What is Pakistan's exact problem with India

[drubwrubnat]

Even the war cries and possibility of war would die down faster than one would think. If they manage the PR (saving face part) good on both sides of border it would die down quick.

Look it was an Indian poster once here (I can't recall who) ...who once compared this Kashmir argument to aunties swinging purses. That always sticks with me. If politicians and PR agrees to get off this gravy train, the people themselves will willingly oblige as they are not fighters by nature. Thousands of years of Himalayas and desert have shielded us and bred us into a gossip mongering shame culture that creates its own fictional reality.

My experience from abroad no one avoids an actual fist fight like people from the subcontinent.
However no one is also more attracted to mob riot/strength in numbers where less chance of self harm like people from subcontinent.

Here's wishing you a peaceful future.

Thank you good sir.
Yups I see a great potential in the youth of j&k and Pakistan / india as well.

Hahah about aunties swinging purses, yes its a valid talking point but i would more put it like -

we both have leaders swinging threats while looking at the mirror twirling their moustaches ( but they do carry a button each unfortunately)

 

[street cricketer]

Up until 70's, most minorities of Pakistan had no significant issue, things got worse for them after 70 due to political reasons and geo-politics of the region.

Jinnah prediction was for hope to have prosperous nation for everyone from every background and Pakistan succeeded at that up until 70's.

Jinnah prediction of then India was on point but looking at current India, we can predict the future India, all the money in the world but filled with hate and violence for their largest minority of India to the point the most educated ones are either looking other way or forced to look other way out of fear.

The hindutva movement is nothing but a right wing conservative movement in India, it has always existed in India but on the fringes unlike Pakistan where right wing politics has always been in the mainstream since its creation. You have to understand first what hindutva is and what its objectives are. Hindutva movement is aimed at invoking a sense of religious collectivism among hindus and its objectives are to turn India to a Hindu state. This is at odds with how India was formed as a secular state by the Congress, which the hindutvadis hate because they think a hindu majority country should be a Hindu rashtra. It's just majoritarian politics at play here.

The thing is, hindutva has always existed in India even before partition in the form of other hindu nationalist parties like the Hindu mahasabha and RSS, and it got a political front when BJP was formed. But then again, BJP was not popular even when it was created and Congress used to win regularly in the past. Then Vajpayee became popular but even then, the hindutva was not as popular as it is today. The recent rise of hindu nationalism owes a lot to social media. To understand why this has happened, you have to understand the difference between Hindus and muslims.

Many Hindus are not really religious by definition, at least not in the same dogmatic manner as the muslims and a lot of them don't know their holy scriptures. This is in sharp contrast to the muslims, who are arguably the most religious community out there along with maybe the mormons or the orthodox jews. Almost every muslim knows his holy scriptures and quite a few by heart. Muslims also are steadfast in their view that a muslim majority country should only be ruled by islamic laws and not by secularism (even the Kashmir independence movement has a massive religious element to it). The hindu has never been confident in wearing his religion in his sleeve unlike the muslim and so many hindus didn't protest when secularism was adopted as the ideology of the new India. People still debate whether Jinnah imagined a secular Pakistan or an islamic republic, but in contrast to India, Pakistan soon adopted Islam as the state religion and became an islamic republic because that's what the masses wanted.

This stings the hindutvadis and they feel hindus are apologetic about their beliefs which weakens them as a community unlike the strong bond of brotherhood borne on their faith that the musalmaans share. So that's how the hindu revivalism or hindu nationalism started and hindus started wearing their religion on their sleeve like the muslims and the new age hindutvadis are adamant that hindus should be unapologetically hindu just like how muslims are. This has resulted in a gradual but seismic shift of the hindus towards right wing conservative politics based on religious collectivism and nationalism. I suppose this was always going to happen one day and right wing majoritarian politics among the muslims of the subcontinent was always going to be mirrored by right wing majoritarianism among the hindus of the subcontinent and I don't see it reversing anytime soon.

P.S.: Before you assume, I'm not a supporter of hindutva ideology or any form of religious nationalism as I think any religion be it Hinduism or Islam, particularly when manifested in the public sphere, drags humans more backward than forward and that society is bound to fail. In a way, India and Pakistan are living examples of it when compared to their largely non-religious counterparts to the east.

 

[mustang]

The Ghazwa-e-Hind seems to be a popular belief with quite a few muslims. The other day, on a video about racial and religious divide in Malaysia, a Malaysian muslim (possibly of Indian/Pakistani origin) made a reply under my comment in Youtube about how muslims ruled over the hindus in India in the past and how they will do so once again once he realised I was Indian. Was kinda awkward for me as a tamil because the Chola navy basically ransacked the lands of what's now Malaysia and Indonesia today, but then again, I'm not too proud about that because Malaysia is a more developed country than mine, so whatever happened in the past doesn't really matter.

What many people who take pride in historical events don't realise is that history is not abrupt but is a continuum. What you consider as present now is history for the person 50 or 100 years later. So history of a region or a society or a civilization doesn't stop at 1000 AD or 1100 or 1947. What this really means is that there will be some points in time where one civilization might be at its zenith, but there will be another point in time where it will be in ruins. The easiest example is Afghanistan, where the Afghan kings were some of the strongest conquerors in the past but the land of Afghanistan is in total ruins right now, decades behind most countries in development. Mongolia and China is another example - Mongolian kings raided China for fun in the past, now Mongolia and China are worlds apart in progress as modern civilizations.

Another important thing people think is that the past empire fought under the banners of "Islam" and "Hinduism" when it's just childish thinking based on religious tribalism. If that were so, the numerous hindu kingdoms wouldn't have been squabbling with each other for centuries even before the muslims arrived. This is true for the muslims as well because the Afghan kings often raided muslim kingdoms in India as did invaders like Timur. Afterall, a lot of hindu kingdoms allied with the Mughals to defeat another hindu kingdom. India was easily conquered in the past for the simple reason that India didn't exist in the first place. The subcontinent was just a huge region of numerous warring ethnicities and sub ethnicities. To form a strong empire, the first thing that is important is unification of these numerous tribes and you'll find that most successful conquerors in the past were strong because they united the numerous tribes of their region.

One of the important lessons that the British colonialism and even the past muslim invasions to some extent taught the Indians was that it's easy to be conquered when divided and that's why the Indian union was formed unifying numerous communities, a lot of which are very different to one another in religion, culture and language. India was so easily conquered in the past because India was just a fractured region of numerous individual kingdoms in the past and it will be very hard for any country to conquer and rule India now, muslim or otherwise, because of it's a huge union of unified communities.

This is a fantastic post and is possibly underrated in this thread (if not this forum).

I'm picking on one point that is commonly parroted by some -- I have seen many South Asian muslims have this tired narrative of "wE rULed OveR yOu for xyz yEaRs". I see the exact same nonsense from some of the latin american folks with Lebanese heritage in them with similar nonsense - "we ruled over you Christians for xyz years in Spain".

This is such a stupid statement because there is no "WE" in the "We ruled over you 300+ years ago" when applied to the current timeline.

One could argue that for all we know - the current South Asian muslims or the lebanese heritage latins were descendants of cowards who prostrated at the first sign of an invader and gave up without a fight (or worse - have their women taken with less/no fight), and then got converted. The hindus/christians were probably descendants of those who put up some fight and did not convert.

Of course, as you can see even the above is debatable since trying to extrapolate a multi-century old historic event and attributing to our personal self is clutching at the weakest of straws.

What matters more is the here and now. Where is your nation/community/society now in terms of HDI and economic development relative to its peers. If you start claiming your gene pool for a 300+ year old military battle then the other side can claim your same gene pool for the cowardly turncoats of that battle that unfortunately got raped. This is true for all of us.

 

[nextover666666]

Funny someone made this thread because from experience I can say what is India problem with Pakistan.

If you look on Indian media, social media from India, or even personally meeting and speaking with Indians, they all seem to still be upset about 1947, like get over it we are not with you, we got our freedom, you live your life, and let us live ours simple as that.

Every were you see they want to insult as bash us and try to make us look bad. They try to show others that Pakistan is a horrible country and it should never have been created, according to Indians, anything bad that comes in this world comes from Pakistan. However if anyone says anything abount India , they get all sensitive and emotional, yet they do not realize that when you insult someone else is country they will not get upset or not get angry.

Indians act like their country is perfect or that its a first world country which is so far from even being true its hiliarious. Pakistan is not perfect, we have our problems, but for the most part we can admit it, and try to work on it, however in Indias case the general public ( not all) make it seem like its this perfect place.

So my question to Indias is this are you still upset about 1947 that happened over 70 years ago, please accept it and move on thank you.

 

[Napa]

Funny someone made this thread because from experience I can say what is India problem with Pakistan.

If you look on Indian media, social media from India, or even personally meeting and speaking with Indians, they all seem to still be upset about 1947, like get over it we are not with you, we got our freedom, you live your life, and let us live ours simple as that.

Every were you see they want to insult as bash us and try to make us look bad. They try to show others that Pakistan is a horrible country and it should never have been created, according to Indians, anything bad that comes in this world comes from Pakistan. However if anyone says anything abount India , they get all sensitive and emotional, yet they do not realize that when you insult someone else is country they will not get upset or not get angry.

Indians act like their country is perfect or that its a first world country which is so far from even being true its hiliarious. Pakistan is not perfect, we have our problems, but for the most part we can admit it, and try to work on it, however in Indias case the general public ( not all) make it seem like its this perfect place.

So my question to Indias is this are you still upset about 1947 that happened over 70 years ago, please accept it and move on thank you.

Don’t care about 1947 but upset about 2008 Mumbai, 2019 Pulwama etc.

 

[nextover666666]

Don’t care about 1947 but upset about 2008 Mumbai, 2019 Pulwama etc.

Mumbai 2008 was inside job and we all know that , what about the attacks india has done on Pakistan, it all comes back to the same thing 1947, India can't seem to get over that

 

[drubwrubnat]

Mumbai 2008 was inside job and we all know that , what about the attacks india has done on Pakistan, it all comes back to the same thing 1947, India can't seem to get over that

Which attacks we have done on Pakistan?

 

[street cricketer]

Mumbai 2008 was inside job and we all know that , what about the attacks india has done on Pakistan, it all comes back to the same thing 1947, India can't seem to get over that

If Mumbai 2008 was an inside job, so was the Peshawar APS attack.

How does that feel, insensitive right?

 

[nextover666666]

If Mumbai 2008 was an inside job, so was the Peshawar APS attack.

How does that feel, insensitive right?

Not at all if you feel that way that is how you feel that peshawae apart Attack is inside job. You entitled to your own opinion

 

[nextover666666]

Which attacks we have done on Pakistan?

