc., but you're intolerant to the very idea of him as a human. And that's generally considered more bigoted in society, it's why people who engage in classism don't get the same level of condemnation as those involving in racism.

 

[CricketCartoons]

1. Doesn't matter what sort of noble intention it was founded on, the fact of the matter is, somewhere down the line, it got transformed into a system based on racial hierarchy and segregation.

2. Sure, if you like to believe that there's no element of racial hierarchy in the manner caste system is practised now, who am I to convince you otherwise.

3. I've already said this a lot of times in this thread. If you shame someone for being poor, you're discriminating against a quality of his, which is transient and can potentially be changed. He can become rich overnight and he wouldn't be subject to the same discrimination (not that discrimination is warranted for being poor, just saying for an example). You're intolerant to the quality of his, which may be poverty or his lifestyle or food habits or just general belief system.

If you discriminate against someone for being say black, you're discriminating against something which is not within his powers to change, i.e., you are discriminating someone for being born the way he was. It means you're not just intolerant to any inanimate quality like wealth, food habits, accent, belief system, etc., but you're intolerant to the very idea of him as a human. And that's generally considered more bigoted in society, it's why people who engage in classism don't get the same level of condemnation as those involving in racism.

1. You had earlier said that the "fundamental foundation" of caste was based on racial hierarchy. So I asked you for a proof. Now you say it doesn't matter what the foundation was, and the "fact of the matter" is that it changed into racial heirarchy. So you concede you don't know what the fundamental foundation was. Next prove that it changed into racial hierarchy and when it happened.

2. I am not making any assertion about caste so far. I am asking you because you are making the claims. prove that it is based on racial heirarchy in the form it is practiced now.

3. You gave the answer which I have already dismissed. But let me explain again. A poor persons poverty is a primary identity of that person. Doesnt matter a bit to him that it can be theoretically change (like he can become rich overnight in your thought experiment).If he faces bigotry and insults and discrimination because of his poverty, it is insulting to think that this pain is any less just because he can theoretically become rich overnight.

Whether you are born with something, or is a quality (for lack of a better word) you get it after birth is still a part of what you are, it is still your identity. If I refuse a job to a muslim (he can always change his religion) or someone who is gay (he cannot change that), or someone who is of black race( he cannot change that either), how does your theory of being born with vs a quality going to matter. The end result is the same : they got discriminated for who they are. So if the victim has to face the same end result, how dos your classification of their identities matter in any way?

 

[street cricketer]

1. You had earlier said that the "fundamental foundation" of caste was based on racial hierarchy.

Did I? Read my original post once again.

So I asked you for a proof. Now you say it doesn't matter what the foundation was, and the "fact of the matter" is that it changed into racial heirarchy. So you concede you don't know what the fundamental foundation was. Next prove that it changed into racial hierarchy and when it happened.

2. I am not making any assertion about caste so far. I am asking you because you are making the claims. prove that it is based on racial heirarchy in the form it is practiced now.

Tell me why intercaste marriages aren't common in India. If it's to preserve the so called "culture" of each caste, I can't talk about north India, but there's hardly any difference in the "culture" and "lifestyle" between someone belonging to a backward caste community like Vanniyars and most backward caste community like Naickers in Tamil Nadu, or someone belonging to a schedule caste community for that matter. Yet a person belonging to a BC community is very particular about not intermarrying with a person belonging to an MBC community, who in turn is particular about not intermarrying with a person belonging to a scheduled caste, why is that so?

3. You gave the answer which I have already dismissed. But let me explain again. A poor persons poverty is a primary identity of that person. Doesnt matter a bit to him that it can be theoretically change (like he can become rich overnight in your thought experiment).If he faces bigotry and insults and discrimination because of his poverty, it is insulting to think that this pain is any less just because he can theoretically become rich overnight.

Whether you are born with something, or is a quality (for lack of a better word) you get it after birth is still a part of what you are, it is still your identity. If I refuse a job to a muslim (he can always change his religion) or someone who is gay (he cannot change that), or someone who is of black race( he cannot change that either), how does your theory of being born with vs a quality going to matter. The end result is the same : they got discriminated for who they are. So if the victim has to face the same end result, how dos your classification of their identities matter in any way?

You see, this is the issue with you brother. You often tend to take two inequivalent events and create false equivalence between those events as if they are of the same nature. I was talking about marriage preferences of Indians and how caste plays a major role in it in the entire thread and you start talking about someone discriminating in an interview based on religion or someone killing another person based on religion. These are two different scenarios and they aren't the same.

