What's new

"Wearing Hijab Is Indiscipline": Karnataka Minister On Students' Protest

This conversation is now at risk of becoming a bit circular and repetitive.

Let’s move the topic forward and keep going with it, because it’s been a huge and interesting thread so far.
 
Everybody, try to understand what these Indian posters are trying to do in this thread.

They are trying to dictate our religion in the cover of what is mandatories and what is not. They do not care about whether anyone remain good muslim or not, or do not care whether anyone keeping their equal rights about exercising their own religion.

They are trying to impose their life style on Indian Muslims. Now they have targeted hijab, next they will target something else. Inch by inch they will try to erode the Islamic way of life. Fine it is their nation they are allowed to do anything over there.

But they should not try to take acceptance of their misdoings from this forum, so that once hijab is banned in India, the counter attack is mellowed down from here at least. Also they will lose their claim about having a secular democratic country. They wanna make sure they can keep on bragging about their secular justice system, which will come under most of the western nation's scrutiny after such verdicts.
 
No, she is a Muslim who has sinned by not abiding to that particular rule.

If I miss a daily prayer of which Allah has stipulated, am I expelled from Islam? No.

Wasn't that easy?

So hijab should be allowed as not wearing it is a sin? Ok.

As you pointed out, not offering the daily prayer is a sin too. Should schools make arrangements for daily prayers of the muslim students?

In many government schools, children are given a mid day meal. Should that be prepared as per islamic rules to keep it halal?

Because breaking all these rules will incur sin. No?
 
Everybody, try to understand what these Indian posters are trying to do in this thread.

They are trying to dictate our religion in the cover of what is mandatories and what is not. They do not care about whether anyone remain good muslim or not, or do not care whether anyone keeping their equal rights about exercising their own religion.

They are trying to impose their life style on Indian Muslims. Now they have targeted hijab, next they will target something else. Inch by inch they will try to erode the Islamic way of life. Fine it is their nation they are allowed to do anything over there.

But they should not try to take acceptance of their misdoings from this forum, so that once hijab is banned in India, the counter attack is mellowed down from here at least. Also they will lose their claim about having a secular democratic country. They wanna make sure they can keep on bragging about their secular justice system, which will come under most of the western nation's scrutiny after such verdicts.

Who will take away India's secular status? Who gave it that they will take away?
 
So hijab should be allowed as not wearing it is a sin? Ok.

As you pointed out, not offering the daily prayer is a sin too. Should schools make arrangements for daily prayers of the muslim students?

In many government schools, children are given a mid day meal. Should that be prepared as per islamic rules to keep it halal?


Because breaking all these rules will incur sin. No?

You know in the UK this is taken for granted. And this is a predominantly Christian country.

India has LONG Way to go before it can be considered at par with the first world. This is almost like talking to someone from 60's USA or Apartheid days in SA.
 
You know in the UK this is taken for granted. And this is a predominantly Christian country.

India has LONG Way to go before it can be considered at par with the first world. This is almost like talking to someone from 60's USA or Apartheid days in SA.

Sorry but in India we stopped following UK back in 1947. What UK does or doesn't do isnt of any significance.

It is not the duty of the government or any institution to provide rooms for religious activities or food as per religious beliefs.

Hindus will want temples then. Sikhs a gurudwara. Jains will want Jain food. Hindus and Sikhs will want Jhatka food.

This is a secular nation and it is not the government or institutions job to cater to each individual's religious beliefs. There is one rule and everyone has to follow that.

There are institutions run by religious organisations that cater to each religion. Schools, colleges everything.
 
Sorry but in India we stopped following UK back in 1947. What UK does or doesn't do isnt of any significance.

It is not the duty of the government or any institution to provide rooms for religious activities or food as per religious beliefs.

Hindus will want temples then. Sikhs a gurudwara. Jains will want Jain food. Hindus and Sikhs will want Jhatka food.

This is a secular nation and it is not the government or institutions job to cater to each individual's religious beliefs. There is one rule and everyone has to follow that.

There are institutions run by religious organisations that cater to each religion. Schools, colleges everything.

You mean it is not the of an Indian government or institution..

Because most of us living in civilized countries actually enjoy such benefits. There was a prayer room in my University in the US, used by Muslims, Jews alike. There were Diwali celebrations. And they did cater to Muslim students by keeping pork products separate from their food as they did with the vegetarians.

But once again, these are civilized countries, which most countries of the subcontinent stopped following after 47. India is definitely going the extra yard in that regard. Lol
 
This conversation is now at risk of becoming a bit circular and repetitive.

Let’s move the topic forward and keep going with it, because it’s been a huge and interesting thread so far.
I agree.
Most discussions with Extreme RW or LW, Indian or Pakistani, goes down that route and doesn’t yield any result. We all waste our bloody time here because these are not discussions, simply ego battles. I am making a conscious effort to visit this site less these days because of the melodrama and idiots.
Lol
 
Again a shady answer. No wonder Muslims are so confused about what is halal, what is haram. If one asks a question and gets answers in a riddle like everyone has written here, then of course anyone would do.

But why the need of riddles? From my understanding, it simply because in this boolean question, either answer will make the argument weaker.

It is a religion not a query on a computer where it has to be 'boolean' to produce results if not then get an error.

I won't take the time out to explain the intricate of Islam to someone who asked a ridiculous question such as yours in support of pervertizing the concept of secularism in favor of Hindutva - it is just waste of time because you have already made up your mind, hence support for redefining Islam for the Muslims of India.
 
So hijab should be allowed as not wearing it is a sin? Ok.

As you pointed out, not offering the daily prayer is a sin too. Should schools make arrangements for daily prayers of the muslim students?

In many government schools, children are given a mid day meal. Should that be prepared as per islamic rules to keep it halal?

Because breaking all these rules will incur sin. No?

Do you know how silly you sound? You're saying this like these are alien, unconscionable concepts. I was blessed to enjoy all that you mentioned throughout university in the West, as did other religions. This concept has a name: Freedom of Religion. You know, that thing India claims to have.

Furthermore, you are mentioning actions for a school to take that you clearly think are unreasonable and take unnecessary effort. How does letting female students put a scarf on their head compare in that regard? What can they possibly be unreasonably expending to simply let some girls put a garment on their head? In fact, they are going out of their way just to prevent it, and for what?

Even fellow BJP fans in this thread have come to their senses, but I'm sure you're far too obstinate to back down.
 
You mean it is not the of an Indian government or institution..

Because most of us living in civilized countries actually enjoy such benefits. There was a prayer room in my University in the US, used by Muslims, Jews alike. There were Diwali celebrations. And they did cater to Muslim students by keeping pork products separate from their food as they did with the vegetarians.