Almost every single attack or propaganda has come from India. It has raw agents finger print all over it not only mention the killings that happen at the border.

 

[street cricketer]

Not at all if you feel that way that is how you feel that peshawae apart Attack is inside job. You entitled to your own opinion

Just like you're entitled to your own opinion, doesn't make it true.

 

[nextover666666]

Just like you're entitled to your own opinion, doesn't make it true.

you guys have your opinion on this matter, i have mine.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Not quite correct to say the Chinese are "godless". They do have a religion, it is called communism. Party members publicly swear by it, and they know that being seen as good communists is what they need for career advancement. This is similar to a religion.

Communism doesn't tolerate a rival claimant to power, hence the brutal suppression of Islam.

Nah, this is hyperbole.

Communism is a means to an end, which is absolute power for the party members. It's not ideological at all, other than a supreme expression of winner take all. China has embraced the essence of capitalism more fervently than the United States.

 

[LaLoco]

The hindutva movement is nothing but a right wing conservative movement in India, it has always existed in India but on the fringes unlike Pakistan where right wing politics has always been in the mainstream since its creation. You have to understand first what hindutva is and what its objectives are. Hindutva movement is aimed at invoking a sense of religious collectivism among hindus and its objectives are to turn India to a Hindu state. This is at odds with how India was formed as a secular state by the Congress, which the hindutvadis hate because they think a hindu majority country should be a Hindu rashtra. It's just majoritarian politics at play here.

The thing is, hindutva has always existed in India even before partition in the form of other hindu nationalist parties like the Hindu mahasabha and RSS, and it got a political front when BJP was formed. But then again, BJP was not popular even when it was created and Congress used to win regularly in the past. Then Vajpayee became popular but even then, the hindutva was not as popular as it is today. The recent rise of hindu nationalism owes a lot to social media. To understand why this has happened, you have to understand the difference between Hindus and muslims.

Many Hindus are not really religious by definition, at least not in the same dogmatic manner as the muslims and a lot of them don't know their holy scriptures. This is in sharp contrast to the muslims, who are arguably the most religious community out there along with maybe the mormons or the orthodox jews. Almost every muslim knows his holy scriptures and quite a few by heart. Muslims also are steadfast in their view that a muslim majority country should only be ruled by islamic laws and not by secularism (even the Kashmir independence movement has a massive religious element to it). The hindu has never been confident in wearing his religion in his sleeve unlike the muslim and so many hindus didn't protest when secularism was adopted as the ideology of the new India. People still debate whether Jinnah imagined a secular Pakistan or an islamic republic, but in contrast to India, Pakistan soon adopted Islam as the state religion and became an islamic republic because that's what the masses wanted.

This stings the hindutvadis and they feel hindus are apologetic about their beliefs which weakens them as a community unlike the strong bond of brotherhood borne on their faith that the musalmaans share. So that's how the hindu revivalism or hindu nationalism started and hindus started wearing their religion on their sleeve like the muslims and the new age hindutvadis are adamant that hindus should be unapologetically hindu just like how muslims are. This has resulted in a gradual but seismic shift of the hindus towards right wing conservative politics based on religious collectivism and nationalism. I suppose this was always going to happen one day and right wing majoritarian politics among the muslims of the subcontinent was always going to be mirrored by right wing majoritarianism among the hindus of the subcontinent and I don't see it reversing anytime soon.

P.S.: Before you assume, I'm not a supporter of hindutva ideology or any form of religious nationalism as I think any religion be it Hinduism or Islam, particularly when manifested in the public sphere, drags humans more backward than forward and that society is bound to fail. In a way, India and Pakistan are living examples of it when compared to their largely non-religious counterparts to the east.

You have attempted to paint a rosy picture of religious extremism in India by defining as "collectivism" - it is collective extremism of the vast majority if they have overlooked his extremists narrative of the largest minority of India because that narrative has given the birth to "it is okay to hurt the largest minority"

As mentioned by many Hindutva followers, Modi was elected for prosperity and 'obliterate Islam one street name at a time and one 'urdu' word at a time from India.

I am not going to get involve in further discussion, I find it will be not worth it, as it always the case, it will be poor repeated rinsed argument.

But, one point, absolutely nothing wrong with any practicing Hindu just as nothing wrong with Practicing Muslims, to interject, any practicing Muslims inherently is extremist and prescribe to 'far right' extremist political view is a form of extremist view of practicing Muslim and Hindu. Pakistan had never elected a far right extremist PM and it is highly unlikely Pakistan ever will, India has, and to project that as an excuse to elect far right extremist Hindutva leader is because Pakistan is an "Islamic Republic of Pakistan", is just that.

At times, in Pakistan, fringe groups are the loudest, and during their 'shenanigan' get the most coverage in the media, domestically and internationally, but vast majority of Pakistani will never elect one to represent them despite Pakistan being the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan".

 

[LaLoco]

You have attempted to paint a rosy picture of religious extremism in India by defining as "collectivism" - it is collective extremism of the vast majority if they have overlooked his extremists narrative of the largest minority of India because that narrative has given the birth to "it is okay to hurt the largest minority"

As mentioned by many Hindutva followers, Modi was elected for prosperity and 'obliterate Islam one street name at a time and one 'urdu' word at a time from India.

I am not going to get involve in further discussion, I find it will be not worth it, as it always the case, it will be poor repeated rinsed argument.

But, one point, absolutely nothing wrong with any practicing Hindu just as nothing wrong with Practicing Muslims, to interject, any practicing Muslims inherently is extremist and prescribe to 'far right' extremist political view is a form of extremist view of practicing Muslim and Hindu. Pakistan had never elected a far right extremist PM and it is highly unlikely Pakistan ever will, India has, and to project that as an excuse to elect far right extremist Hindutva leader is because Pakistan is an "Islamic Republic of Pakistan", is just that.

At times, in Pakistan, fringe groups are the loudest, and during their 'shenanigan' get the most coverage in the media, domestically and internationally, but vast majority of Pakistani will never elect one to represent them despite Pakistan being the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan".

And why the government of Pakistan can't afford to go after those group has nothing to do with their incapability but it has more to do with the 'economy' and that is completely another discussion.

 

[drubwrubnat]

And why the government of Pakistan can't afford to go after those group has nothing to do with their incapability but it has more to do with the 'economy' and that is completely another discussion.

Ok we are bad you are good.
But answer the question of war …

Both will be heavily damaged, bruh, if you bring other players in Kashmir war, Modi ( as per you ) will target your country only.

We cant let Kashmir to be independent because we are invested too much & we are not fools to trust you. Giving to you is out of question.

So now what ?

 

[street cricketer]

You have attempted to paint a rosy picture of religious extremism in India by defining as "collectivism" - it is collective extremism of the vast majority if they have overlooked his extremists narrative of the largest minority of India because that narrative has given the birth to "it is okay to hurt the largest minority"

As mentioned by many Hindutva followers, Modi was elected for prosperity and 'obliterate Islam one street name at a time and one 'urdu' word at a time from India.

I am not going to get involve in further discussion, I find it will be not worth it, as it always the case, it will be poor repeated rinsed argument.

But, one point, absolutely nothing wrong with any practicing Hindu just as nothing wrong with Practicing Muslims, to interject, any practicing Muslims inherently is extremist and prescribe to 'far right' extremist political view is a form of extremist view of practicing Muslim and Hindu. Pakistan had never elected a far right extremist PM and it is highly unlikely Pakistan ever will, India has, and to project that as an excuse to elect far right extremist Hindutva leader is because Pakistan is an "Islamic Republic of Pakistan", is just that.

At times, in Pakistan, fringe groups are the loudest, and during their 'shenanigan' get the most coverage in the media, domestically and internationally, but vast majority of Pakistani will never elect one to represent them despite Pakistan being the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan".

Your post is just a re-hash of pretty much the same responses I've heard from Pakistanis over the years, along the lines of "We might be an Islamic republic, but at least we will never elect a religious extremist to power like India". Why would Pakistanis feel the need to adopt a far right religious ideology like hindutva in their country when their constitution is literally based around the muslim version of hindutva, i.e., Islamism/political Islam. Pakistan itself is a far right religious state, so why would it elect a far right religious leader when that distinction doesn't exist. Both hindutva and islamism can be classified under the category of religious conservatism, one where the majority wants the majority religious ideology to assume supremacy in the country, the only difference being hindutva is a religious conservative ideology of Hinduism, while Islamism is that of Islam.

What are all the things you hate hindutva for are all already present in Pakistan. If you talk about the beef ban, that is nothing but the Hindu version of the blasphemy law that has been embedded in the Pakistani constitution since decades, a law on which numerous minorities have been persecuted under false accusations. If you talk about the stance of hindutvadis on "love jihad" and prohibiting marriage of hindus with muslims, isn't that already a law in Pakistan or most muslim countries for that matter? That a hindu cannot marry a muslim unless he converts. How is that any different to the stance of the hindutvadis, that a muslim man cannot marry a hindu woman unless he converts to Hinduism. One thing that the hindutvadis have not achieved but aspire to in the future, is their burning desire to turn India into an official Hindu state/Hindu rashtra where the state religion would be Hinduism and it would assume a superior status over all other religions in the country including Christianity and Islam. Isn't that already the case with Pakistan, where Islam is the state religion and a hindu or a christian does not have all the same rights that a muslim does in his own country?

I see a lot of Pakistanis criticising the far-right ideology of Hindutva and they're right. Right wing politics generally strives to maintain the social hierarchy of the society that's ordained through many factors, religion being one important among them. Left wing ideology aspires to a lot of things, one among that is to keep the church (clergy) and the state separate and to prevent religion from meddling in the affairs of the state. The thing is a lot of Pakistanis are left wing when it comes to politics in India but are firmly in the right wing camp when it comes to Pakistan. This is not different from the stance of many Hindus in India too where they're extreme right wing when it comes to religion in their country but become left wing when they criticise the role of religion and persecution of minorities in Pakistan.

If you take a poll among the Pakistanis, more than 95% (and I'm being very generous here) would be firmly against the ideology of secularism implemented in their country but at the same time lamenting the erosion of the ideals of secularism in India. The right wing in every country hates the left wing in its own country while loving the left wing in its enemy country. Similarly, the right wingers love fellow right wingers in their own country while absolutely detesting the right wing in their enemy country. There's a reason Pakistanis love to hear Arundati Roy's views on India while Indians would've loved to hear the views of the late Asma Jehangir on Pakistan. But both would absolutely detest the idea of having an Arundati Roy or Asma Jehangir of their own in their own respective countries.

 

[Napa]

Nah, this is hyperbole.