Take the first event what I was talking about, i.e., marriage preference of Indians:

Now marriage with an another person is a very personal event that relates to the personal lives of two individuals. A muslim person rejects a non muslim person because he feels his beliefs that are central to his life are widely different from the other person and therefore marriage might not work out. It's like a vegan person asking a meat eating person to give up his meat eating habits for their marriage to work out. If the other person gives it up, well and fine, if he doesn't, they break up mutually. This scenario is not that different from the Indian hindu guy and Pakistani muslim girl story in the NYT article posted above.

Now if the same person rejects marriage with the other person because he feels the other individual is too beneath him or her by birth to marry that said person, then that's definitely classified as bigoted thinking. To provide an analogy, imagine if I were owning a restaurant. And you as a customer come to my restaurant asking for Indian food. I say I have only oriental cuisine in my restaurant. You insist me to cook Indian food if I want you to be my customer. I reply I can't cook Indian food and so you leave the restaurant. This is not as bad as you saying to me that it doesn't matter what cuisine I cook, but I am too beneath you for you to be eating food cooked by me. There's a difference. Of course the end result is the same, i.e., you don't end up eating in my restaurant. But the reasons aren't remotely the same and therein lies the difference between the two scenarios. This is essentially the difference between why interfaith and intercaste marriages don't happen.

Now let's come to the event that you talked about in your post. So let's assume that you own a software company and I'm a software professional seeking job in your company. Now for me to get employed in your company, ideally the one thing that's needed is my competency in the job you're hiring which is purely professional. My personal beliefs has no relation to the job that I'm doing if I were to be hired and yet you end up rejecting me based on my personal identity. It doesn't matter if my personal identity for which I'm discriminated against is my religion or caste or even if I'm bald for that matter. If that has nothing to do with my professional work, then that's of course discrimination regardless of whether it's against religion or caste. I'm not going to be an apologist for one identity over the other in this scenario. I have repeatedly said in this thread that actively discriminating against any person based on any identity, doesn't matter if it's religion or caste, is bad. But we were talking about the regressive beliefs that people hold in this thread.

 

[CricketCartoons]

1. Did I? Read my original post once again.



2. Tell me why intercaste marriages aren't common in India. If it's to preserve the so called "culture" of each caste, I can't talk about north India, but there's hardly any difference in the "culture" and "lifestyle" between someone belonging to a backward caste community like Vanniyars and most backward caste community like Naickers in Tamil Nadu, or someone belonging to a schedule caste community for that matter. Yet a person belonging to a BC community is very particular about not intermarrying with a person belonging to an MBC community, who in turn is particular about not intermarrying with a person belonging to a scheduled caste, why is that so?



3. You see, this is the issue with you brother. You often tend to take two inequivalent events and create false equivalence between those events as if they are of the same nature. I was talking about marriage preferences of Indians and how caste plays a major role in it in the entire thread and you start talking about someone discriminating in an interview based on religion or someone killing another person based on religion. These are two different scenarios and they aren't the same.

Take the first event what I was talking about, i.e., marriage preference of Indians:

Now marriage with an another person is a very personal event that relates to the personal lives of two individuals. A muslim person rejects a non muslim person because he feels his beliefs that are central to his life are widely different from the other person and therefore marriage might not work out. It's like a vegan person asking a meat eating person to give up his meat eating habits for their marriage to work out. If the other person gives it up, well and fine, if he doesn't, they break up mutually. This scenario is not that different from the Indian hindu guy and Pakistani muslim girl story in the NYT article posted above.

Now if the same person rejects marriage with the other person because he feels the other individual is too beneath him or her by birth to marry that said person, then that's definitely classified as bigoted thinking. To provide an analogy, imagine if I were owning a restaurant. And you as a customer come to my restaurant asking for Indian food. I say I have only oriental cuisine in my restaurant. You insist me to cook Indian food if I want you to be my customer. I reply I can't cook Indian food and so you leave the restaurant. This is not as bad as you saying to me that it doesn't matter what cuisine I cook, but I am too beneath you for you to be eating food cooked by me. There's a difference. Of course the end result is the same, i.e., you don't end up eating in my restaurant. But the reasons aren't remotely the same and therein lies the difference between the two scenarios. This is essentially the difference between why interfaith and intercaste marriages don't happen.