But once again, these are civilized countries, which most countries of the subcontinent stopped following after 47. India is definitely going the extra yard in that regard. Lol


Most of us staying in a secular nation didn't expect nor do we expect that the government cater to the needs of any religion. Its not the government's duty.

Thats why the Indian constitution provides for religious communities to open institutions and cater to the religious beliefs of their community.

A country of 1.3bn people makes its own rules and doesn't follow others.
 
Do you know how silly you sound? You're saying this like these are alien, unconscionable concepts. I was blessed to enjoy all that you mentioned throughout university in the West, as did other religions. This concept has a name: Freedom of Religion. You know, that thing India claims to have.

Furthermore, you are mentioning actions for a school to take that you clearly think are unreasonable and take unnecessary effort. How does letting female students put a scarf on their head compare in that regard? What can they possibly be unreasonably expending to simply let some girls put a garment on their head? In fact, they are going out of their way just to prevent it, and for what?

Even fellow BJP fans in this thread have come to their senses, but I'm sure you're far too obstinate to back down.

This is not at all silly. I didn't go to school expecting a temple on the premises to let me pray. And thats normal here. If i wanted a temple i would go to a hindu trust run school. Those schools will have temples and activities that are as per hindu religion. Similarly there are missionary schools, khalsa achools, muslim trust run schools, madrasas. These are all permitted as an exception to the article 14.

Freedom of religion as per article 25, is not absolute and is subject to restrictions.

Well, today we allow hijab, tommorow abaya and burqa. Then the hindu guy will want dhoti and the girl saree. The christian may as for a habit. Its a school not a circus that everyone will follow whatever rule they want to.

One a person is admitted to a school or college they and their guardians sign to obey the school rules.

Why can't those who believe that the hijab is necessary go to a islamic trust run school? Let a secular institution be secular. The fact that they believe that their religious beliefs overrides the laws of the land is astonishing.

Bjp fans or congress fans or what party fans isn't the topic. This is a secular nation and not a islamic one. The govt is not required to follow islamic laws.
 
Last edited:
So 12 pages on and I think we can now conclude that the debate is no longer on whether India is "Secular" but that it is actually becoming "Intolerent".
 
This is not at all silly. I didn't go to school expecting a temple on the premises to let me pray. And thats normal here. If i wanted a temple i would go to a hindu trust run school. Those schools will have temples and activities that are as per hindu religion. Similarly there are missionary schools, khalsa achools, muslim trust run schools, madrasas. These are all permitted as an exception to the article 14.

Freedom of religion as per article 25, is not absolute and is subject to restrictions.

Well, today we allow hijab, tommorow abaya and burqa. Then the hindu guy will want dhoti and the girl saree. The christian may as for a habit. Its a school not a circus that everyone will follow whatever rule they want to.

One a person is admitted to a school or college they and their guardians sign to obey the school rules.

Why can't those who believe that the hijab is necessary go to a islamic trust run school? Let a secular institution be secular. The fact that they believe that their religious beliefs overrides the laws of the land is astonishing.

Bjp fans or congress fans or what party fans isn't the topic. This is a secular nation and not a islamic one. The govt is not required to follow islamic laws.

Today the hijab is banned from schools, tomorrow it will be the streets and then in your own homes.

This argument doesn't wash just like your argument regarding Hhristian or Hindu schools.

A jewish school in London that allows other children from different religions will never stop a child from wearing a hijab. That is a fact.
 
Most of us staying in a secular nation didn't expect nor do we expect that the government cater to the needs of any religion. Its not the government's duty.

Thats why the Indian constitution provides for religious communities to open institutions and cater to the religious beliefs of their community.

A country of 1.3bn people makes its own rules and doesn't follow others.

You do not get to change the meaning of secularism.

But you have a right to promote and support Hindutva.

It is better for Hindtuva to argue their point if they were to come out in support of Hindutva instead of changing the meaning of secularism because no one has bought and no one will buy it.

UK is a secular nation, a text book example of secularism, probably originated from UK.

USA is secular

Canada is secular

Australia is secular

NZ is secular.

India is not.
Saudia is not
Pakistan is not

France is secular because it banned all religious attire.

India is not and Hindutva do not get to change the definition and concept of secularism.


But as some one has mentioned, it is a waste of time to continue with anyone who will continue to distort the definition of secularism to further their agenda.
 
Most of us staying in a secular nation didn't expect nor do we expect that the government cater to the needs of any religion. Its not the government's duty.

Thats why the Indian constitution provides for religious communities to open institutions and cater to the religious beliefs of their community.

A country of 1.3bn people makes its own rules and doesn't follow others.

Thats the textbook definition of a pseudo democracy, becuause I am sure some expert defined democracy as "Government for the people, by the People...." I dont know if you have ever heard that before. Look it up.

In a democracy, the government is supposed to be there to serve the people, protect their rights and give them freedoms. Government is not supposed to be served blindly, and is not supposed to tell people what rights to exercise and what rights to concede.

What I mentioned are the cornerstones of true civilized democracy. It will behoove you to educate yourself a bit in this regard.
 
Thats the textbook definition of a pseudo democracy, becuause I am sure some expert defined democracy as "Government for the people, by the People...." I dont know if you have ever heard that before. Look it up.

In a democracy, the government is supposed to be there to serve the people, protect their rights and give them freedoms. Government is not supposed to be served blindly, and is not supposed to tell people what rights to exercise and what rights to concede.

What I mentioned are the cornerstones of true civilized democracy. It will behoove you to educate yourself a bit in this regard.

Bit naive for you to believe the person doesn't already understand the concept of democracy.

He does, it is just that does not morphed into Hindutva India.

I just do not understand, Hindutva politics has majority in India, why are they afraid to come out in open and admit this is what they want for India.
 
Again a shady answer. No wonder Muslims are so confused about what is halal, what is haram. If one asks a question and gets answers in a riddle like everyone has written here, then of course anyone would do.

But why the need of riddles? From my understanding, it simply because in this boolean question, either answer will make the argument weaker.

Nothing is ever black and white in the way you would like it, everything has context. Otherwise you get idiots who think drinking alcohol can be compared to being a paedophile as they are both considered wrong.
 
Thats the textbook definition of a pseudo democracy, becuause I am sure some expert defined democracy as "Government for the people, by the People...." I dont know if you have ever heard that before. Look it up.

In a democracy, the government is supposed to be there to serve the people, protect their rights and give them freedoms. Government is not supposed to be served blindly, and is not supposed to tell people what rights to exercise and what rights to concede.
.

Can you name me the perfect democracy in the world?

Also what is the benchmark you are comparing Indias secularism and democracy against?