Communism is a means to an end, which is absolute power for the party members. It's not ideological at all, other than a supreme expression of winner take all. China has embraced the essence of capitalism more fervently than the United States.

There are similarities between Communism and a religion that is used to give the elite secular power.

All dictatorships need some ideology they claim to be following to justify their power. The Saudi elite base their power on religious sanction.

Yes, China has embraced Capitalism, but that is what is happening in reality. The Chinese elite base their power on Communism. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" etc. is what they mouth, dictatorship of the party and Capitalism is what they practice.

Similarly the Saudi elite mouth Islam but deviate from Islam in what they actually practice.

 

[Last Monetarist]

There are similarities between Communism and a religion that is used to give the elite secular power.

All dictatorships need some ideology they claim to be following to justify their power. The Saudi elite base their power on religious sanction.

Yes, China has embraced Capitalism, but that is what is happening in reality. The Chinese elite base their power on Communism. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" etc. is what they mouth, dictatorship of the party and Capitalism is what they practice.

Similarly the Saudi elite mouth Islam but deviate from Islam in what they actually practice.

Nope, this isn't the case at all. This reflects third-hand tenuous perceptions about China from the Western media.

The Chinese proletariats couldn't care less about communism. This isn't the 1980s anymore, the Chinese are amongst the least ideological folks on the planet.

The public isn't stupid, it's a marriage of convenience as long as private wealth continues to grow and living standards keep improving. They are beholden to self-interest and the unbridled pursuit of wealth.

It's a similar awakening to how the myth of the American dream was realized in the decades following the Second World War.

 

[LaLoco]

Your post is just a re-hash of pretty much the same responses I've heard from Pakistanis over the years, along the lines of "We might be an Islamic republic, but at least we will never elect a religious extremist to power like India". Why would Pakistanis feel the need to adopt a far right religious ideology like hindutva in their country when their constitution is literally based around the muslim version of hindutva, i.e., Islamism/political Islam. Pakistan itself is a far right religious state, so why would it elect a far right religious leader when that distinction doesn't exist. Both hindutva and islamism can be classified under the category of religious conservatism, one where the majority wants the majority religious ideology to assume supremacy in the country, the only difference being hindutva is a religious conservative ideology of Hinduism, while Islamism is that of Islam.

What are all the things you hate hindutva for are all already present in Pakistan. If you talk about the beef ban, that is nothing but the Hindu version of the blasphemy law that has been embedded in the Pakistani constitution since decades, a law on which numerous minorities have been persecuted under false accusations. If you talk about the stance of hindutvadis on "love jihad" and prohibiting marriage of hindus with muslims, isn't that already a law in Pakistan or most muslim countries for that matter? That a hindu cannot marry a muslim unless he converts. How is that any different to the stance of the hindutvadis, that a muslim man cannot marry a hindu woman unless he converts to Hinduism. One thing that the hindutvadis have not achieved but aspire to in the future, is their burning desire to turn India into an official Hindu state/Hindu rashtra where the state religion would be Hinduism and it would assume a superior status over all other religions in the country including Christianity and Islam. Isn't that already the case with Pakistan, where Islam is the state religion and a hindu or a christian does not have all the same rights that a muslim does in his own country?

I see a lot of Pakistanis criticising the far-right ideology of Hindutva and they're right. Right wing politics generally strives to maintain the social hierarchy of the society that's ordained through many factors, religion being one important among them. Left wing ideology aspires to a lot of things, one among that is to keep the church (clergy) and the state separate and to prevent religion from meddling in the affairs of the state. The thing is a lot of Pakistanis are left wing when it comes to politics in India but are firmly in the right wing camp when it comes to Pakistan. This is not different from the stance of many Hindus in India too where they're extreme right wing when it comes to religion in their country but become left wing when they criticise the role of religion and persecution of minorities in Pakistan.

If you take a poll among the Pakistanis, more than 95% (and I'm being very generous here) would be firmly against the ideology of secularism implemented in their country but at the same time lamenting the erosion of the ideals of secularism in India. The right wing in every country hates the left wing in its own country while loving the left wing in its enemy country. Similarly, the right wingers love fellow right wingers in their own country while absolutely detesting the right wing in their enemy country. There's a reason Pakistanis love to hear Arundati Roy's views on India while Indians would've loved to hear the views of the late Asma Jehangir on Pakistan. But both would absolutely detest the idea of having an Arundati Roy or Asma Jehangir of their own in their own respective countries.

You are correct, why would Pakistani elect Modi, who is almost as similar to someone like Hafiz Saeed and Mulla Omar.

One politician/party is promoting draconian laws despite having some of the most educated and 5th largest Forex, sadly majority of the educated are supporting or looking the other way, and the neighbor is unable to change due to fringe groups causing chaos that will have greater impact on a fragile economy.

If you are unable to see difference then there is nothing further to add.

 

[street cricketer]

You are correct, why would Pakistani elect Modi, who is almost as similar to someone like Hafiz Saeed and Mulla Omar.

One politician/party is promoting draconian laws despite having some of the most educated and 5th largest Forex, sadly majority of the educated are supporting or looking the other way, and the neighbor is unable to change due to fringe groups causing chaos that will have greater impact on a fragile economy.

If you are unable to see difference then there is nothing further to add.

Like I said, Pakistanis love to be left liberals when it comes to India but are firmly in the right wing camp when it comes to the concepts of secularism and egalitarianism in their own country. Incidentally, Imran got to power by saying that he'll defend the blasphemy laws with all his powers and might, one of the draconian laws that you talk about, which have been used to persecute minorities in Pakistan.

And I'm not even going to the treatment of Ahmedis in Pakistan, when a world renowned economist can be fired simply on the basis that his personal religious beliefs do not align with the majoritarian religious beliefs of the state. And this happened under Imran's rule. Guess the irony? Imran would probably be classified as a left wing politician in the mainstream politics of Pakistan. You're simply burying your head under the sand believing Pakistan to be a more tolerant state than India. You're only disgusted by the ideology of hindutva because you see in hindutva, merely a reflection of the far right wing ideology present in your own country and you don't like what you see because it because it's ugly. What you don't realise however is that the ugliness is present on both sides and perhaps you're only noticing now because someone showed the mirror on your state.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Like I said, Pakistanis love to be left liberals when it comes to India but are firmly in the right wing camp when it comes to the concepts of secularism and egalitarianism in their own country. Incidentally, Imran got to power by saying that he'll defend the blasphemy laws with all his powers and might, one of the draconian laws that you talk about, which have been used to persecute minorities in Pakistan.

And I'm not even going to the treatment of Ahmedis in Pakistan, when a world renowned economist can be fired simply on the basis that his personal religious beliefs do not align with the majoritarian religious beliefs of the state. And this happened under Imran's rule. Guess the irony? Imran would probably be classified as a left wing politician in the mainstream politics of Pakistan. You're simply burying your head under the sand believing Pakistan to be a more tolerant state than India. You're only disgusted by the ideology of hindutva because you see in hindutva, merely a reflection of the far right wing ideology present in your own country and you don't like what you see because it because it's ugly. What you don't realise however is that the ugliness is present on both sides and perhaps you're only noticing now because someone showed the mirror on your state.

He doesn't like Hindutva, because its not the religion he follows. Not for any other reason.

 

[LaLoco]

Like I said, Pakistanis love to be left liberals when it comes to India but are firmly in the right wing camp when it comes to the concepts of secularism and egalitarianism in their own country. Incidentally, Imran got to power by saying that he'll defend the blasphemy laws with all his powers and might, one of the draconian laws that you talk about, which have been used to persecute minorities in Pakistan.

And I'm not even going to the treatment of Ahmedis in Pakistan, when a world renowned economist can be fired simply on the basis that his personal religious beliefs do not align with the majoritarian religious beliefs of the state. And this happened under Imran's rule. Guess the irony? Imran would probably be classified as a left wing politician in the mainstream politics of Pakistan. You're simply burying your head under the sand believing Pakistan to be a more tolerant state than India. You're only disgusted by the ideology of hindutva because you see in hindutva, merely a reflection of the far right wing ideology present in your own country and you don't like what you see because it because it's ugly. What you don't realise however is that the ugliness is present on both sides and perhaps you're only noticing now because someone showed the mirror on your state.

LOL - not comparing Pakistan with India.

It is Indian who would find an excuse to support draconianism of India when it comes to subjugated and marginalize of Muslims of India by using an excuse as such as, Pakistan is 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan".


Rest is just clutching the straws - like I've said, when the economy of Pakistan improve then you'll see these fringe groups disappearing whereas India is opposite, despite having the 5th largest forex and some of the highly educated people in sub-continent, vast majority are either promoting or looking the other way.

Rest of your comments about Ik is just trying to find an excuse to support an excuse of 'collectivism".

 

[LaLoco]

He doesn't like Hindutva, because its not the religion he follows. Not for any other reason.

I also do not follow ISIS and Talibinism.

 

[Napa]

Nope, this isn't the case at all. This reflects third-hand tenuous perceptions about China from the Western media.

The Chinese proletariats couldn't care less about communism. This isn't the 1980s anymore, the Chinese are amongst the least ideological folks on the planet.

The public isn't stupid, it's a marriage of convenience as long as private wealth continues to grow and living standards keep improving. They are beholden to self-interest and the unbridled pursuit of wealth.

It's a similar awakening to how the myth of the American dream was realized in the decades following the Second World War.

Yes, the Chinese proletariat (common man) understands that Communism is bunk, but the Chinese Communist Party still needs an "ideology" that justifies its grip on power. It could say "we rule because we are delivering economic prosperity" but that is dangerous to itself because the common man may say "let a democratically elected party deliver prosperity instead".

While nobody (from the common man to the Party Politburo members) believe in Communism, why do they keep chanting it? As a means of keeping their grip on power just like a religious elite.

Here is a quote from the Chinese Communist Party's 6th plenum communique.

The Political Bureau has held high the great banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics; followed the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era...
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Full-text-of-Chinese-Communist-Party-s-6th-plenum-communique

What is the "Three Represents"?

“A comrade talked about the issue of millionaires joining the party, and many people are discussing this after the newspaper was published. The documents of this meeting stated that those who are exploiting cannot join the party. I agree with this opinion. <b>Our party is the vanguard of the working class. If we allow those who are unwilling to give up exploitation and rely their lives on exploitation to join the party, what sort of party will we build?</b> In the primary stage of socialism, various economic components are allowed to coexist upon the foundation of the public economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Represents

You can see from the above that the CCP still denounces capitalism while using capitalism for the country to get rich. They still justify their power as being "the vanguard of the working class".