1. You highlighted "was". Did you mean that the fundamental foundation of caste "is" heirarchy? Then how can it be called the foundation? Will you call Modi the founding father of india as he "is" the PM now, and not Nehru, because Nehru "was"? You should rephrase the term fundamental foundation.

2. Why syrian malankara malayali christians don't marry roman catholic or jacobite, even though same religion, same language and same ethnicity? Do the various MBC communities marry other MBC community? Do BC marry other BC? Not talking about exceptions, but general trend.

3. How do you conclude that someone is not marrying because of cultural difference, and not marrying because he thinks the other person is beneath his dignity? You are projecting your own thoughts and assuming reasons. There is no way you can tell, unless you can enter their minds. I want to know the source for this certainty of your opinion.

 

[street cricketer]

1. You highlighted "was". Did you mean that the fundamental foundation of caste "is" heirarchy? Then how can it be called the foundation? Will you call Modi the founding father of india as he "is" the PM now, and not Nehru, because Nehru "was"? You should rephrase the term fundamental foundation.

2. Why syrian malankara malayali christians don't marry roman catholic or jacobite, even though same religion, same language and same ethnicity? Do the various MBC communities marry other MBC community? Do BC marry other BC? Not talking about exceptions, but general trend.

3. How do you conclude that someone is not marrying because of cultural difference, and not marrying because he thinks the other person is beneath his dignity? You are projecting your own thoughts and assuming reasons. There is no way you can tell, unless you can enter their minds. I want to know the source for this certainty of your opinion.

1. The word "foundation" doesn't only mean the act of founding or establishing something. It can also mean the underlying basis or principle of something. The underlying basis of caste system as it is practised now is based on racial hierarchy, although we wouldn't say it openly and like to pretend that castes are different segregated communities that exist in bubbles.

2. I am not well versed with the different malayali christian denominations and so I can't make a comment on that. Not everyone has the experience of having an ex malayali christian girlfriend and the opportunity to understand their culture in detail.

I can talk about the different MBC and BC groups though. Different sub castes in the MBC and BC communities tend to have their own exclusive caste groups and matrimonies where they search for suitable partner for their son or daughter. This is why I asked you, in spite of the culture of different communities even in the BC and MBC groups being very much the same (nevermind about different sub castes within the BC or MBC community for example), why they don't intermarry with each other. What are they trying to preserve if the culture is the same? You should answer this question. At least with different sects of the same religion, you could argue that they want to find partners who have the same interpretation of their religion.. But what about different castes and sub castes in the BC and MBC groups who don't even have different interpretations of their religions like the different sects in say Christianity or Islam do?

3. Same question as above. Why don't the Vanniyars and Naickers intermarry with each other despite both belonging to the MBC community and having the same religion, food and culture?

 

[CricketCartoons]

1. The word "foundation" doesn't only mean the act of founding or establishing something. It can also mean the underlying basis or principle of something. The underlying basis of caste system as it is practised now is based on racial hierarchy, although we wouldn't say it openly and like to pretend that castes are different segregated communities that exist in bubbles.

2. I am not well versed with the different malayali christian denominations and so I can't make a comment on that. Not everyone has the experience of having an ex malayali christian girlfriend and the opportunity to understand their culture in detail.

I can talk about the different MBC and BC groups though. Different sub castes in the MBC and BC communities tend to have their own exclusive caste groups and matrimonies where they search for suitable partner for their son or daughter. This is why I asked you, in spite of the culture of different communities even in the BC and MBC groups being very much the same (nevermind about different sub castes within the BC or MBC community for example), why they don't intermarry with each other. What are they trying to preserve if the culture is the same? You should answer this question. At least with different sects of the same religion, you could argue that they want to find partners who have the same interpretation of their religion.. But what about different castes and sub castes in the BC and MBC groups who don't even have different interpretations of their religions like the different sects in say Christianity or Islam do?

3. Same question as above. Why don't the Vanniyars and Naickers intermarry with each other despite both belonging to the MBC community and having the same religion, food and culture?

You have a narrow understanding of culture. It is the same reason one malayali syrian malankara catholic christian does not marry another malayali syrian jacobite christian, despite 9 out of 10 things overlapping. Culture is not simply about religion, ethnicity and food. Go and talk to Vanniyars and Naicker and they will list out their differences in culture. Just because they are broadly classified under MBC umbrella, doesn't make them same. I can share the same religion, diet, ethnicity and mother tongue with a potential partner, but may reject based on taste of music (an extreme example, but happens), so imagine the differences in different communities who have more differentiators.