Would be interested in knowing.
 
Can you name me the perfect democracy in the world?

Also what is the benchmark you are comparing Indias secularism and democracy against?

Would be interested in knowing.

Forget perfection, at least pretend to go with the definition of democracy and NOT try to shoehorn your own definition of democracy in.

Because thats what your countrymen here are doing.
 
Any country where the government expects citizens to sacrifice their religious liberties for conformity to government issued rules........ IS NOT DEMOCRACY!
 
Any country where the government expects citizens to sacrifice their religious liberties for conformity to government issued rules........ IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

In USA institutions reserve the right to say no to who they can serve. Is that a pseudo democracy too?

Forget schools there are restaurants etc with dress codes.

It’s a fundamental right of the institution:

Anyway I don’t think you are qualified enough to talk and discuss democracy with the blanket statements you are making.

This is the 1000th time I repeating, it’s an institutional right to refuse or come up with their dress code. That’s their fundamental right and there was nothing undemocratic.

The state (India in this case) has no ban on religious wear or rules that people have to forego their religious liberties.

Are you purposely playing dumb at this point?
 
In USA institutions reserve the right to say no to who they can serve. Is that a pseudo democracy too?
not due to their religion, lol

Forget schools there are restaurants etc with dress codes.

Please do tell us which restaurant in the US had banned anyone from entering the restaurant with Turban, Hijab, Cross, Kippa? a dress code mean, formal dress, casual dress, there are no baring on religious attire - so first it'll be great if you can absorb this simple concept because it does make your comment look rather childish and desperate.

It’s a fundamental right of the institution:

Anyway I don’t think you are qualified enough to talk and discuss democracy with the blanket statements you are making.

Anyone inability to understand the simple concept of dress code and inability to separate religious attire with dress code should be enough to realize not to further discuss that topic as it will be waste of time for the readers.

This is the 1000th time I repeating, it’s an institutional right to refuse or come up with their dress code. That’s their fundamental right and there was nothing undemocratic.

Again, dress code is a dress code, a perfect example would be the US that you have tried to maligned as if no one on this forum live or from the US, lol

The state (India in this case) has no ban on religious wear or rules that people have to forego their religious liberties.

For some asking them to remove their religious attire by the state is infringement on their religious liberties, again, an elementary concept a true democracy and secularism. Someone who give example of the US should not have trouble comprehending this simple concept.

Are you purposely playing dumb at this point?

I am almost certain you aren't purposely playing dumb.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
In USA institutions reserve the right to say no to who they can serve. Is that a pseudo democracy too?

Forget schools there are restaurants etc with dress codes.

It’s a fundamental right of the institution:

Anyway I don’t think you are qualified enough to talk and discuss democracy with the blanket statements you are making.

This is the 1000th time I repeating, it’s an institutional right to refuse or come up with their dress code. That’s their fundamental right and there was nothing undemocratic.

The state (India in this case) has no ban on religious wear or rules that people have to forego their religious liberties.

Are you purposely playing dumb at this point?

Those are private businesses, genius. They are not government institutions.
Any institution that exists for public service such as government departments, schools, hospitals, etc are subjected to certain laws. They cannot impose their own rules and regs that infringe upon religious freedoms. One could make a case for even private businesses doing so, if one can prove their are discriminating based on race/color/sexual pref/gender/religion, etc. There are known cases of that in the USA.
Refusing service due to no shirt or shoes with this is like comparing apples and oranges.

Wish I could say "good try" .. but naaah!
 
So who is qualified to talk about democracy? just a general question. Seems like Indian mentality is you need to have some sort of a Ph.D to even discuss democracy and it somehow doesnt come to you as a natural right.

My daughter was in elementary school when she was taught the basic rules of democracy per the US constitution. The right to freedom, justice and happiness and all that jazz. I guess the Indian society is so repressed, they believe they dont deserve it unless they have extremely high qualification or grow a trunk or tail or something. Pretty amusing efforts by the parosis. lol
 
Today the hijab is banned from schools, tomorrow it will be the streets and then in your own homes.

This argument doesn't wash just like your argument regarding Hhristian or Hindu schools.

A jewish school in London that allows other children from different religions will never stop a child from wearing a hijab. That is a fact.

A school premises is not anyone's home or a street. Its a private space. So this comparison is moot.
 
A school premises is not anyone's home or a street. Its a private space. So this comparison is moot.

An educational institution is supposed to promote freedom of thought, and expression. More so a government school is supposed to be not a private space but a safe space for its students. I don’t know which schools you have been to and what you have been taught there but these are pretty standard text book definitions.
 
An educational institution is supposed to promote freedom of thought, and expression. More so a government school is supposed to be not a private space but a safe space for its students. I don’t know which schools you have been to and what you have been taught there but these are pretty standard text book definitions.

Schools are also required to teach equality and apply rules uniformly. Thats the concept of uniform.

I went to a Army school and no one was treated as special there.
 
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/15/what-lies-beneath-the-indias-hijab-ban-row


By Rushda Fathima Khan
Published On 15 Feb 2022
15 Feb 2022
Bengaluru, India – The ban on hijab in colleges in the southern Indian state of Karnataka has triggered a major row amid growing concerns that the attacks on Muslim symbols and practices are part of the larger Hindu far-right agenda of imposing majoritarian values on minorities.

The country’s 200 million Muslim minority community fear the ban on hijab violates their religious freedom guaranteed under India’s constitution. The US ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom on Friday said the hijab ban would stigmatise and marginalise women and girls.


The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which runs governments in Karnataka as well as at the centre, has backed the discriminatory ban. The BJP has for decades campaigned for the application of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which minorities believe would be tantamount to the imposition of Hindu laws.

On Tuesday, hijab-wearing Muslim girl students were barred from entering schools and colleges across the state.

The visuals of Muslim girls removing their hijab outside their schools created a furore, with social media users calling it “humiliation”, while Sujatha Gidla, author of the book Ants Among Elephants, said it reminded of “the French police terrorising Muslim women in burkinis” in 2016.


“Around 13 of us were taken to a separate room because we were wearing a headscarf over the school uniform,” Aliya Meher, a student at Karnataka Public School in Shivamogga district, told Al Jazeera.

“They told us that we cannot write the pre-board exam if we don’t remove our hijab. We responded by saying: ‘In that case, we will not write the exam. We cannot compromise on the hijab.’”

“Suddenly, they are asking us to remove hijab.”

Reshma Banu, the mother of one of the students barred entry to the same school, said the hijab ban is “unacceptable”.

“The hijab is an integral part of our faith. We admitted our children here since we thought their rights would be respected,” she told Al Jazeera.