 

[LaLoco]

He doesn't like Hindutva, because its not the religion he follows. Not for any other reason.

One more thing, the poster does not prescribe to Hindutva, he has motioned it be draconian version of Hinduism.

Almost both of us do not find draconian version of religion attractive, discussing why both exist and the rise in their respective countries.

Are you a follower of Hindutva?

 

[street cricketer]

LOL - not comparing Pakistan with India.

It is Indian who would find an excuse to support draconianism of India when it comes to subjugated and marginalize of Muslims of India by using an excuse as such as, Pakistan is 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan".


Rest is just clutching the straws - like I've said, when the economy of Pakistan improve then you'll see these fringe groups disappearing whereas India is opposite, despite having the 5th largest forex and some of the highly educated people in sub-continent, vast majority are either promoting or looking the other way.

Rest of your comments about Ik is just trying to find an excuse to support an excuse of 'collectivism".

Nah, I believe in being consistent with my beliefs because in my opinion, people who aren't consistent in their views are just plain hypocrites and I have little time for them. If you believe in communism or believe in the Marxist ideology, you should believe in communism or Marxism all over the world. You would be a hypocrite if you would support communism in your neighbouring country and capitalism in your own country. When I criticise Pakistan for its discriminatory policies and lack of secularism, I would be a hypocrite then if I supported a religious conservative ideology even it is one of my own religion, in my own country. I have never voted a single time in my entire life to any of the hindutva parties and I would certainly never vote in future as well to any party that promotes discrimination on minorities based on their religion. I've consistently believed religion in the public sphere has a net negative effect on the societal progress and most of the developed countries in the world believe in the separation of the clergy from the state while most of the regressive countries in the world have the church and clergy deeply intertwined in the state affairs.

I can bet though that you passionately believe that secularism has been destroyed by the hindutva parties in India, but at the same time, you would never ever want secularism to be implemented in your own country in a million years. You basically believe in majoritarianism in your own country but hate majoritarianism in the enemy's country. I won't blame you, majority of Pakistanis have the same viewpoint because there's a near complete absence of true left wing politics in Pakistan. Hindutva might be the overarching ideology present in India now, but India also has strong communist and marxist movements in many regions and then regional ideologies like Dravidian ideology which is in the left wing spectrum as well. They routinely question, protest against the excessive state power and oppose the ideology of Hindutva/Hindu nationalism.

There's no avenue for such left wing movements to exist in Pakistan because anybody who questions the premise of religion interfering with state affairs would be deemed as an apostate and tried under blasphemy laws, that is, if he is alive to see the day because the last time someone did not even question but only remotely suggested a change in the blasphemy laws in its present state, he got murdered by his own security guard who ended up becoming a martyr in the eyes of the masses after his execution by the state.

 

[LaLoco]

Nah, I believe in being consistent with my beliefs because in my opinion, people who aren't consistent in their views are just plain hypocrites and I have little time for them. If you believe in communism or believe in the Marxist ideology, you should believe in communism or Marxism all over the world. You would be a hypocrite if you would support communism in your neighbouring country and capitalism in your own country. When I criticise Pakistan for its discriminatory policies and lack of secularism, I would be a hypocrite then if I supported a religious conservative ideology even it is one of my own religion, in my own country. I have never voted a single time in my entire life to any of the hindutva parties and I would certainly never vote in future as well to any party that promotes discrimination on minorities based on their religion. I've consistently believed religion in the public sphere has a net negative effect on the societal progress and most of the developed countries in the world believe in the separation of the clergy from the state while most of the regressive countries in the world have the church and clergy deeply intertwined in the state affairs.

I can bet though that you passionately believe that secularism has been destroyed by the hindutva parties in India, but at the same time, you would never ever want secularism to be implemented in your own country in a million years. You basically believe in majoritarianism in your own country but hate majoritarianism in the enemy's country. I won't blame you, majority of Pakistanis have the same viewpoint because there's a near complete absence of true left wing politics in Pakistan. Hindutva might be the overarching ideology present in India now, but India also has strong communist and marxist movements in many regions and then regional ideologies like Dravidian ideology which is in the left wing spectrum as well. They routinely question, protest against the excessive state power and oppose the ideology of Hindutva/Hindu nationalism.

There's no avenue for such left wing movements to exist in Pakistan because anybody who questions the premise of religion interfering with state affairs would be deemed as an apostate and tried under blasphemy laws, that is, if he is alive to see the day because the last time someone did not even question but only remotely suggested a change in the blasphemy laws in its present state, he got murdered by his own security guard who ended up becoming a martyr in the eyes of the masses after his execution by the state.

Lets not bet anything since you do not know me personally and it would help if the discussion is limited to topic at hand rather than assuming others belief.

You can interject Pakistan as much as you would like and use an excuse as Pakistani as an "Islamic Republic of Pakistan", you an also cherry pick few example in Pakistan to justify the rise of Hindutva in India, which you claimed not be the follower. But please explain the following.

Despite being one of the largest economy in the South Asia with 5th largest forex, one of the most educated nation in South Asia, why adapt the repressive version of Hinduism - Collectiveness against who? by definition collectiveness mean to suppress the other group or afraid that other group will take over? Are over 800 million Indians afraid that over 200 million Muslims will take over India, how will Muslims take over India if they couldn't do it over the last 70+ years, what changed?

Now for the tenth time, despite Pakistan being the "Islamic Repbulic of Pakistan", up until early 70's Pakistan was a tolerant nation and prospering economically. Despite being, as you claim, most Pakistani wear religion on their sleeve ( which you claim to be an important point), despite having fragile economy, would most likely never will elect the likes of Modi version of Muslim PM and has never elected the likes of Modi as PM.

The fringe groups that most Indian and the expat from not main "China land" highlight about, the Pakistani government can't and will not go after them with force until Pakistan's economy situation is settled, particularly in current climate, Pakistan will not risk it.

The PM of Pakistan wanted to hire an "Ahemedi economist", later changed his mind because few will use that as political tool with the support of fringe groups that will risk few life.

The PM of India has a history of promoting violence and use it as a political tool to bring about "collectiveness" against a particular community in India, who was elected with overwhelming majority.

still aren't able to see the difference

Cheers!!!

 

[street cricketer]

Lets not bet anything since you do not know me personally and it would help if the discussion is limited to topic at hand rather than assuming others belief.

You can interject Pakistan as much as you would like and use an excuse as Pakistani as an "Islamic Republic of Pakistan", you an also cherry pick few example in Pakistan to justify the rise of Hindutva in India, which you claimed not be the follower. But please explain the following.

Despite being one of the largest economy in the South Asia with 5th largest forex, one of the most educated nation in South Asia, why adapt the repressive version of Hinduism - Collectiveness against who? by definition collectiveness mean to suppress the other group or afraid that other group will take over? Are over 800 million Indians afraid that over 200 million Muslims will take over India, how will Muslims take over India if they couldn't do it over the last 70+ years, what changed?

Now for the tenth time, despite Pakistan being the "Islamic Repbulic of Pakistan", up until early 70's Pakistan was a tolerant nation and prospering economically. Despite being, as you claim, most Pakistani wear religion on their sleeve ( which you claim to be an important point), despite having fragile economy, would most likely never will elect the likes of Modi version of Muslim PM and has never elected the likes of Modi as PM.

The fringe groups that most Indian and the expat from not main "China land" highlight about, the Pakistani government can't and will not go after them with force until Pakistan's economy situation is settled, particularly in current climate, Pakistan will not risk it.

The PM of Pakistan wanted to hire an "Ahemedi economist", later changed his mind because few will use that as political tool with the support of fringe groups that will risk few life.

The PM of India has a history of promoting violence and use it as a political tool to bring about "collectiveness" against a particular community in India, who was elected with overwhelming majority.

still aren't able to see the difference

Cheers!!!

Let's have a reasonable conversation. Forget about Pakistan for a minute. Let's take Malaysia as an example. Malaysia is a muslim majority country that has Islam as its official state religion and has a lot of islamic laws written into its constitution. It has roughly the same proportion of minorities that India does. In Malaysia, a 'malay' is a person who is considered the original inhabitants of the country with the Chinese and Indians being considered immigrants. A malay is supposed to be a muslim and the majority Malays get reservation and benefits over minorities like Indians and Chinese in their country. A malay, by (their) definition, is a muslim and it is illegal for a muslim to convert from Islam to other religions and apostasy can be punished by the death penalty in Malaysia. Would you say Malaysia is an intolerant country?

Why is it okay for a muslim in a muslim majority country to want an islamic state but a hindu in a hindu majority country wanting a hindu state is considered a "fascist"? The answers to all your questions can be obtained if you answer the above question.

 

[LaLoco]

Let's have a reasonable conversation. Forget about Pakistan for a minute. Let's take Malaysia as an example. Malaysia is a muslim majority country that has Islam as its official state religion and has a lot of islamic laws written into its constitution. It has roughly the same proportion of minorities that India does. In Malaysia, a 'malay' is a person who is considered the original inhabitants of the country with the Chinese and Indians being considered immigrants. A malay is supposed to be a muslim and the majority Malays get reservation and benefits over minorities like Indians and Chinese in their country. A malay, by (their) definition, is a muslim and it is illegal for a muslim to convert from Islam to other religions and apostasy can be punished by the death penalty in Malaysia. Would you say Malaysia is an intolerant country?

Why is it okay for a muslim in a muslim majority country to want an islamic state but a hindu in a hindu majority country wanting a hindu state is considered a "fascist"? The answers to all your questions can be obtained if you answer the above question.

It is not, never claimed it to be okay.

Where did you get this idea that I believe it is okay for someone to be killed for changing their religion.

Hindu majority by definition is a Hindu state because it has hindu majority, the problem and issue is the current state of India - wouldn't you agree, a normal sane person who isn't hindutva would not tolerate law being passed to subjugate and marginalize minorities, particularly Muslim, these laws are being designed to marginalize only one particular population, how many times you hear from Hindutva that they want to obliterate Islam, "collectiveness" - against who are over 800 million Hindu being collective, how has muslims or any other minorities taken over 800 million Hindus?

 

[street cricketer]

Hindu majority by definition is a Hindu state because it has hindu majority, the problem and issue is the current state of India - wouldn't you agree, a normal sane person who isn't hindutva would not tolerate law being passed to subjugate and marginalize minorities, particularly Muslim, these laws are being designed to marginalize only one particular population, how many times you hear from Hindutva that they want to obliterate Islam, "collectiveness" - against who are over 800 million Hindu being collective, how has muslims or any other minorities taken over 800 million Hindus?