And because of this narrow understanding of culture, you have assumed that it must be racial reasons. So I ask you to prove that caste based communities are based on racial hierarchy in the present times. "I think so" is not a valid answer.

 

[street cricketer]

You have a narrow understanding of culture. It is the same reason one malayali syrian malankara catholic christian does not marry another malayali syrian jacobite christian, despite 9 out of 10 things overlapping. Culture is not simply about religion, ethnicity and food. Go and talk to Vanniyars and Naicker and they will list out their differences in culture. Just because they are broadly classified under MBC umbrella, doesn't make them same. I can share the same religion, diet, ethnicity and mother tongue with a potential partner, but may reject based on taste of music (an extreme example, but happens), so imagine the differences in different communities who have more differentiators.

And because of this narrow understanding of culture, you have assumed that it must be racial reasons. So I ask you to prove that caste based communities are based on racial hierarchy in the present times. "I think so" is not a valid answer.

Okay I agree with you.

Your explanation makes sense.

 

[MenInG]

Lucknow: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), on Tuesday, announced its manifesto for the forthcoming Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh.

==

Provision of 10-year punishment and Rs 1 lakh fine for those indulging in 'Love Jihad'

 

[MenInG]

Agra, Uttar Pradesh: An angry mob in Uttar Pradesh's Agra on Friday set ablaze two houses belonging to the family of a man who went untraceable along with a 22-year-old woman in an interfaith relationship.

Police said members of a fringe group "Dharam Jagran Samanvay Sangh" torched the house belonging to Sajid, a gym owner in Agra's Runakta locality. An adjoining house, belonging to the family, was also set on fire.

The mob was demanding the arrest of the man they accused of kidnapping the woman. Shops in the local market also made to shut on Friday over the mob's demand.

There were no reports of any injuries in the attack on the gym owner's home.

The police post in-charge was suspended after the incident for negligence and a probe has been ordered against the Sikandra station house officer. "If found guilty, action will be taken against him as well," Agra's Senior Superintendent of Police Sudheer Kumar Singh told reporters.

The woman went missing on Monday. She was traced two days later by the police, but Sajid's whereabouts are still not known. Her family members had filed a missing person's report, prompting a police search for the couple.

In a video that surfaced on social media, the woman said she is an adult and had gone willingly with the man.

"Both are adults," Senior Superintendent of Police Sudheer Singh confirmed to reporters. He said the police will bring the woman to court. This couldn't be done so far because of the festival holidays this week.

He said that an FIR or police case has been registered against members of the group that set the houses on fire and they will be arrested soon.

The woman's family has also filed a police complaint against the gym owner.

NDTV

 

[Itachi]

UP.... sigh. There's something wrong with this state I guess.

 

[MenInG]

UP.... sigh. There's something wrong with this state I guess.

with some people

 

[ex-q-zit]

Law Against "Love Jihad" In Maharashtra Next? Devendra Fadnavis Says...

Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Friday said the state was considering a law against "love jihad" - the right-wing conspiracy theory that Muslim men lure Hindu women to convert them.
ADVERTISING

His statement came after a meeting with the father of Shraddha Walkar, who was killed by her boyfriend Aaftab Amin Poonawala and hacked into pieces in a case that has stunned the country.

"We are looking at what are the laws regarding this in other states. Based on that we will decide further," Mr Fadnavis, who heads the state's Home Department, said.

While forced religious conversion is already illegal in India, several BJP-ruled states, including Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, have introduced or proposed laws to tackle what leaders of the party call "love jihad".

The moves have been criticised by the opposition and civil society as attempts to target minorities.

Earlier this week, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan said the state will have a fresh law against "love jihad" if need be, citing the grisly murder of Shraddha Walkar.

Speaking at an event meant to mark the death anniversary of tribal icon Tantiya Bhil, Mr Chouhan said the state will not allow anyone to "delude its daughters and chop them up into 35 pieces".

Before him, in an interview to NDTV, Mr Chouhan's Assam counterpart, Himanta Biswa Sarma, had said "love jihad" is a "reality" and the country needs a "strict law" against it.

NDTV

 

[ex-q-zit]

Maharashtra Will Study 'Love Jihad' Laws Of Other States: Devendra Fadnavis

The Maharashtra government will study laws on "love jihad" framed by other states and take an appropriate decision, Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has said.