A Muslim student shouts slogans as she takes part in a protest against the recent hijab ban in few colleges of Karnataka state, in Kolkata, IndiaLawyers have criticised the restraining order on students wearing ‘religious clothes’ saying it amounts to ‘suspension of fundamental rights’ [File: Rupak De Chowdhuri/Reuters]
But Susheela V, the principal of Karnataka Public School, said her institution is “only abiding by government orders”.

“It’s just a pre-board examination and we can make arrangements for them to write it later,” she told Al Jazeera, adding that “we will implement necessary rules as per the court’s judgement”.

Muslim students have challenged the hijab ban in the Karnataka High Court.

How did it begin?
The situation escalated last week when a group of hijab-wearing Muslim girls camped outside a college in the state’s Udupi district after the authorities shut gates on them. As soon as the video of their protests surfaced on the internet, there was a wave of solidarity from across the country with activists asking for a repeal of the ban.

But the college and the government did not heed the demands and it instead had a ripple effect, with several other colleges in the district imposing a ban on hijab after opposition from Hindu students and activists who donned saffron – a colour associated with Hinduism – scarves and shawls.

The state’s high court, which is hearing two petitions against the ban, has restrained students from wearing “religious clothes”, including hijab, until it issues a ruling. The lawyers have criticised the restraining order saying it amounts to “suspension of fundamental rights”.

Last Tuesday, sporadic incidents of violence were reported from different parts of the state as Hindu students clashed with police. In one episode, a student in hijab was heckled by a group of Hindu mob inside her college, sparking huge outrage.

What started as an issue of college dress code has turned into a Hindu-Muslim issue, with Hindu students starting to wear saffron scarves at colleges to oppose hijab.

According to social media posts on Twitter, Hindu supremacist groups in the northern states of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh protested against hijab on Tuesday.

Schoolgirls arrive to attend their classes as police officers stand inside the premises of a government girls school after the recent hijab ban, in Udupi town in the southern state of Karnataka, IndiaSchoolgirls arrive to attend their classes as police officers stand on the premises of a government girls school after the recent hijab ban, in Udupi town, Karnataka [File: Sunil Kataria/Reuters]
The issue around hijab first started in late December when a group of Muslim girl students were removed from their class in a government pre-university college in Udupi district for wearing headscarves that many Muslims wear.

Campus Front of India (CFI), a Muslim student group active in southern India, came out in their support, arguing that the college was violating their religious and educational rights.

Syed Sarfraz, a student activist associated with CFI, told Al Jazeera that the government was validating and provoking the response of Hindu nationalist groups to oppose hijab.

“Multiple videos have emerged from various districts where leaders of Hindu nationalist groups are among the anti-hijab protesters wearing saffron shawls,” Sarfraz added.

According to an investigation by The News Minute website, the anti-hijab protests were not spontaneous “but a calculated Hindutva plot that has built on years of communal polarisation in Karnataka to mobilise students”.

Hindutva (Hindu-ness), the ideology which defines Indian culture in terms of Hindu values, has inspired India’s Hindu supremacists for decades.

Why protests in coastal Karnataka?
Udupi, at the centre of the ongoing controversy, is a district in Karnataka’s coastal region which is considered a stronghold of the BJP.

Samar Halarnkar, a senior journalist based in the state capital, Bengaluru, says coastal Karnataka is “the crucible of Hindutva” politics and “its proving ground”.

“They [Hindutva groups] began with attacking women having a drink in a pub and later started to accost and attack even friends who were of different faiths. They have been nurtured and empowered by the BJP, which is now in power, and find more support than ever before,” Halarnkar, who edits Article-14 news website, told Al Jazeera.

He said fundamentalism, both Hindu and Muslim, have found fertile ground in the coastal districts of Karnataka, where Muslims form 15 percent of the population.

Over the years, Karnataka has seen a rise in activities of Hindutva groups and the targeting of the state’s religious minorities, mainly Muslims and Christians.

Last month, the Karnataka state assembly passed a law that effectively bans religious conversions, with the BJP government alleging that Christian missionary groups were conducting “forceful conversions” of Hindus, an allegation rejected by Christian religious leaders.

Congress, the main opposition party in the state has called the hijab ban “inhuman and communal” accusing the government of creating controversy in order to gain political mileage before the upcoming state elections next year.

“We have been wearing hijab for years without any problem but now, the issue has been suddenly taken up by the BJP and Hindutva groups to rake up communal tensions,” Kaneez Fatima, a Congress member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, had told Al Jazeera, referring to the Hindu far-right groups.

Halarnkar said, “Hindu fundamentalist groups clearly sensed an opportunity over the hijab issue and used it to further radicalise society.”

But the BJP defended the ban, arguing that the hijab disturbs the “uniformity” among students.

“The concept of uniform is to avoid discrimination between students. There is neither place for hijab nor saffron scarves in educational institutes,” Smriti Hartis, the party’s spokeswoman, told Al Jazeera. She called the demand for hijab by girls an “unnecessary controversy” while defending the opposition by Hindu nationalists as “very normal”.

‘Both-side narrative’
Activists and groups who have come out in support of girls protesting for hijab have slammed the “both-side” narrative that is being pushed forward by media to “draw false equivalences”.

“Media that support right-wing forces are trying to strengthen the narrative that if hijab is our right then a saffron shawl is their right. They are hijacking the hijab question with the saffron shawl,” activist Ladeeda Farzana told Al Jazeera.

“With that, they effectively make the decades-old normal practice – controversial,” she added.

Muslims also fear that controversies like these are a part of the larger agenda of Hindutva groups to impose laws in the name of the UCC.

A petition has also been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the implementation of a Common Dress Code in educational institutions across India.

The legal experts, however, say the UCC has no bearing on practices like hijab.

“Hijab is an issue of basic fundamental freedom,” said MR Shamshad, a Supreme Court lawyer and member of AIMPLB, adding that “uniformity” is a subjective term as the outlook of all students in a school has never been “uniform”.

While the matter is pending ruling at the high court as the hearing is under way, the girls remain both hopeful and apprehensive about the outcome and the future of their right to cover their heads.

“We do not know what the court will say. There is a sense of insecurity in returning to campus, even with hijab, because of the positions taken against us within and outside our classrooms,” said Aysha Nourin, a 16-year-old student at RN Shetty PU College in Kundapura.

“We could be targeted even by fellow students.”
 
You know in the UK this is taken for granted. And this is a predominantly Christian country.

India has LONG Way to go before it can be considered at par with the first world. This is almost like talking to someone from 60's USA or Apartheid days in SA.

I said that pages ago.....India wants to sit at the table with the big boys yet bulks at giving rights to minorities which the west has given.
 