It absolutely is not. Turkey is a muslim majority country, as is Azerbaijan. But these are not muslim states having Islam as a state religion like Pakistan or Malaysia. They are officially secular and they don't have islamic laws ordained it their respective constitutions the same way Pakistan or Malaysia has. They are merely "muslim majority states", not muslim states.

Now that we have cleared that up, let's talk about the laws or the views of Hindutva.

1. They have a beef ban in India and that law is often used to persecute innocent muslims by using an excuse that they're cattle smugglers. Is it any different to the blasphemy laws in Pakistan when a hindu or a christian can be imprisoned for years just on the word of a muslim that be disrespected Islam, case in point Asia bibi who spent nearly 8 years in prison for no reason.

2. They want to enact the love jihad law to prevent muslim men from marrying hindu women. Is it not already illegal for a Hindu to marry a muslim in Pakistan (or Malaysia for that matter)?

3. They want to prevent conversion of Hindus to Christianity and Islam and are trying to enact laws against that. Is apostasy not the biggest crime and carries far more harsher punishments like the capital punishment in countries like Pakistan or most other muslim states if a muslim tries to convert out of Islam?

4. They want to create a Hindu rashtra where Hindus will be the ruling class and rest will be the subject class. Is it not the case that a Hindu cannot become a Prime minister or a President in Pakistan because of his religion?

5. The hindutvadis are propagating hate against muslims and using them as the villains to mobilise the hindu majority. Has it not already happened in Pakistan since a long time?

https://youtu.be/Q5FVwtmNguU

6. Muslims have been getting persecuted in India by the Hindutvadis and innocent muslims have gotten lynched by hindu fundamentalists. How is this any different to the status of minorities in Pakistan where underage hindu and christian girls have been abducted, forcefully converted and married off to men twice or thrice their age?

Now if I conducted a poll in Pakistan on how many would want secularism, barely even 3-5% votes will be for secularism. Why do you expect the Indians to be any different. Indians are not from a highly developed country that is "super woke", its people aren't any more or any less tolerant than the people of Pakistan and they would love to wear their religion on their sleeve just like Pakistanis love to wear theirs. If Malaysia, which is a much more developed country compared to Pakistan and has a much stronger and healthier economy than Pakistan still has religious laws in their country and it's essentially a religious state, why would India be any different?

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

5. The hindutvadis are propagating hate against muslims and using them as the villains to mobilise the hindu majority. Has it not already happened in Pakistan since a long time?

https://youtu.be/Q5FVwtmNguU

6. Muslims have been getting persecuted in India by the Hindutvadis and innocent muslims have gotten lynched by hindu fundamentalists. How is this any different to the status of minorities in Pakistan where underage hindu and christian girls have been abducted, forcefully converted and married off to men twice or thrice their age?

In India Muslim lynching mobs are literally provided weapons and police escort to murder Muslims. And I'm not referring to Gujarat "riots"...

There is a video circulating on internet of some Hindutva terrorists slamming a dead Muslim's head against ground and jumping over his dead chest while a crowd of dozens is cheering them up with "Jai Shree Ram"...

In Pakistan at least government, police, media or judges someone takes notice and things are not brushed under carpet.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Yes, the Chinese proletariat (common man) understands that Communism is bunk, but the Chinese Communist Party still needs an "ideology" that justifies its grip on power. It could say "we rule because we are delivering economic prosperity" but that is dangerous to itself because the common man may say "let a democratically elected party deliver prosperity instead".

While nobody (from the common man to the Party Politburo members) believe in Communism, why do they keep chanting it? As a means of keeping their grip on power just like a religious elite.

Here is a quote from the Chinese Communist Party's 6th plenum communique.



What is the "Three Represents"?



You can see from the above that the CCP still denounces capitalism while using capitalism for the country to get rich. They still justify their power as being "the vanguard of the working class".

This symbolism is no different to the rhetoric in the subcontinent (hatemongering in either India or Pakistan), it's meaningless waffle in the grand scheme of things for the common man. However, I totally agree with you that it is essential in maintaining the order and keeping the power structures intact.

 

[street cricketer]

In India Muslim lynching mobs are literally provided weapons and police escort to murder Muslims. And I'm not referring to Gujarat "riots"...

There is a video circulating on internet of some Hindutva terrorists slamming a dead Muslim's head against ground and jumping over his dead chest while a crowd of dozens is cheering them up with "Jai Shree Ram"...

The bolded bit did not happen, but yes, a photographer who had been fighting with the man who got shot down, mercilessly stomped on the body of the dying man before the police cleared him. He was arrested afterwards, the said photographer is an absolute animal and should be treated as such in prison.

In Pakistan at least government, police, media or judges someone takes notice and things are not brushed under carpet.

The power dynamics between hindus and muslims in India is not remotely comparable to the power dynamics between muslims and hindus in Pakistan. Muslims are 200M strong in India, there are nearly as many muslims in India as the total population of Pakistan. They're a significant minority and while there may be islamophobia and public bigotry against muslims in India, they cannot be stomped under the thumb of the majority like hindus are in Pakistan. How many times have you heard of hindu-muslim riots in Pakistan? That's because two groups must clash with each other for a violent riot to happen, in Pakistan the hindus are at the mercy of the muslims. The 2020 Delhi riots was an organised riots against the muslim population by the hindutvadis, but in that riots, 36 muslims died and 15 hindus died. In Pakistan, in an organised "riot", all the dead would be hindus.

Muslims are like any people, there would be good and bad people in their community. There are numerous cases in India of a hindu guy getting killed by a muslim family because he was in love with a muslim girl, how many times have you read about a muslim guy getting killed by a hindu family in Pakistan because he was in love with a hindu girl? The girl would simply get abducted and converted under threats and married off. And because hindus are not legally equal to muslims in Pakistan, the judge will also favour the muslim side because Pakistan is a muslim state and its state religion is Islam. Case in point when a high court judge recently passed a judgement that an underage minority girl, even if only 14 can be married off to a muslim man, even if he's 40, as long as the girl is made to make a statement in a video that she has converted to Islam out of her own will because apparently marriage of girls of any age is allowed according to the shariah as long as she has passed puberty.

So the power dynamics between hindu-muslims in India and muslim-hindus in Pakistan are not remotely comparable. You have to ask why a hindu woman has to wipe her bindhi off her forehead and blend in with muslims without showing any outward hindu symbolism when she ventures out in Pakistan, whereas muslim women are fully within their rights to wear the burqa or the hijab anywhere in India. I have never seen a semi decent hindu temple in Pakistan and the hindu "temples" in Pakistan are either ruins or glorifed puja rooms that are present in every Hindu household in India. There are mosques in every nook and cranny of India and I think India has the highest number of mosques in the world after Indonesia. In fact, there's a mosque just opposite my house and it's a very well maintained and plush mosque unlike the ruinous "temples" you see in Pakistan. The fact that hindus had to obtain permission from the clerics of a religion they don't even believe in to construct a single temple in the capital city of their country tells you everything you need to know of the difference in power dynamics. Muslims are discriminated by Indians and even the media, but they're equal in front of the law which is why the hindutvadis lynch a muslim before he can seek justice in the court. In Pakistan, a hindu has to fight the people as well as fight the system because the system is designed for the muslims in Pakistan and not a secular one where everyone has equal rights in front of the law.

 

[Napa]

In India Muslim lynching mobs are literally provided weapons and police escort to murder Muslims. And I'm not referring to Gujarat "riots"...

There is a video circulating on internet of some Hindutva terrorists slamming a dead Muslim's head against ground and jumping over his dead chest while a crowd of dozens is cheering them up with "Jai Shree Ram"...

In Pakistan at least government, police, media or judges someone takes notice and things are not brushed under carpet.

Very few Hindus and Christians left in Pakistan and they live in fear of being charged with blasphemy.

“Three more cases in which Pakistani Christians accused of blasphemy”

https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2...ch-pakistani-christians-accused-of-blasphemy/

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

The bolded bit did not happen, but yes, a photographer who had been fighting with the man who got shot down, mercilessly stomped on the body of the dying man before the police cleared him. He was arrested afterwards, the said photographer is an absolute animal and should be treated as such in prison.



The power dynamics between hindus and muslims in India is not remotely comparable to the power dynamics between muslims and hindus in Pakistan. Muslims are 200M strong in India, there are nearly as many muslims in India as the total population of Pakistan. They're a significant minority and while there may be islamophobia and public bigotry against muslims in India, they cannot be stomped under the thumb of the majority like hindus are in Pakistan. How many times have you heard of hindu-muslim riots in Pakistan? That's because two groups must clash with each other for a violent riot to happen, in Pakistan the hindus are at the mercy of the muslims. The 2020 Delhi riots was an organised riots against the muslim population by the hindutvadis, but in that riots, 36 muslims died and 15 hindus died. In Pakistan, in an organised "riot", all the dead would be hindus.

Muslims are like any people, there would be good and bad people in their community. There are numerous cases in India of a hindu guy getting killed by a muslim family because he was in love with a muslim girl, how many times have you read about a muslim guy getting killed by a hindu family in Pakistan because he was in love with a hindu girl? The girl would simply get abducted and converted under threats and married off. And because hindus are not legally equal to muslims in Pakistan, the judge will also favour the muslim side because Pakistan is a muslim state and its state religion is Islam. Case in point when a high court judge recently passed a judgement that an underage minority girl, even if only 14 can be married off to a muslim man, even if he's 40, as long as the girl is made to make a statement in a video that she has converted to Islam out of her own will because apparently marriage of girls of any age is allowed according to the shariah as long as she has passed puberty.

So the power dynamics between hindu-muslims in India and muslim-hindus in Pakistan are not remotely comparable. You have to ask why a hindu woman has to wipe her bindhi off her forehead and blend in with muslims without showing any outward hindu symbolism when she ventures out in Pakistan, whereas muslim women are fully within their rights to wear the burqa or the hijab anywhere in India. I have never seen a semi decent hindu temple in Pakistan and the hindu "temples" in Pakistan are either ruins or glorifed puja rooms that are present in every Hindu household in India. There are mosques in every nook and cranny of India and I think India has the highest number of mosques in the world after Indonesia. In fact, there's a mosque just opposite my house and it's a very well maintained and plush mosque unlike the ruinous "temples" you see in Pakistan. The fact that hindus had to obtain permission from the clerics of a religion they don't even believe in to construct a single temple in the capital city of their country tells you everything you need to know of the difference in power dynamics. Muslims are discriminated by Indians and even the media, but they're equal in front of the law which is why the hindutvadis lynch a muslim before he can seek justice in the court. In Pakistan, a hindu has to fight the people as well as fight the system because the system is designed for the muslims in Pakistan and not a secular one where everyone has equal rights in front of the law.