Talking to reporters in the Maharashtra legislature complex in Nagpur on Tuesday, Mr Fadnavis said there was a "feeling" in the House regarding the Shraddha Walkar case that instances of "love jihad" were seen at a large scale in the state.

"Love jihad" is a term often used by right-wing activists to allege a ploy by Muslim men to lure Hindu women into religious conversion through marriage.

“We have assured (the House) that different states have laws on love jihad and we will study them. Based on it, our government will take an appropriate decision so that no woman or girl suffers by any conspiracy,” said Mr Fadnavis, who holds the Home portfolio.

In the Assembly, he said there is a demand for a tough law on "love jihad".

The state government is not opposed to inter-faith marriages, Mr Fadnavis said.

“But it has been realised over time that there is a design as part of a conspiracy. In some districts such marriages are taking place in big numbers,” he said.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLAs Atul Bhatkhalkar and Ashish Shelar raised in the Lower House the issue of killing of Shraddha Walkar.

Speaking on Walkar withdrawing a complaint of harassment she had filed against her live-in partner Aaftab Poonawala with Vasai police in November 2020, Bhatkhalkar said, "Was there political pressure on the police not to act when they received the complaint?" "When this happened, during that time, (Amravati pharmacist Umesh) Kolhe was killed and the Tablighi Jamaat's name cropped up in the charge sheet today,” he said.

Legislator Shelar also raised the same issue.

Poonawala allegedly killed Walkar in May this year in their Delhi flat. He allegedly chopped her body into multiple pieces and disposed of them over several weeks before he was arrested by the Delhi Police last month.

Fadnavis said the inter-faith committee, headed by a minister, will track and maintain records of inter-faith marriages, married couples, and also their families.

“Shraddha Walkar's father said we didn't understand where to go and we could have saved her had someone facilitated a conversation with her. People do not know where to go in such a situation and the panel is (there) for facilitation,” he had told the House.

Speaking to reporters in the state legislature complex, Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi said Walkar's case is not a "love jihad" issue as it is being painted now.

"Rather, it was a social subject and of live-in relationship," he added.

"Anyone who is an adult can decide to live the way he/she wants. People are being misled by terming that incident as love jihad," he said.

Azmi alleged the interfaith marriage inspection committee is purposely formed to divide Hindus and Muslims.

NDTV

 

[ex-q-zit]

Bajrang Dal Members Beat Up Youth Alleging "Love Jihad" In Madhya Pradesh

Rightwing activists allegedly beat up a youth, claiming love jihad, in the Indore district of Madhya Pradesh on Tuesday.

The activists allegedly caught the youth with a girl at Treasure Island Mall in the city.

According to sources, they asked the name of the youth to which he told them that his name was Monu Verma.

When they asked him to produce an ID card, he allegedly said that his real name was Moin Khan.

It was alleged that the activists then beat up the yoith, accusing him of love jihad, and later handed him over to the Tukoganj police.

A purported video of the youth being beaten up also surfaced on the social media.

Tukoganj police station in-charge Kamlesh Sharma said, "A girl approached the police station along with some Bajrang Dal activists. She had gone to watch a movie at TI mall in the city with a youth belonging to another community. Initially, the youth told the activists that his name was Monu but later when they interrogated him, he gave his real name as Moin, a resident of Manikbagh in the city."

"We are further questioning the girl and action will be taken accordingly," Mr Sharma added.

NDTV

 

[Rafa]

Karnataka VHP starts ‘anti-love jihad’ helpline in Dakshina Kannada, police to ‘seek legal view’



Reminded that police already act against forcible conversions, VHP leader Sharan Pumpwell said the helpline would aid people who do not want to go to police stations.

Reminded that police already act against forcible conversions, VHP leader Sharan Pumpwell said the helpline would aid people who do not want to go to police stations.
ADVERTISEMENT

Listen to this article

02:29
1x
1.5x
1.8x
Amid Hindutva groups’ demand for a law against “love jihad” and Karnataka BJP chief Nalin Kumar Kateel’s call for voters to prioritise the “concern” over “roads, gutters, drains and other small issues”, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad has launched a “helpline” in the communally sensitive coastal district of Dakshina Kannada.

Speaking to The Indian Express, VHP state vice-secretary Sharan Pumpwell said that at least 20 members of the organisation would work for the helpline against “love jihad”, whereby Hindutva activists claim Muslim men lure women of other religions into marrying them and converting to Islam.

https://indianexpress.com/article/c...love-jihad-helpline-dakshina-kannada-8361304/

Well well, there is Helpline Available to save Hindu Women from Muslim Men.