I said that pages ago.....India wants to sit at the table with the big boys yet bulks at giving rights to minorities which the west has given.

India is sitting at the table of big boys. That doesn't mean we need to be a lackey and copy their rules.
 
I said that pages ago.....India wants to sit at the table with the big boys yet bulks at giving rights to minorities which the west has given.

Yep. That's why west has BLM, LGBTQ movements which shows the oppression that minorities group in society faces.
 
Yep. That's why west has BLM, LGBTQ movements which shows the oppression that minorities group in society faces.

Which is what’s going on with India as well but it seems like some people don’t even want to acknowledge these problems, so quite a striking contrast, wouldn’t you say?
 
Which is what’s going on with India as well but it seems like some people don’t even want to acknowledge these problems, so quite a striking contrast, wouldn’t you say?

There will be protest in a society. That's how a system works.

West has BLM, LGBTQ issues, the Desi countries have religious extremism issue.

So it's futile to say that the west has better model than Desi countries.
 
There will be protest in a society. That's how a system works.

West has BLM, LGBTQ issues, the Desi countries have religious extremism issue.

So it's futile to say that the west has better model than Desi countries.

Going from your and your fellow Hindus sentiment here, it seems things are much better in the west though. While the racists bigots are the outliers in the west, you guys seem to be proud to act as them and want to defend the bigotry in your country.
 
Going from your and your fellow Hindus sentiment here, it seems things are much better in the west though. While the racists bigots are the outliers in the west, you guys seem to be proud to act as them and want to defend the bigotry in your country.

"better" is subjective and depends upon portrayal. From my pov, what happened during BLM was much worse than what's going on now. A headscarf issue is miniscule compared to shooting someone based upon racial ethnicity.

Of course you can have your own bias but looking at things, Desi countries are much better in this regard than west.
 
India is sitting at the table of big boys. That doesn't mean we need to be a lackey and copy their rules.

It isn't about being a lucky, you want secular yet you don't want a inclusive society. India is still a very a hierarchical society due to the inherent caste system and minorities. India as a nation is going backwards in terms of its "secular" credentials. When most liberal democracies value diversity and make sure they are inclusive and their secular values are not threatened. As the common theme running is allowing the hijab threatens the secular nature of India, yet a turban for sikhs hasn't threatened it.
 
Yep. That's why west has BLM, LGBTQ movements which shows the oppression that minorities group in society faces.
It isn't perfect and no one said that but I know that no one kill me for eating a certain type of meat or the fact that if chose to wear a hijab I will not be ostracised.
 
"better" is subjective and depends upon portrayal. From my pov, what happened during BLM was much worse than what's going on now. A headscarf issue is miniscule compared to shooting someone based upon racial ethnicity.

Of course you can have your own bias but looking at things, Desi countries are much better in this regard than west.

Sure you have a number killings based on eating beef or even a rumour so is that any better?
 
It isn't perfect and no one said that but I know that no one kill me for eating a certain type of meat or the fact that if chose to wear a hijab I will not be ostracised.

In west, it is alleged that you can be shot for being black and hence existence of racial discrimination based on which, the BLM movement was born to eradicate it.

Are you seriously making a miniscule hijab issue larger than BLM?
 
Not following the rules of the uniform that forbids religious symbols.

That can not be considered a serious stipulation since it was set aside for Sikhs for no good reason. You may reply once again that Muslims should apply to Indian courts, but since the precedent has already been set that Sikhs can override the stipulation, then we can conclude Indians don't take such rules seriously anyway.

Neither will Muslims trust Indian courts to deliver a fair judgement in a country which is hostile to their faith.
 
"better" is subjective and depends upon portrayal. From my pov, what happened during BLM was much worse than what's going on now. A headscarf issue is miniscule compared to shooting someone based upon racial ethnicity.

Of course you can have your own bias but looking at things, Desi countries are much better in this regard than west.

With all due respect, you couldn't see the difference in wrong between drinking alcohol and paedophilia, and needed this explained to you upon your own request for clarity, no one is going to take your subsequent comparisons seriously.
 
In west, it is alleged that you can be shot for being black and hence existence of racial discrimination based on which, the BLM movement was born to eradicate it.

Are you seriously making a miniscule hijab issue larger than BLM?

Obviously neglected to read the part stating people being killed for eating Beef, I didn't compare this issue to BLM! It isn't a minuscule issue as it is slippery slope especially when it has been allowed and now for whatever reason (current BJP directives) it is an issue!
 
That can not be considered a serious stipulation since it was set aside for Sikhs for no good reason. You may reply once again that Muslims should apply to Indian courts, but since the precedent has already been set that Sikhs can override the stipulation, then we can conclude Indians don't take such rules seriously anyway.

Neither will Muslims trust Indian courts to deliver a fair judgement in a country which is hostile to their faith.

The stipulation was overriden by a court decree. Muslims are free to try and get one.
 
Obviously neglected to read the part stating people being killed for eating Beef, I didn't compare this issue to BLM! It isn't a minuscule issue as it is slippery slope especially when it has been allowed and now for whatever reason (current BJP directives) it is an issue!

Killing a cow is illegal in most Indian states and is a punishable offence. Are you telling me that killing a cow is some how a fundamental right that has been violated?
 
It isn't about being a lucky, you want secular yet you don't want a inclusive society. India is still a very a hierarchical society due to the inherent caste system and minorities. India as a nation is going backwards in terms of its "secular" credentials. When most liberal democracies value diversity and make sure they are inclusive and their secular values are not threatened. As the common theme running is allowing the hijab threatens the secular nature of India, yet a turban for sikhs hasn't threatened it.

A head covering of uncut hair of Sikhs is a essential religious practice that essentially makes a person a khalsa sikh.

Unless you are saying that a hijab makes a muslim a muslim both topics are different.

If its about incurring sin, then tommorow as i said in another post, Institutions may be asked to make more changes in order to bring the rules in consonance with the islamic law.

This is not an islamic country and institutions dont need to follow islamic laws or any religious laws, unless they are hitting article 25 of the constitution. The institutions too have their rights.
 
With all due respect, you couldn't see the difference in wrong between drinking alcohol and paedophilia, and needed this explained to you upon your own request for clarity, no one is going to take your subsequent comparisons seriously.

Let people have them their own opinions about my comparisons. Or are you here by trying to shove your opinions on them?

Respect others to let them have their own mind. If my reasoning is meaningless, they can make up their mind own without any intervention from others.
 
Killing a cow is illegal in most Indian states and is a punishable offence. Are you telling me that killing a cow is some how a fundamental right that has been violated?
But as you have mentioned time and time again, everyone should be equal and it is secular then why do you have a law re killing cows which is based on the Hindu faith?
 