I'm talking about a totally different lynching https://v.redd.it/t07fuz0mqmz71 ( extreme images, caution advised ).

You can only oppress people until a certain amount. After that there are consequences.

Of course, it is very easy to blame everything on Pakistan/ISI etc.

Btw, same applies to the minorities in Pakistan, if Pak government/military/police/extremists etc. oppressed them there will be retaliation. This is human nature.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Very few Hindus and Christians left in Pakistan and they live in fear of being charged with blasphemy.

“Three more cases in which Pakistani Christians accused of blasphemy”

https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2...ch-pakistani-christians-accused-of-blasphemy/

Oh bLaSpHeMy the buzzword...

 

[street cricketer]

I'm talking about a totally different lynching https://v.redd.it/t07fuz0mqmz71 ( extreme images, caution advised ).

You can only oppress people until a certain amount. After that there are consequences.

Of course, it is very easy to blame everything on Pakistan/ISI etc.

I am not blaming Pakistan for India's turn to right wing intolerance. I very well recognise it, I'm just saying Pakistanis don't recognise the equal if not higher intolerance in their own country.

Btw, same applies to the minorities in Pakistan, if Pak government/military/police/extremists etc. oppressed them there will be retaliation. This is human nature.

This has been happening for the minorities in Pakistan for far longer than it has been happening in India. But the minorities in Pakistan are very small in numbers and utterly powerless to raise any form or retaliation despite massive persecution. It's the tragedy of it all, they barely survive without raising a peep about anything, yet they and their places of worship get routinely persecuted and damaged to supposedly take revenge against the Indians.

Happens in Pakistan, happens in Bangladesh. They're essentially at the mercy of the majority and their only hope is that the majority becomes more tolerant with time as the country develops. Until then, their only choice is to keep a low profile and take hits.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

I am not blaming Pakistan for India's turn to right wing intolerance. I very well recognise it, I'm just saying Pakistanis don't recognise the equal if not higher intolerance in their own country.



This has been happening for the minorities in Pakistan for far longer than it has been happening in India. But the minorities in Pakistan are very small in numbers and utterly powerless to raise any form or retaliation despite massive persecution. It's the tragedy of it all, they barely survive without raising a peep about anything, yet they and their places of worship get routinely persecuted and damaged to supposedly take revenge against the Indians.

Happens in Pakistan, happens in Bangladesh. They're essentially at the mercy of the majority and their only hope is that the majority becomes more tolerant with time as the country develops. Until then, their only choice is to keep a low profile and take hits.

Again, in Pakistan government repaired the temples and "jihadis" who attacked these Hindu temples were thrown in jails. Let's not even talk about Indian courts against mosques.

Otoh, in India your PM is literally a Muslim Killer. Yours is a sick society where untouchables still exist and people are lynched for absurd reasons. Of course, this does not mean Pakistan is an utopia but it is eons ahead especially considering that rulers do not have to instigate hate against minorities to rule.

 

[street cricketer]

Again, in Pakistan government repaired the temples and "jihadis" who attacked these Hindu temples were thrown in jails. Let's not even talk about Indian courts against mosques.

This is rich talking about repairing temples when barely any exist in the first place and the Hindus have to obtain "permission" from the heads of a religion they don't even believe in to get a "single" temple built in the capital city of their country. This is like muslims needing permission from a Hindu sadhu to build a single mosque in India, see how bizarrely funny it sounds, but that's the reality in Pakistan.

And it's funny that you talk about mosques because after the Babri masjid desecration, more than 30 temples were desecrated in retaliation in Pakistan but nobody even talks about that because that's considered the norm.

Otoh, in India your PM is literally a Muslim Killer. Yours is a sick society where untouchables still exist and people are lynched for absurd reasons. Of course, this does not mean Pakistan is an utopia but it is eons ahead especially considering that rulers do not have to instigate hate against minorities to rule.

I could care less about Modi, I don't support him and because of the Gujarat riots, I'll feel filthy if I ever became his supporter or even his party for that matter, not sure why you bring him. But here's the thing, you don't need to elect Modi because Pakistan is a far right wing state where every politician is a far right wing leader. The nature of the constitution of Pakistan is such that non muslims are second class citizens to muslims in their own country. It's one thing when the citizens of your country discriminate against you or even take part in active violence. But the law is supposed to look everyone equally regardless of religion in any semi decent country, but it's not the case in Pakistan where a hindu or a christian simply doesn't have equal rights as a muslim even on paper, forget about the reality.

And guess what, every Pakistani who lectures about tolerance and equality would never accept secularism in his own country, he would be actively against implementing such a system where a hindu could have equal rights as a muslim. And I'm not talking about the uneducated here, I'm talking about the well educated ones, many of whom might even enjoy a good life in secular societies in western countries. They talk a good game when it comes to human rights concerns in India, but turn a blind eye to things happening in their own country. So forgive me for not taking them seriously because I simply can't respect hypocrisy. Whether it's from the hindus who are hindutva supporters in India trampling upon the rights of muslims in their own country and at the same time criticising Pakistan for its treatment of minorities or muslims who support an islamic state in their own country while lecturing about secularism and tolerance to Indians.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This is rich talking about repairing temples when barely any exist in the first place and the Hindus have to obtain "permission" from the heads of a religion they don't even believe in to get a "single" temple built in the capital city of their country. This is like muslims needing permission from a Hindu sadhu to build a single mosque in India, see how bizarrely funny it sounds, but that's the reality in Pakistan.

And it's funny that you talk about mosques because after the Babri masjid desecration, more than 30 temples were desecrated in retaliation in Pakistan but nobody even talks about that because that's considered the norm.



I could care less about Modi, I don't support him and because of the Gujarat riots, I'll feel filthy if I ever became his supporter or even his party for that matter, not sure why you bring him. But here's the thing, you don't need to elect Modi because Pakistan is a far right wing state where every politician is a far right wing leader. The nature of the constitution of Pakistan is such that non muslims are second class citizens to muslims in their own country. It's one thing when the citizens of your country discriminate against you or even take part in active violence. But the law is supposed to look everyone equally regardless of religion in any semi decent country, but it's not the case in Pakistan where a hindu or a christian simply doesn't have equal rights as a muslim even on paper, forget about the reality.

And guess what, every Pakistani who lectures about tolerance and equality would never accept secularism in his own country, he would be actively against implementing such a system where a hindu could have equal rights as a muslim. And I'm not talking about the uneducated here, I'm talking about the well educated ones, many of whom might even enjoy a good life in secular societies in western countries. They talk a good game when it comes to human rights concerns in India, but turn a blind eye to things happening in their own country. So forgive me for not taking them seriously because I simply can't respect hypocrisy. Whether it's from the hindus who are hindutva supporters in India trampling upon the rights of muslims in their own country and at the same time criticising Pakistan for its treatment of minorities or muslims who support an islamic state in their own country while lecturing about secularism and tolerance to Indians.

I think one of the problems here is that too many people are pointing to Pakistan to justify what goes on in India. Why do you need to do that? Shouldn't India be run according to it's own principles?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Very few Hindus and Christians left in Pakistan and they live in fear of being charged with blasphemy.

“Three more cases in which Pakistani Christians accused of blasphemy”

https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2...ch-pakistani-christians-accused-of-blasphemy/

More whataboutery. See what I mean?

 

[street cricketer]

I think one of the problems here is that too many people are pointing to Pakistan to justify what goes on in India. Why do you need to do that? Shouldn't India be run according to it's own principles?

Well that's because it is true. What goes on in one country affects the other country and vice versa. The constant vilification of muslims in India has spurned a massive anti hindu sentiment in Bangladesh which resulted in the recent riots and violence against Hindus during the Durga puja, which in return kick started the violence targeted against Bengali muslims in Tripura. Babri masjid demolition in India resulted in demolition of nearly 30 temples in Pakistan.

Theoretically you are correct that what goes on in one country should not affect what happens in another country because each country has its own principles. But societies don't exist in a vacuum and one resorting to violence against the other in his own country will stimulate the other to cause violence against minorities in his own country.

Let me tell you an example. When I was growing up, I used to read a lot of facebook statuses along the lines "proud to be a muslim" and I never really thought much about that because I had always assumed that muslims were very proud about their religion and beliefs. On the other hand, I never came across a hindu having status like "proud to be a hindu" and if I ever saw such a status, I would have thought he was a weird bloke because hindus just weren't as up front about their religion before or wore it on their sleeve like the muslims did. But around the time BJP first came to power in 2014, I started seeing a lot of "A proud hindu, sanatana dharmi" and things like that which was never the case before. The hindutva movement didn't increase the religious affiliation of hindus on a theological or spiritual level, but it was everything about doing so on a political level, to form a political front against the muslims. Hindutva supporters always feel that hindus were traditionally weak and didn't have a strong bond like muslims because they have always been apologetic about their beliefs and that they didn't care enough about their religion, and that only if they start wearing their religion on their sleeve like the muslims do, can they become as strong as muslims on an ideological and political level. Suddenly everyone started sporting an angry saffronised version of Hanuman picture as dp (I had never seen an angry version of Hanuman or even Lord Ram before that growing up in my life) which only signified the aggresive change that hindutva was causing to the hindus on an ideological level.

And there in lies the challenge in confronting hindutva. Indians should ideally be moving away from religion, at least on a political level with time, as most progressive and developed societies have done. But saying so would be seen as treachery to the Hindu cause because the hindutva belief is that the muslims never compromise on their religion or their beliefs and so asking the hindus to do so would be perceived as weakening the Hindu cause, nevermind the detrimental effects that non stop religious fundamentalism and polarisation has caused to countries world over. They should be looking towards the east and see how the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese have progressed while shedding their dogmatic views on religion, but they're instead caught in a constant one upmanship battle with Pakistanis as they feel the Hindus moving away from religion would just weaken their cause in their ideological fight against the muslims and so they're moving towards the far end of right wing rather than going to the left end of political spectrum. This change has been happening world over with erstwhile liberal societies moving towards conservatism even in many European countries (France is a good example) but nowhere as strong as it has happened in India (not that India was a liberal society before, but it has become much more conservative now than in the past maybe a few decades back).

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Well that's because it is true. What goes on in one country affects the other country and vice versa. The constant vilification of muslims in India has spurned a massive anti hindu sentiment in Bangladesh which resulted in the recent riots and violence against Hindus during the Durga puja, which in return kick started the violence targeted against Bengali muslims in Tripura. Babri masjid demolition in India resulted in demolition of nearly 30 temples in Pakistan.

Theoretically you are correct that what goes on in one country should not affect what happens in another country because each country has its own principles. But societies don't exist in a vacuum and one resorting to violence against the other in his own country will stimulate the other to cause violence against minorities in his own country.