 

[MenInG]

Sri Ram Sena chief Pramod Muthalik has called on young Hindu men to lure “10 Muslim girls if we lose one Hindu girl” through “love jihad”. He assured security and employment to the men.

Speaking at a public event at Bagalkote in Karnataka, Muthalik alleged that thousands of Hindu girls were being exploited in the name of “love jihad”, and called for young men to “respond in kind”. “We are aware of the situation. I would like to invite the youth here. If we lose one Hindu girl, we should trap 10 Muslim girls. If you do so, the Sri Ram Sena will take responsibility for you and provide every kind of security and employment,” he said on February 19.

Muthalik is set to run as an independent candidate in Udupi’s Karkala constituency in the upcoming Assembly elections. He said that owing to his Hindutva stance, he had faced more obstacles from “his own people” than from those who had filed cases against him. He, however, said he had the support of some BJP leaders, who offered him financial help to contest the election.

Indian Express

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

^^^ You can expect stupidity from BJP and their andhbhakhts like this without getting surprised.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Hindu youths would have more success in "trapping" Muslim girls if they just relaxed and be themselves, don't get too caught up like this guy fretting and fuming about Hindu girls being trapped or lured. Nothing is as unsexy as impotent anger.

 

[Local.Dada]

don't get too caught up like this guy fretting and fuming about Hindu girls being trapped or lured. Nothing is as unsexy as impotent anger.

100% agree with you but only a small point while it definitively is unsexy and uncool it is still 2nd best/worst. First place still goes to unnecessary and irrational, passive aggressive hatred that results in pointless trolling we see on display from time to time.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

100% agree with you but only a small point while it definitively is unsexy and uncool it is still 2nd best/worst. First place still goes to unnecessary and irrational, passive aggressive hatred that results in pointless trolling we see on display from time to time.

Not sure what any of that has to do with the subject matter. Are you volunteering to leave the forums to make them a better place?

 

[Firebat]

Why Muslims are fleeing a small town in India’s Uttarakhand state

Purola, India – Muslims in a north Indian town have been asked by Hindu groups to abandon their livelihoods and the homes they have lived in for generations.

About a dozen families have fled Purola, a small town in northern India’s Uttarkashi district in Uttarakhand state, after notices were pasted on homes and businesses asking them to vacate the town.

The threats, issued mainly by two far-right Hindu groups – the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and its youth wing, the Bajrang Dal – follow an alleged attempt by two men to kidnap a 14-year-old Hindu girl on May 26.

Both the VHP and Bajrang Dal are in turn affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the far-right ideological mentor of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which aims to create an ethnic Hindu state out of a constitutionally secular India. Together, these groups constitute what is commonly referred to as the “Sangh Parivar” (parivar means family in Hindi).

The two accused in the kidnapping case were immediately nabbed by residents and handed over to the police. They have been charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and other laws.

‘Love jihad’ allegation

One of the accused in the kidnapping bid was a 24-year-old Muslim man, leading to allegations by Hindu groups that the kidnapping attempt was a case of “love jihad” – an unproven conspiracy theory that accuses Muslim men of luring Hindu women into romantic relationships in order to convert them to Islam by marriage.

The BJP government itself has denied that such a conspiracy exists in its reports presented in parliament.

But residents of Purola say the May 26 incident was used by the Hindu groups to intensify their years-old movement that seeks to free the Himalayan state, known for its many Hindu pilgrimage sites and temple towns, of the Muslim community.

There are about 400-500 Muslims in Purola, a town 140km (87 miles) from state capital Dehradun with about 10,000 residents.

On May 27, government officials allegedly asked Muslim traders to shut their shops as some Hindu groups had planned a rally to protest against the attempted kidnapping of the girl.

“We had to shut our shops because we had no option,” Mohammad Ashraf, 41, who has a garment shop in Purola, told Al Jazeera.

Read more: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023...eing-a-small-town-in-indias-uttarakhand-state

 

[MP2011]

Bigotry in full swing in Uttrakhand, something which was unheard of in this part of India.

All blame lies at the door of incumbent CM Dhami (handpicked by feku despite him losing last assembly election he contested) who in his bid to divert attention from his failure to act in case of cracks appearing in so many homes of Chamoli & Joshimath.