Obviously neglected to read the part stating people being killed for eating Beef, I didn't compare this issue to BLM! It isn't a minuscule issue as it is slippery slope especially when it has been allowed and now for whatever reason (current BJP directives) it is an issue!

As you've stated, no society can be perfect hence there will be some instances here and there of violent in subject. But that doesn't mean there is systematic discrimination.

Because Hijab is related to Islam while BLM directly isn't, saying BLM has equal or lesser relevance of that of hijab is reflecting on own biased perspective and victim mentality to be honest.

BLM is much bigger conflict and discrimination than hijab ever was in any country unless you are taking incidents of hostile attitude in Islamic countries if a woman doesn't wear hijab.
 
LOL :)), many seem to keep running away from the question

'Ok so if a Muslim female doesn't wear a Hijab, she is no longer a Muslim ?'

She'll be a Muslim, but it'll also count as sin, means it's mandatory cover their head (as far i know)..
 
She'll be a Muslim, but it'll also count as sin, means it's mandatory cover their head (as far i know)..

Yes and the point is that someone who believes in the tenets of Islam, in Allah and the last Prophet PBUH is a Muslim, full stop. Everyday sins are not desired, but they are expected, and they do not instantly render someone non-Muslim.
 
She'll be a Muslim, but it'll also count as sin, means it's mandatory cover their head (as far i know)..

There is a bit of ambiguity here, I have read passages from the Quran and I cant make out anywhere where it says it is a sin to not wear a Hijab. Maybe I am not reading it properly or not understanding the meaning.

However even if it is a sin, it is still not mandatory to wear a hijab, unlike if you are a homosexual for instance which is not permitted in Islam in anyway shape or form.

No one would be following every verse of their religion right to the dot, so they are all sinning in theory. The whole argument I made here is not about SIN or not, is it mandatory ? Which it is not. Is it mandatory to not be a homosexual in ISLAM >? YES IT IS.
 
She'll be a Muslim, but it'll also count as sin, means it's mandatory cover their head (as far i know)..

So westernised muslim women who wear no hijab in Europe and countries like Turkey, even in India or Pakistan, are sinning everyday? :))
This is exactly the problem with the extremist mindset, and so many problems result because of it.
 
So westernised muslim women who wear no hijab in Europe and countries like Turkey, even in India or Pakistan, are sinning everyday? :))
This is exactly the problem with the extremist mindset, and so many problems result because of it.

How is it any more of a problem than Sikhs wearing turbans? I'm assuming when you talk about problems, we are still talking about wearing religious garb in schools?
 
How is it any more of a problem than Sikhs wearing turbans? I'm assuming when you talk about problems, we are still talking about wearing religious garb in schools?

Is Hijab mandatory for a practicing Muslim women?

Turban is mandatory for a practicing Sikh man.

When that exception was made that was the case at least.

At least in India before 2001 hijab wasn’t common.

I don’t see women on Pakistan TV wear Hijab. Surprising to see so many non-Islamic Muslim women in an Islamic republic like Pakistan.
 
Is Hijab mandatory for a practicing Muslim women?

Turban is mandatory for a practicing Sikh man.

When that exception was made that was the case at least.

At least in India before 2001 hijab wasn’t common.

I don’t see women on Pakistan TV wear Hijab. Surprising to see so many non-Islamic Muslim women in an Islamic republic like Pakistan.

Before you go on rinse and repeat the same comment that had been addressed to boring details, can you please remind us which establishment in the US had banned religious attire and the difference between dress code and religious attire on that dress code.

Because almost every excuse by the Indians in favor of bigotry had been put to bed. You made claims that need the backing or example should be provided to back up your claim.

Thank you!!
 
Is Hijab mandatory for a practicing Muslim women?

Turban is mandatory for a practicing Sikh man.

When that exception was made that was the case at least.

At least in India before 2001 hijab wasn’t common.

I don’t see women on Pakistan TV wear Hijab. Surprising to see so many non-Islamic Muslim women in an Islamic republic like Pakistan.

If a Muslim women believe it is then it is - a true secularism.
 
This thread could go 1200 pages long and the Hindu bigotry would still be as evident as it was on Page 1.
 
If a Muslim women believe it is then it is - a true secularism.

You can beleive and confirm to whatever traditions you want. I don’t think that is a problem.

When something not considered mandatory is not allowed. It is not allowed. Period

You can do any verbal gymnastics you want saying the same stale stuff multiple times but that is the protocol and the decision is fair. Nothing else to discuss.

If proven as mandatory garment for the religion than court will allow it.

Read it how many times you want. That’s about it.
 
If there is one thing we have learned in this thread it is, the Indian definition of “secularism” is completely different to the rest of the world.

Education was, is, and will forever be, the silver bullet.
 
If there is one thing we have learned in this thread it is, the Indian definition of “secularism” is completely different to the rest of the world.

Education was, is, and will forever be, the silver bullet.

Prejudiced hindus think secularism stands for whatever hindu leaning views they have. Democracy is only good as long as it caters to their beliefs first and empowers them to pass judgment on what is permissible in one's religion, and the authority of state over such matters.


In short what they believe in is Hindu authoritarianism and NOT democracy. How is it democracy or secularism if they THEY or STATE is the one deciding what is permissible in one's religion?


THE STATE determined turbans are needed for sikhs, therefore, they are allowed it.
THE STATE is implying hijab is not mandatory for Muslims females, so they are disallowing it.
THE STATE determined the slaughter of cows is hurtful to HINDUS, so they disallowed it. Even though there are no Hindu texts that consider that impermissible. It is just frowned upon. Yet now it is banned.

So THE STATE is making those determination based on THE STATES's prerogative. If a citizen decides my faith is different from another member of the same sect, NO IT IS NOT OK because THE STATE is telling you what you should believe in.

THE AUTHORITATIVE STATE is making those decisions, text book definitions of forms of government found in society.

You will most likely find democracy under a different section, one that does not meet these descriptions and ideals Hindus are following.
 
Last edited:
Prejudiced hindus think secularism stands for whatever hindu leaning views they have. Democracy is only good as long as it caters to their beliefs first and empowers them to pass judgment on what is permissible in one's religion, and the authority of state over such matters.


In short what they believe in is Hindu authoritarianism and NOT democracy. How is it democracy or secularism if they THEY or STATE is the one deciding what is permissible in one's religion?


THE STATE determined turbans are needed for sikhs, therefore, they are allowed it.
THE STATE is implying hijab is not mandatory for Muslims females, so they are disallowing it.
THE STATE determined the slaughter of cows is hurtful to HINDUS, so they disallowed it. Even though there are no Hindu texts that consider that impermissible. It is just frowned upon. Yet now it is banned.