Let me tell you an example. When I was growing up, I used to read a lot of facebook statuses along the lines "proud to be a muslim" and I never really thought much about that because I had always assumed that muslims were very proud about their religion and beliefs. On the other hand, I never came across a hindu having status like "proud to be a hindu" and if I ever saw such a status, I would have thought he was a weird bloke because hindus just weren't as up front about their religion before or wore it on their sleeve like the muslims did. But around the time BJP first came to power in 2014, I started seeing a lot of "A proud hindu, sanatana dharmi" and things like that which was never the case before. The hindutva movement didn't increase the religious affiliation of hindus on a theological or spiritual level, but it was everything about doing so on a political level, to form a political front against the muslims. Hindutva supporters always feel that hindus were traditionally weak and didn't have a strong bond like muslims because they have always been apologetic about their beliefs and that they didn't care enough about their religion, and that only if they start wearing their religion on their sleeve like the muslims do, can they become as strong as muslims on an ideological and political level. Suddenly everyone started sporting an angry saffronised version of Hanuman picture as dp (I had never seen an angry version of Hanuman or even Lord Ram before that growing up in my life) which only signified the aggresive change that hindutva was causing to the hindus on an ideological level.

And there in lies the challenge in confronting hindutva. Indians should ideally be moving away from religion, at least on a political level with time, as most progressive and developed societies have done. But saying so would be seen as treachery to the Hindu cause because the hindutva belief is that the muslims never compromise on their religion or their beliefs and so asking the hindus to do so would be perceived as weakening the Hindu cause, nevermind the detrimental effects that non stop religious fundamentalism and polarisation has caused to countries world over. They should be looking towards the east and see how the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese have progressed while shedding their dogmatic views on religion, but they're instead caught in a constant one upmanship battle with Pakistanis as they feel the Hindus moving away from religion would just weaken their cause in their ideological fight against the muslims and so they're moving towards the far end of right wing rather than going to the left end of political spectrum. This change has been happening world over with erstwhile liberal societies moving towards conservatism even in many European countries (France is a good example) but nowhere as strong as it has happened in India (not that India was a liberal society before, but it has become much more conservative now than in the past maybe a few decades back).

But India is the larger, nation, more powerful and wealthy as well. Surely they should be influencing Muslim neighbours rather than following their lead? It seems a bit weak to be pointing at Pakistan all the time and saying "we might be doing this, but it's because you are doing it first!"

 

[street cricketer]

But India is the larger, nation, more powerful and wealthy as well. Surely they should be influencing Muslim neighbours rather than following their lead? It seems a bit weak to be pointing at Pakistan all the time and saying "we might be doing this, but it's because you are doing it first!"

Why would India do so if those at the powers don't want to do so. The cycle of religious polarisation and using hindutva as a tool to form an ideological front against the muslims is not because BJP really fears a sudden Babur or Ghori like invasion from Pakistan making all the hindus in the country convert to Islam under the sword. This didn't happen even during the 15th and 16th century when human rights wasn't a thing. If all the Hindus weren't converted by force in the past when human rights was barely understood in the world, why would it happen under the rule of a proud Hindu nationalist leader who lives and breathes for the Hindu cause, and one who has been in power for nearly a decade for the same reason.

It's simply for populist reasons. Being right wing is by far the most easiest way to win elections. Generally the left wing position is identifying and talking about the social ills in the country, upliftment of minorities and the weakened sections of the society and among various other aims. Right wing position is fierce nationalism, being proud of one's country, its culture and its traditions and preventing it from being eroded by the "traitors" and "enemies". It's far more easier to influence a person by fear saying that the minority is out to destroy the culture of the majority rather than through empathy or human rights saying that minorities are traditionally the most oppressed section of any society and development should be targeted at them to cause their upliftment. It's why populism has risen world over and right wing populist leaders like Modi, Trump, Bolsonaro, Erdogan, Orban, etc., rose to power and many of them still continue to hold power.

Hatred sells far more easily in any society than empathy. And I'm not sure even education or development is a cure for this, given how many developed countries in the west have elected right wing parties in their respective countries (including the UK) because of the rise of xenophobia.

 

[Napa]

More whataboutery. See what I mean?

Read the post I was responding to.

 

[gani999]

If all the Hindus weren't converted by force in the past when human rights was barely understood in the world, why would it happen under the rule of a proud Hindu nationalist leader who lives and breathes for the Hindu cause, and one who has been in power for nearly a decade for the same reason.

It's simply for populist reasons. Being right wing is by far the most easiest way to win elections. Generally the left wing position is identifying and talking about the social ills in the country, upliftment of minorities and the weakened sections of the society and among various other aims. Right wing position is fierce nationalism, being proud of one's country, its culture and its traditions and preventing it from being eroded by the "traitors" and "enemies". It's far more easier to influence a person by fear saying that the minority is out to destroy the culture of the majority rather than through empathy or human rights saying that minorities are traditionally the most oppressed section of any society and development should be targeted at them to cause their upliftment. It's why populism has risen world over and right wing populist leaders like Modi, Trump, Bolsonaro, Erdogan, Orban, etc., rose to power and many of them still continue to hold power.

Hatred sells far more easily in any society than empathy. And I'm not sure even education or development is a cure for this, given how many developed countries in the west have elected right wing parties in their respective countries (including the UK) because of the rise of xenophobia.

Except that in India, the hatred came about entirely because the so-called 'secular' leftists and the Congress misruled the country for over 70 years and neglected everyone, including the ethnic minorities that they claimed to be protecting. By dividing the population on caste and religious lines solely to get votes, they enriched themselves at the cost of the country. At some point people were bound to get fed up of all the lies and look for an alternative, and the only one available was the BJP.

Don't forget that Modi got elected as PM purely under a development agenda. 'Sabka saath sabka vikaas' was his slogan in 2014 and it had hardly any hindu mobilisation associated with it.

And how did the so-called 'secular' opposition react? By name calling and insulting, and worse. They have failed the people and cry like a bunch of losers when the same people vote them out.

If Modi is in power today, it is thanks to the inept Congress and other sundry leftists to thank, not any Hindutva revivalism. People will vote for whoever they think is capable of giving them good governance, and at the present moment BJP is the only option Indian voters have.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why would India do so if those at the powers don't want to do so. The cycle of religious polarisation and using hindutva as a tool to form an ideological front against the muslims is not because BJP really fears a sudden Babur or Ghori like invasion from Pakistan making all the hindus in the country convert to Islam under the sword. This didn't happen even during the 15th and 16th century when human rights wasn't a thing. If all the Hindus weren't converted by force in the past when human rights was barely understood in the world, why would it happen under the rule of a proud Hindu nationalist leader who lives and breathes for the Hindu cause, and one who has been in power for nearly a decade for the same reason.

It's simply for populist reasons. Being right wing is by far the most easiest way to win elections. Generally the left wing position is identifying and talking about the social ills in the country, upliftment of minorities and the weakened sections of the society and among various other aims. Right wing position is fierce nationalism, being proud of one's country, its culture and its traditions and preventing it from being eroded by the "traitors" and "enemies". It's far more easier to influence a person by fear saying that the minority is out to destroy the culture of the majority rather than through empathy or human rights saying that minorities are traditionally the most oppressed section of any society and development should be targeted at them to cause their upliftment. It's why populism has risen world over and right wing populist leaders like Modi, Trump, Bolsonaro, Erdogan, Orban, etc., rose to power and many of them still continue to hold power.

Hatred sells far more easily in any society than empathy. And I'm not sure even education or development is a cure for this, given how many developed countries in the west have elected right wing parties in their respective countries (including the UK) because of the rise of xenophobia.

The right wing is indeed on the march across the globe, but in the west it is a correction to the left leaning and liberal culture. We can afford to be a bit more right wing, we aren't going to suddenly turn into pitchfork wielding yokels. At least I hope not. I think a swing towards hardline religion is a lot more dangerous in less developed nations.

 

[street cricketer]

Except that in India, the hatred came about entirely because the so-called 'secular' leftists and the Congress misruled the country for over 70 years and neglected everyone, including the ethnic minorities that they claimed to be protecting. By dividing the population on caste and religious lines solely to get votes, they enriched themselves at the cost of the country. At some point people were bound to get fed up of all the lies and look for an alternative, and the only one available was the BJP.

Don't forget that Modi got elected as PM purely under a development agenda. 'Sabka saath sabka vikaas' was his slogan in 2014 and it had hardly any hindu mobilisation associated with it.

And how did the so-called 'secular' opposition react? By name calling and insulting, and worse. They have failed the people and cry like a bunch of losers when the same people vote them out.

If Modi is in power today, it is thanks to the inept Congress and other sundry leftists to thank, not any Hindutva revivalism. People will vote for whoever they think is capable of giving them good governance, and at the present moment BJP is the only option Indian voters have.

These are the usual pro Hindutva points I've heard often. Answer me two questions buddy..

1. How did Congress or the "secular leftists" divide the population based on caste? It is a common cop out to say that caste was created by the Mughals, the British or the Congress who divided an otherwise utopian Hindu society. The Hindu society has always been divided massively on caste lines since centuries and if any of the above contributed to the creation of caste, caste would have vanished under the hindu nationalists.

2. The only people who say the Congress did harm to the minorities are the hindu nationalists themselves. If Congress was so harmful for the minorities, why do muslims then oppose the BJP severely and not the Congress?

Let's be honest here buddy. You might say that the BJP got elected on the economic cause in 2014, but that wouldn't fly as a reason for the next term given what demonetisation had caused just before the last general elections. You might say that you and everyone support the BJP purely for economic reasons, but deep down everyone supports the BJP for the Hindu nationalist cause. Otherwise the BJP IT cell wouldn't be engaged 24x7 in maligning the muslims in our country.

 

[LaLoco]

"I come from India where we bleed blue every time we play the green, but every time we lose to green we turn Orange" - Vir Das.

Above quote exemplified the theme on this thread, when it comes to Pakistan or Muslims of India, if you aren't rocking the Orange color then you are not the true Patriotic Indian.

That orange color could be in any form or shape - in this thread, it is 'what about in Pakistan", Pakistan is "Islamic Republic", 800+ million Hindus need to feel and find 'collectiveness' against 200 million Muslims, and to justify that, again and always, "Pakistan is Islamic Republic" or there is no non-secular (translation, non-tolerant of 200 Muslims of India) Hindu country despite 800+ million Hindu live in India and celebrate every Hindu holiday at will at almost every where in India.

Despite Pakistan being the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" will never elect anyone who is similar to Modi or yogi as PM, who wants to uphold and get support from the narrative of 'obliterate Islam from India, turning one Muslim named street to Hindu names and prohibiting the sale of non-vegetarian on street vendors" - This is all Orange.

 

[street cricketer]

"I come from India where we bleed blue every time we play the green, but every time we lose to green we turn Orange" - Vir Das.

Above quote exemplified the theme on this thread, when it comes to Pakistan or Muslims of India, if you aren't rocking the Orange color then you are not the true Patriotic Indian.

That orange color could be in any form or shape - in this thread, it is 'what about in Pakistan", Pakistan is "Islamic Republic", 800+ million Hindus need to feel and find 'collectiveness' against 200 million Muslims, and to justify that, again and always, "Pakistan is Islamic Republic" or there is no non-secular (translation, non-tolerant of 200 Muslims of India) Hindu country despite 800+ million Hindu live in India and celebrate every Hindu holiday at will at almost every where in India.

Despite Pakistan being the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" will never elect anyone who is similar to Modi or yogi as PM, who wants to uphold and get support from the narrative of 'obliterate Islam from India, turning one Muslim named street to Hindu names and prohibiting the sale of non-vegetarian on street vendors" - This is all Orange.

Ah the simple statements once again.

"Despite Pakistan being an islamic republic, we will never elect a Modi" while having a constitution that is literally the muslim version of the BJP manifesto.

 

[LaLoco]

Ah the simple statements once again.

"Despite Pakistan being an islamic republic, we will never elect a Modi" while having a constitution that is literally the muslim version of the BJP manifesto.

Despite having a Islamic driven constitution, Pakistan will not elect a PM who is similar to 'yogi or Modi".

 

[street cricketer]

Despite having a Islamic driven constitution, Pakistan will not elect a PM who is similar to 'yogi or Modi".

That's true, but that's only because all of Modi or Yogi's objectives was met long before in Pakistan.

 

[LaLoco]

That's true, but that's only because all of Modi or Yogi's objectives was met long before in Pakistan.

That is an Hindutva justification of "unification of Hindutva" against a particular minority, hitting, once again, "what about Pakistan", further reinforcing the point, but but but, "what about Pakistan" lol

 

[street cricketer]

That is an Hindutva justification of "unification of Hindutva" against a particular minority, hitting, once again, "what about Pakistan", further reinforcing the point, but but but, "what about Pakistan" lol

You realise I can say the same to you too, yeah? "What about India" "What about Modi", etc etc.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Ah the simple statements once again.

"Despite Pakistan being an islamic republic, we will never elect a Modi" while having a constitution that is literally the muslim version of the BJP manifesto.

That is the point though, Pakistan has never pretended to be anything other than an Islamic republic. India still seems confused as to the role of religion in India, sometimes it is secular, sometimes it is Hindu. Many times we will see claims that it is both. But then begs the question why do we see calls for more Hindufication. Why are Indian laws creeping towards establishing Hindu dominance in more spheres of public life?

There was a thread here discussing whether India should be a Hindu rashtra, and I would argue maybe it should. At least there would be less duplicity about it.

 

[street cricketer]

That is the point though, Pakistan has never pretended to be anything other than an Islamic republic. India still seems confused as to the role of religion in India, sometimes it is secular, sometimes it is Hindu. Many times we will see claims that it is both. But then begs the question why do we see calls for more Hindufication. Why are Indian laws creeping towards establishing Hindu dominance in more spheres of public life?

There was a thread here discussing whether India should be a Hindu rashtra, and I would argue maybe it should. At least there would be less duplicity about it.

India, or the Hindu nationalists rather, are certainly not confused in what they want to do. Their objective is to turn India into a Hindu rashtra, or a Hindu version of a religious state like Pakistan where they can unapologetically include Hindu laws into their constitution. But the thing is, it's not that easy a job to do.

Take all the things that are required to become a religious state - blasphemy laws for example are uniformly implemented in Pakistan. But India is not religiously homogeneous like Pakistan is and even among the hindus, the view points and beliefs of hindus will vary with each region unlike muslims who will have a common belief whether he is from Africa or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Therefore the hindu version of the blasphemy law, the cattle slaughter ban, is not implemented uniformly throughout India and these laws are absent in some states (cattle slaughter allowed), enforced strictly in some (all cattle slaughter is banned) and loosely in some (cow slaughter is banned, but bull slaughter is allowed).

Next the laws that prohibit inter faith marriages and conversion are a huge feature of islamic countries like Pakistan. This is not yet implemented in India, but the UP govt has implemented infamous "the love jihad law" which asks interfaith couples who want to be married to notify the district magistrate before two months, who will ascertain if the conversion is under coercion or not. But such laws are not implemented in the rest of the 27 or so states.

A full fledged re writing of the constitution that would allow making Hinduism the state religion would not be possible because it would get huge opposition from regions like south, north east, etc. The BJP does not have absolute control over each state, but it has a huge following in the most populated region (northern belt) plus a decent support elsewhere which would help it to get enough votes to get the majority to win the elections. The BJP does not get 100% support from the Indian population, but you don't need 100% support to win an election, just 40-50% would be enough as the rest would be divided among each other into smaller factions. People talk about the NRC/CAA laws but forget how much opposition they faced and how extensive and massive the protests were all over the country. Similarly the farm laws which received a huge backlash for months together and they have been repealed today. So doing something major like changing the constitution would definitely receive a huge backlash. So the BJP know their limitations, and operate within those limitations to receive enough support from their hindu nationalist voter base.

 

[KB]

India, or the Hindu nationalists rather, are certainly not confused in what they want to do. Their objective is to turn India into a Hindu rashtra, or a Hindu version of a religious state like Pakistan where they can unapologetically include Hindu laws into their constitution.

I would see this differently. I don’t actually think Hindu nationalism is primarily about theology, nor are Hindu nationalists motivated chiefly by a desire to establish ‘Hindu laws’. The Hindu Rashtra is more a cultural vision, which is animated by issues pertaining to identity, and concerned with reforming the way the citizens of the country think and relate to India. In other words it seeks primarily a transformation in the subjective consciousness of its citizens. And it therefore not surprising that more than passing ‘Hindu laws’, it is symbols and rituals that matter to them. To focus on laws is therefore to ignore how they have really extended their influence within society.

This is a different story to the religious parties in Pakistan which do seek to implement the law of God, as they interpret it. The question for such parties is not whether Islamic law should apply but rather how it should be implemented.

And the religious parties in Pakistan also need, in turn, to be distinguished from the modernists, who in fact spearheaded the campaign for Pakistan. The modernists did not have in mind the implementation by the Pakistani state of Islamic law on an expansive scale, but rather, to quote the scholar Muhammad Qasim Zaman, “that Islam had a pronounced ethical dimension to it, and it was these ethical precepts that would guide the new state.” Indeed, Islamic modernists have tended to criticise the ulama for smothering the “spirit” of Islam with their overly formalistic and legalistic interpretations. Of course the modernists have become a beleaguered force in many ways. This was not inevitable and there are many reasons for this, but the consequence has been that they have ceded ground to religious parties even though such parties rarely possess electoral strength.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1663592/fo-condemns-indian-defence-ministers-unwarranted-provocative-comments-against-pakistan

Pakistan on Monday strongly condemned the "unwarranted, gratuitous and provocative comments" made by Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, levelling "unfounded allegations in the context of terrorism and hurling threats against Pakistan".

A day earlier, Singh claimed that the 1971 war was a reminder that "India’s partition on religious lines was a historic mistake and that Pakistan has ever since continued to engage in a proxy-war against India," The Indian Express reported.

"Pakistan wants to break India by promoting terrorism and other anti-India activities. Indian forces foiled its plans in 1971 and now work is going on to eliminate roots of terrorism by our brave forces. We have won in the direct war, and will achieve victory in the proxy war as well," the report quoted the Indian minister as saying.

In response, Foreign Office (FO) spokesperson Asim Iftikhar Ahmad said that Pakistan strongly condemned Singh's "unwarranted, gratuitous and provocative comments [...] questioning established historical facts, levelling unfounded allegations in the context of terrorism and hurling threats against Pakistan".

The FO spokesperson said it was the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) "special forte to misrepresent history, resort to revisionism and delusional thinking and indulge in false bravado".

"Such discourse is particularly evident whenever elections in key states in India are approaching. The timing of the Indian defence minister’s provocative rhetoric is, therefore, not surprising as the BJP-RSS combine is desperate to win elections in Uttar Pradesh and other states, typically inciting hyper nationalism and seeking to advance the extremist ‘Hindutva’ agenda," he said.

"The Indian defence minister’s chest-thumping and war-mongering is nothing but further evidence of India’s irresponsible behavior and its relentless belligerence towards Pakistan," he added.

With regard to the issue of terrorism, "the international community is well aware of how the Hindutva-inspired regime in India is carrying out state terrorism against Kashmiris in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK)," he said.

In November last year, Pakistan also presented a comprehensive dossier with irrefutable evidence of the Indian government planning, aiding, abetting, financing and executing terrorist activities in Pakistan, the FO spokesman said.

"The world is aware that Pakistan is fully capable of thwarting India’s aggressive designs. We have demonstrated our resolve and capability in this regard, including in the recent past," he said.

"The BJP leaders will be well-advised to desist from any ill-conceived misadventure and also stop dragging Pakistan in India’s domestic politics for electoral gains," he said.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1667026/pakistan-india-exchange-details-of-prisoners-in-each-others-custody-nuclear-facilities

Pakistan and India on Saturday exchanged the lists of their prisoners in each other's custody and nuclear sites as part of the various agreements in place between the two countries.

According to a Foreign Office (FO) statement, Pakistan shared a list of 628 Indian prisoners with the Indian High Commission in Islamabad in accordance with the 2008 Agreement on Consular Access.

About 51 prisoners on the list are civilians, while 577 are fishermen.

"The Indian government also simultaneously shared the list of 355 Pakistani prisoners in India including 282 civilians and 73 fishermen with the High Commission for Pakistan in New Delhi," the FO statement said.

According to the 2008 agreement, India and Pakistan are required to share a list of prisoners both countries are holding across the border twice a year on January 1 and July 1.

Similarly, the list of nuclear facilities and installations was handed over to the Indian High Commission by the FO while the Indian Ministry of External Affairs handed over a similar list to an officer of the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi.

The annual exchange, which has been conducted on the first day of every year since 1992, began after a December 1988 pact between the two rival states termed the 'Agreement on Prohibition of Attacks against Nuclear Installations and Facilities between Pakistan and India'.

Under the agreement, both parties “should inform each other of their nuclear installations and facilities within the definition of the agreement on Jan 1 of each calendar year". The FO said the practice has been followed consecutively since Jan 1, 1992.