So THE STATE is making those determination based on THE STATES's prerogative. If a citizen decides my faith is different from another member of the same sect, NO IT IS NOT OK because THE STATE is telling you what you should believe in.

THE AUTHORITATIVE STATE is making those decisions, text book definitions of forms of government found in society.

You will most likely find democracy under a different section, one that does not meet these descriptions and ideals Hindus are following.

Indias constitution is Indias prerogative. As simple as that. May I ask why does Pakistan a Islamic republic which has blasphemy laws etc and calls itself a Islamic republic while abiding by rules of Islam have courts and punishments that resemble the western world?

Do people get their hands chopped off for stealing in Pakistan but on the other hand blasphemy law seems to be in full flow.

I would guess that’s because Pakistan laws are based on their own interpretation of certain concepts should be implemented. Lot of grey areas there as well. Every country has it.

I love your enthusiasm on the Indian constitution but you need to start at the bottom to learn.

At this point you are going in circles and forcing /baiting others to do the same.
 
Last edited:
Indias constitution is Indias prerogative. As simple as that. May I ask why does Pakistan a Islamic republic which has blasphemy laws etc and calls itself a Islamic republic while abiding by rules of Islam have courts and punishments that resemble the western world?

Do people get their hands chopped off for stealing in Pakistan but on the other hand blasphemy law seems to be in full flow.

I would guess that’s because Pakistan laws are based on their own interpretation of certain concepts should be implemented. Lot of grey areas there as well. Every country has it.

I love your enthusiasm on the Indian constitution but you need to start at the bottom to learn.

At this point you are going in circles and forcing /baiting others to do the same.

Pakistan never claims to be secular, and its Democracy of a majority Muslim state.
Thats the difference. Islamic laws are not followed to the T based on the constitution and how it is devised (we still follow a lot of commonwealth clauses)

But you are talking two different things. If India's constitution caters to certain beliefs that are majority Hindu and does not cater to minority belief so it might be a Democracy like Pakistan but its not a secular democracy anymore.

Its more of a Hindu Democratic State

Whats worse is when the STATE starts actually telling their citizenry what is permissible by religion then it becomes entirely a different beast. You are no better than the Chinese with their refugee camps for the Muslims. If you are telling them what they can or cannot practice from within their faith.

Once again, no democratic or secular constitution in the world should interfere with people's religions. If it does, its not Democratic, non secular.
 
Hindus just want to have their cake and eat it.

They are basically following Pakistan's example and trying to establish a Hindu Democratic Republic, which caters to hindus and their laws and rules. THey feel they have been subjugated enough and the minority Muslims are abusing their previlieges, therefore they should be showed who is the boss and Hindu leaning laws should be enforced.

With each passing day and each additional post on this forum by them, I am starting to see clear as DAYLIGHT that the 2 nation theory was 100% accurate and true and predicted these problems accurately.

The two people cannot be more different. We have almost nothing in common than our ancestors, the color of our skin, and similarities in language. We are entirely different in beliefs, thoughts, etc and in some ways similar because we are very very rigid because we want our own way of doing things.

In short, the Hindus are just late to the party, about 75 years late, and they are still busy trying to convince themselves and others that their modern day ideals are along the lines of what Gandhi had envisioned.
 
Last edited:
Pakistan never claims to be secular, and its Democracy of a majority Muslim state.
Thats the difference. Islamic laws are not followed to the T based on the constitution and how it is devised (we still follow a lot of commonwealth clauses)

.

So everything goes in Pakistan because it is an Islamic state and you are comfortable with that but hung up on conflicts in India and want to preach every mortality under the sun on how india should hold its secularism.

Do you see an issue there?

India is a melting pot, there will be some incident or the other like this. As we speak some guy is showing dissent in some remote corner of india.

This moral high ground is what reeks of hypocrisy.

How engaged where you on the Sialkot lynching or the recent murder of a mentally unstable man or all the problems with minority in Pakistan?

Here you want to quote law points and discuss Indian constitution?

I thought you were concerned for Muslim women which is fair game. They are absolutely safe. Did you see how Muskaan gave it back? Can a Hindu girl do the same in Pakistan before some jackoff tries to abduct and convert her?

At this point you are approaching this as a competitive debate than with logic. All your questions have already been answered.
 
Hindus just want to have their cake and eat it.

They are basically following Pakistan's example and trying to establish a Hindu Democratic Republic, which caters to hindus and their laws and rules. THey feel they have been subjugated enough and the minority Muslims are abusing their previlieges, therefore they should be showed who is the boss and Hindu leaning laws should be enforced.

With each passing day and each additional post on this forum by them, I am starting to see clear as DAYLIGHT that the 2 nation theory was 100% accurate and true and predicted these problems accurately.

The two people cannot be more different. We have almost nothing in common than our ancestors, the color of our skin, and similarities in language. We are entirely different in beliefs, thoughts, etc and in some ways similar because we are very very rigid because we want our own way of doing things.

In short, the Hindus are just late to the party, about 75 years late, and they are still busy trying to convince themselves and others that their modern day ideals are along the lines of what Gandhi had envisioned.

Spot on. Hindutva want India to become a Hindu State Republic. Hence why their wishy washy ignorant understanding of Securalism is the biggest joke since - Knock Knock who's there.
 
People here worrying about Hijab issue in neighbor country more than Minority Killings in their own country :ssa2



People from ethnic minorities, especially Hazaras who are mainly Shia Muslims became the targets of indiscriminate attacks carried out by extremist groups including the so-called Islamic State. Fearing for their safety, Hazaras congregated in two neighborhoods in Quetta.

"Human trafficking is [a] severe form of human rights violations. The menace is linked with the socio-economic issues of the country," the official said. He relates migration with poverty and said it could increase with high levels of unemployment and other factors.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2343241/uncertain-futures-ahead-for-hazara-youth
 
So everything goes in Pakistan because it is an Islamic state and you are comfortable with that but hung up on conflicts in India and want to preach every mortality under the sun on how india should hold its secularism.

Do you see an issue there?

India is a melting pot, there will be some incident or the other like this. As we speak some guy is showing dissent in some remote corner of india.

This moral high ground is what reeks of hypocrisy.

How engaged where you on the Sialkot lynching or the recent murder of a mentally unstable man or all the problems with minority in Pakistan?

Here you want to quote law points and discuss Indian constitution?

I thought you were concerned for Muslim women which is fair game. They are absolutely safe. Did you see how Muskaan gave it back? Can a Hindu girl do the same in Pakistan before some jackoff tries to abduct and convert her?

At this point you are approaching this as a competitive debate than with logic. All your questions have already been answered.

You are hung up over me and my criticism of India and failing to see the bigger picture. The same issues I am criticizing India for are the same reprehensible issues that I find with Pakistan.

I am just telling you as a matter of fact, that with Pakistan, they have a defense in that they are an Islamic republic.

But you guys are supposed to be better because you are Secular. You guys bash our heads everyday with that stuff. But do you guys really practice what your preach?

Up until a few years ago, I was actually envious of how India has run its government in a secular and democratic way but things have gone downhill fast and if you fail to see it, its nothing but a myopic view of things on your part, blinded by your political favoritism.
 
Protesting for minorities and women of India but not of our own country

But simultaneously, while we criticise other nations for their shortcomings, we must also understand how we as a country are failing our women and religious minorities too.

Let us start with a basic example. How many of the people in Pakistan who are saying that women like Muskan should be allowed to dress how they want in India would have the same attitude towards women in Pakistan? As is demonstrated by the Aurat March year in year out, many men in Pakistan are desperate to police what women wear in public and are ready to argue whether or not it conforms to their pre-established notions of ‘decency’. The simple act of women marching together asking for their fundamental rights to be fulfilled leads to such vitriol, anger and backlash in Pakistan. Perhaps the same men who are calling for Muskan’s rights to be upheld should also try to raise their voices when women’s rights are squashed in Pakistan, or when Qandeel Baloch’s brother is acquitted after committing murder, or when the next honour killing is committed.

On a similar note, when calling out religious persecution in other countries, we must also ensure that we do not turn a blind eye to the issues plaguing religious minorities and minority sects in Pakistan. From forced conversions, to false blasphemy charges, to the kidnapping of non-Muslim girls, to the marginalisation of Ahmadis, we as a country have failed on so many fronts. Hence, when we support Muskan’s fight, in the same breath we must also ensure that we call out our own state’s inability to protect the rights of religious minorities and women in Pakistan.

https://tribune.com.pk/article/97546/protesting-for-minorities-and-women-of-india-but-not-of-our-own-country
 
That doesn’t sound like defense to me. That sounds like an excuse to do whatever

..... and thats exactly what you are following, buddy.

Perhaps unable to realize it, but if the conversation around freedom of religions devolves down to the court decides if you really need to do this to be a good "insert religious denomination of choice here" it becomes an excuse.
 
..... and thats exactly what you are following, buddy.

Perhaps unable to realize it, but if the conversation around freedom of religions devolves down to the court decides if you really need to do this to be a good "insert religious denomination of choice here" it becomes an excuse.

A small non issue like Hijab is being discussed in court and there are peaceful protests.Even for Ram Mandir the Hindus waited for 40 years for a verdict while the Muslims got a fair compensation.

On the other hand does anyone have the guts to challenge clear discriminatory laws like blasphemy law or the fact that no minority can become PM in Pakistan?

That’s the difference. You are going by optics of a few odd women in Hijab protesting. I wish these sisters come out in full garb for other burning social issues that still exist for women but that’s a debate for another day. On topic secularism is absolutely fine. Now sure there will be communal issues and skirmishes but unfortunately it is what it is.

You can have the last word because I am exhausted with this topic so suit yourself.
 
Remember folks, India does not have a national identity. No national language, no national culture, heck even the guy who wrote the Indian national anthem was a fusion of cultures. So much so, India is following the footsteps of the West, so much for unique culture.

Centuries of foreign rule ordained India to a lack of identity, thus why Hindutva is being promoted as an identity of a country that has been carved and ruled for centuries.

Hindutva apologists want Hinduism to be their national religion in India. This not only smacks against the so called Secularism practised in India (mainly ignorance), but also highlights the plight of Hinduism when it comes to recognition, this to within India - we are not even talking about world recognition - Hinduism is struggling domestically within India for an identity.

So dismal is the identity, Indians are fleeing 'incredible' India. No economic hope. No equality hope. No democratic hope. No hope of any justice given Hinduism is carved by the caste system.

In summary - if the news of a few school girls wearing a piece of cloth over their head is enough to flummox the right wing terrorist ideology of Hindutva, then you know how fragile and extremist India really is.

This is why you have Indian athiests defending Hindutva, Half Bang/Ind attacking Pakistan, and why overseas Indian wannabes who bartered their Indian indentity for a fair skin are all mouth in this thread.
 
A small non issue like Hijab is being discussed in court and there are peaceful protests.Even for Ram Mandir the Hindus waited for 40 years for a verdict while the Muslims got a fair compensation.

On the other hand does anyone have the guts to challenge clear discriminatory laws like blasphemy law or the fact that no minority can become PM in Pakistan?

That’s the difference. You are going by optics of a few odd women in Hijab protesting. I wish these sisters come out in full garb for other burning social issues that still exist for women but that’s a debate for another day. On topic secularism is absolutely fine. Now sure there will be communal issues and skirmishes but unfortunately it is what it is.

You can have the last word because I am exhausted with this topic so suit yourself.

Just the fact you consider this a small issue and not symptomatic of a bigger problem shows your ignorance.
 
Not to mention, the Hindus are still trying to compare India with Pakistan over these issues.

Pakistan never claims to be secular. Pakistan was not even democratic for decades. If India is trying to follow our example, then sure we would not point fingers. But if you attach the word secular to yourselves and toot your horn everyday about it, of course you are going to hear about it.

And, I say this again, once again this proves the TWO NATION THEORY which is perhaps the most important conclusion from this discussion so far.
 
But as you have mentioned time and time again, everyone should be equal and it is secular then why do you have a law re killing cows which is based on the Hindu faith?

We also have a law that allows muslims to practice polygamy and triple talaq etc as per islamic beliefs. The tax payers funded haj pilgrimage of muslims till 2014. Infact we have a minorities ministry funded by taxpayers to look after just the minorities.

Secondly cow is holy to sikhs, jains and Buddhists as well. Sri Lanka and Myanmar have complete ban on cow slaughter and far harsher punishment.

Mahatma Gandhi himself advocated cow protection.
 
Not to mention, the Hindus are still trying to compare India with Pakistan over these issues.

Pakistan never claims to be secular. Pakistan was not even democratic for decades. If India is trying to follow our example, then sure we would not point fingers. But if you attach the word secular to yourselves and toot your horn everyday about it, of course you are going to hear about it.

And, I say this again, once again this proves the TWO NATION THEORY which is perhaps the most important conclusion from this discussion so far.

Two nation theory and pakistanis still want islamic laws in India and poke their nose in Indian issues that doesn't concern them.

Otoh Bangladesh showed you how religion cannot unite people.

We can attach anything to our name, do we need permission from someone?
 
Back
Top